Manufacturing

Highlights The investors we met last week were ready to hear some good news: The constructive story we told across three days of client meetings is more sanguine than the consensus view, but clients were open to considering it. Global economic weakness and the elevated risk of a U.S. recession were primary concerns, … : As our Global Investment Strategy colleagues have suggested, it will take some time for investors to be convinced that global manufacturing really has seen the bottom and that the U.S. isn’t flirting with a recession. … followed by trade tensions and corporate indebtedness, … : Our small sample suggests that investors may have become de-sensitized to the daily ebb and flow of the U.S.-China conflict, though we continue to believe it looms large in the minds of corporate managements. … but nothing matches the anxiety provoked by Elizabeth Warren’s ascent: Every client asked about the potential consequences of a Warren White House. Feature We spent most of last week meeting with a subset of wealth management and family office clients. They are more focused on absolute returns than relative returns, but their primary concerns are nearly identical to their relative-return peers’. Our meetings touched on a broad constellation of questions about the fate of the expansion, the equity bull market, global growth and the U.S.-China trade negotiations. Clients also asked about the credit outlook and if inflation should be on their radar, but the topic that they raised with the most fervor, in every single one of our meetings, was the prospect of a Warren or Sanders presidency. Q: What is the bond market telling us? We think of the bond market as having two distinct components, rates (Treasuries) and credit (spread product). We have gotten used to regular retracements in the 10-year Treasury yield since it bottomed in July 2016, but watching it melt from 3.25% last November to 1.5% this August has challenged our constructive take on the U.S. economy. Falling yields are not necessarily signaling imminent economic trouble, however, so we continue to hold the view that a recession won’t occur before late 2021 or early 2022. We see this year’s falling Treasury yields as a coincident reflection of decelerating growth, not a harbinger of a recession. On a purely domestic basis, the principal driver of the decline in yields has been the shift in monetary policy expectations. The Fed’s dovish pivot did not occur in a vacuum, of course. Clear signs of decelerating growth set the stage for easier policy, both here and abroad. Whether or not the Fed was always calling the tune, all three step-function declines in 12-month forward fed funds rate expectations occurred as it was guiding markets to expect easier policy: ahead of the March FOMC meeting, when Fed speakers began warning of the danger of inflation expectations becoming unanchored on the downside; in May, when they were busily preparing the ground for a rate cut; and after the July meeting raised the prospect that the July cut would not be a one-off event (Chart 1). Chart 1The Fed's Dovish Pivot, ... Sovereign rates are not entirely determined domestically, and much of the softness in Treasury yields reflects the softness in yields in the rest of the world. So far this year, 10-year sovereign yields have moved in lockstep on either side of the Atlantic (Chart 2), preserving no-arbitrage conditions in currency-hedged Treasuries, gilts and bunds. Crude prices are another global variable, and their decline has weighed on inflation break-even rates (Chart 3), dampening the inflation compensation demanded by Treasury buyers. From a rates perspective, we think the bond market is telling us that global growth has slowed, central banks have taken monetary accommodation up a notch, and oil prices have slid. That’s not exactly an ideal growth backdrop, but it hardly spells the end of the expansion. Chart 2... And European Sovereigns' Gravitational Pull Have Dragged Treasury Yields Lower The credit market concurs. It doesn’t betray a whit of concern that the expansion is in trouble. Spreads quickly unwound last year’s fourth-quarter spike, and have since hung around their post-crisis lows (Chart 4). Non-financial corporations have become more indebted throughout the expansion, but servicing the debt is not at all onerous with yields at rock-bottom levels (Chart 5). Our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s proprietary corporate health monitor is signaling that corporate balance sheets have weakened (Chart 6, third panel), but the other elements required for a meaningful widening of spreads – a completed monetary tightening cycle1 (Chart 6, second panel), and a tightening of lending standards (Chart 6, bottom panel) – are not yet in place. Chart 3Falling Oil Prices Have Smothered Inflation Worries Chart 4Spreads Are Tight, ...   Chart 5... And Debt Service Is Easy Q: Isn’t it time to reduce credit exposures? Tight spreads may be a contrarian warning sign. Though it is sensible to shift some of a company’s financing burden to debt when it is so much cheaper than equity, combining a larger debt burden with degraded covenant protections is a concern. Low interest rates will keep debt service costs from chafing, and help keep defaults in check for now, but the bond market is increasingly vulnerable. Chart 6Spread Widening Conditions Aren't Yet In Place Chart 7Income Investors Need Not Apply Despite that vulnerability, when the next default cycle arrives, it will not have anywhere near the impact of the housing bust because it will deal no more than a glancing blow to the banks. Single-family homes collateralize the American banking system; corporate bonds are held by a diffuse assortment of unlevered players. It stinks for any unlevered investor when it loses money, but it doesn’t cause much of a ripple in the overall economy. Today’s buildup in corporate borrowing is not analogous to 2006-7’s residential mortgage Superfund site, and suggestions to the contrary are ill-founded. Elevated corporate leverage is a vulnerability, but it is not enough for an investor to identify a vulnerability; s/he also has to identify the catalyst that will cause it to snap. Nonfinancial corporate debt levels are a fissure that has been made longer by debauched covenants. Markets won’t suffer until the fissure lengthens and widens enough to turn into a crack that no investor can ignore. It is our view that easy monetary conditions will keep the fissure out of sight and out of mind for several months at least. Defaults only occur when a borrower is unable to refinance its maturing obligations. As long as there is at least one lender willing to extend new credit at manageable terms, the borrower won’t go bust. The current monetary policy backdrop, featuring zero/negative interest rate policy in much of the major economies, all but ensures a steady supply of willing lenders. Life insurers, pension funds and endowments with a need for income to offset fixed liabilities have been forced out the risk curve to source income sufficient to meet them (Chart 7). The net result has been to provide even wobbly credits offering an incremental 50 or 75 basis points with a line of would-be lenders out the door and around the corner. The global manufacturing sector has already succumbed to recession, but stout performance in the service sector has allowed developed economies to keep expanding. The weakest credits will not find lifelines, but plenty of dubious ones will. The current ultra-loose monetary policy environment is simply not a backdrop in which defaults pick up in earnest. Until central banks get a little less prodigal, the marginal lender won’t become more selective, the plates will keep spinning, and spread product will continue to generate excess returns over cash and Treasuries. Q: Things look worse outside the U.S. What’s your global growth outlook? Chart 8Manufacturing May Be Bottoming, ... The global manufacturing sector is in recession, but the overall global economy is not (Chart 8). A manufacturing recession does not necessarily lead to a full-blown recession, and the ongoing expansion in developed economies’ much larger service sector provides a formidable bulwark against manufacturing’s struggles (Chart 9). While it is too early to conclude if or when global activity will accelerate, our global leading economic indicator, and the diffusion index that leads it, suggest that it is in the process of bottoming (Chart 10). Chart 9... And Services May Have Stopped Decelerating ... Chart 10... If Leading Indicators Have Found A Footing Chart 11From Headwind To Tailwind Our China Investment Strategy team sees scope for Chinese growth to gather some steam in the first quarter of 2020, when local governments will be freed from the budget constraints imposed by Beijing through the end of this year. In the meantime, September money and credit growth topped expectations, and policymakers have been undertaking modest stimulus measures like trimming bank reserve requirement ratios. Changes in Chinese credit growth lead changes in global growth (Chart 11), via China’s credit-reliant import channel. Its imports are Europe’s, Japan’s, Asian EMs’, and Australia’s, Brazil’s and Chile’s exports. As their exports rise, so too does their aggregate demand, giving rise to a self-reinforcing virtuous circle. Q: What would President Warren mean for markets? Investors’ concerns about a Warren presidency are surely justified; Senator Warren has openly, and often gleefully, expressed hostility for banks, defense contractors, drug companies, oil companies engaged in fracking, and big tech. That’s quite a list, and it accounts for a considerable share of S&P 500 market capitalization. It is fair to say that a Warren administration would be unfriendly to equity investors, but there are several points to keep in mind before liquidating one’s portfolio and fleeing the country. It’s too early to award her the Democratic nomination. In October 2007, the smart money was certain that Hillary Clinton had already locked up a berth in the finals against the eventual Republican nominee. Very few Americans could have named the freshman senator from Illinois, known for little more than a well-received speech at the 2004 convention, but he became President Obama. A lot could still happen between now and the Iowa caucuses on February 3rd. Unseating an incumbent president is a tall order. As long as the economy does not enter a recession between now and next November, and the administration can achieve a policy victory without suffering a high-profile policy failure, our Geopolitical Strategy colleagues argue that Trump should be the presumed winner of the 2020 election. Their presumption applies no matter who captures the Democratic nomination, even as the U.S. electorate is shifting to the left over time (Chart 12). Transforming Washington is easier said than done. The framers designed the federal government to be fairly resistant to sweeping change. The Electoral College tamps down popular passions in the presidential election, and Congress and the courts limit the power of the executive branch. Administrations with majorities in the House and Senate routinely find themselves with less freedom than they would like, especially after they exhaust political capital achieving one major legislative initiative (as with the Obama Administration and the Affordable Care Act). Even if the Democrats ride President Warren’s coattails to control over Capitol Hill next November, legislators from conservative or swing districts and states will balk at her entire suite of proposals. Chart 12Democratic Voters Are Leaning More Left Investment Implications Our sunnier view of the global economic outlook translates into more constructive equity allocations across global regions and blocs. The BCA house view recommends equal weight allocations to Emerging Markets and the Eurozone within global equity portfolios across tactical (0-3-month) and cyclical (3-12-month) timeframes. We expect to upgrade EM and Eurozone equities to overweight, and downgrade U.S. equities from overweight, across those timeframes once global growth begins to accelerate. We would also favor higher-beta currencies versus the dollar, and limit or avoid exposure to lower-beta currencies like the yen or the Swiss franc, if the data are poised to validate our base-case growth scenario. BCA’s recommendations have become especially data dependent because global investors seem to be firmly ensconced in “show-me” mode. It has been our sense as a firm, supported by the impression we got from last week’s meetings, that investors are reluctant to give growth prospects, and risk assets, the benefit of the doubt. Ground down by trade-related tweets, and skeptical that the latest wave of extraordinary monetary policy measures will have a perceptible impact on growth or inflation, they want to see definitive evidence of a turn before they’ll adjust their portfolio positioning to accommodate it. The wariness is also a reflection of the conflicting signals issued late in the business cycle and the elevated levels of geopolitical uncertainty. If the global economy turns as we think it soon will, global investors should be prepared to add cyclical exposures to their portfolios, even if Elizabeth Warren solidifies her current status as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. That sense of wariness keeps us recommending benchmark duration exposure in fixed income portfolios over the 0-to-3-month tactical timeframe, though we have little appetite for interest-rate exposure looking out beyond the near term, and are below-benchmark duration over the 3-to-12-month cyclical and greater-than-12-month strategic timeframes. We still like spread product over the full 12-month horizon, as we expect stronger growth will make viable U.S. corporations better credits and that ZIRP/NIRP will continue to protect some of the rest. We endorse the house view that relative U.S. equity returns may slow, but global growth should give a boost to absolute equity returns, and we continue to recommend that investors remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We are in accord with Chair Powell’s stated view that the rate cuts are mid-cycle cuts, not the beginning of a new easing cycle.

Highlights The currency market is bifurcated in terms of shorter-term expectations versus longer-term factors. The Swedish krona, Norwegian krone, and British pound are solid long-term buys, but could remain very volatile in the short term. We continue to focus on the crosses rather than outright dollar bets. Remain long SEK/NZD, GBP/JPY, and NOK/SEK. Tighten stops on long GBP/JPY to protect profits. EUR/SEK should top out once global growth improves. Sell the gold/silver ratio at 90, as recommended in last week’s report.1 Feature Chart I-1One Way Street Since 2018 Of all the G10 currencies we follow, the Swedish krona is probably the one that is the most perplexing. The Riksbank is one of the few central banks to have raised rates this year, but the krona remains the weakest G10 currency. Admittedly, the performance of the Swedish manufacturing sector has been dismal, and was especially so in September, but this has not been a story specific to Sweden alone. The euro area, which is also experiencing a deep manufacturing recession, has seen better currency performance despite a more dovish European Central Bank (ECB). The underperformance of the krona begs the question of whether it signals a much prolonged global manufacturing recession, or is indicative of something more endogenous to Sweden. Put another way, has the driver of USD/SEK (and even USD/NOK) strength been an appreciating dollar, or more domestic factors (Chart I-1)? And if it is the latter, what are the important signposts to look out for should a turnaround be around the corner? The Soft Versus Hard Data Debate The big question for Sweden is whether the manufacturing sector is just in a volatile bottoming process, or about to contract much further. Industrial production is currently growing at 4% year-over-year, but the signal from the soft data is that it should be contracting in the double digits (Chart I-2, top panel). As such there is either a big disconnect between the perception of investors and reality, or we are on the verge of a much deeper manufacturing slump. Exchange rates tend to be extremely fluid in discounting a wide swath of economic data, and in the case of Sweden, in discounting the outcome for global growth. However, with EUR/SEK at 10.8 and USD/SEK at 9.7 – the latter well above its 2008 highs – it is fair to assume that anything other than a deep recession will justify a stronger SEK.  One of the more consistent ratios in calling a bottom in the Swedish manufacturing sector in particular (and that of the Eurozone in general) is the manufacturing new orders-to-inventories ratio (Chart I-2, bottom panel). The tick down in September was disconcerting. However, unlike the manufacturing PMI, this ratio is not hitting new lows, tentative evidence that we might be in a volatile bottoming process rather than a protracted slump. The last time we encountered such a divergence was in 2011/2012, at the height of the European debt crisis; in that instance, Swedish hard data ended up sending the right signal for the overall economy. The deterioration in the manufacturing sector has yet to hit domestic consumption in general or the labor market in particular.  The deterioration in the manufacturing sector has yet to hit domestic consumption in general or the labor market in particular. The import component of the PMI index remains well above that of exports. Meanwhile, the employment component of the PMI index began to stabilize around the middle of this year, meaning employment growth should bottom at around 1% or so (Chart I-3). Swedish exports are higher up the manufacturing food chain than in most other developed economies, and autos are quite important. But so far, the Swedish economy has weathered the auto slowdown quite well, with production still clocking in at 7% per year. Chart I-2Soft Data Is Much Worse Chart I-3Domestic Demand Is Holding Up Well The tick up in the Swedish unemployment rate is problematic, but we do not believe it constitutes a major change in labor market dynamics. Sweden has a long history of higher openness toward asylum seekers and refugees than many other European countries. The Syrian crisis a couple of years ago led to an exceptional surge, where the number of asylum seekers skyrocketed to over 150,000 or almost 1.5% of the total population (Chart I-4). Historically, immigration has provided a big labor dividend to Sweden, allowing growth to outpace both the U.S. and the euro area. But this has also been a source of frictional unemployment, as new migrants integrate into the labor force. Chart I-4A New Pool Of Labor That Has To Be Integrated Foreign-born workers now constitute about 20% of the total population, a big portion of which need to learn a new language and adopt new skills (Chart I-5A). This growth dividend will be reaped for many years to come. Integration is a politically contentious issue, and so the highly restrictive asylum and reunification law adopted in mid-2016 probably means the immigration boom is behind us. The rise of the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats in the September 2018 elections is a case in point. However, the pivot of the democratic population towards the right has been a global phenomenon, and so is not as negative for Sweden on a relative basis. All that to say, compared to most developed nations, Sweden still enjoys a relatively positive demographic outlook (Chart I-5B). Chart I-5AA Huge Labor Dividend Chart I-5BNo Apparent Demographic Cliff The inflow of migrants has a mixed impact on inflation. While there is downward pressure on wages, due to an increase in the share of employment that pays lower wages, there is still upward pressure on housing and consumption in response to the increased number of workers. This comes on top of a fiscal boost as the government spends more on social services. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate among foreign-born people is around 15%. This means that the Phillips curve is flat for the first few years, before it starts to steepen. But as the new labor force is finally absorbed into the economy, it should start to generate meaningful wage pressures. The Riksbank clearly understands these dynamics, which is why over the prior years, its stance has been dovish even when the Swedish economy has been holding up well. Interest rates were cut to negative territory in 2015 and held at -0.5% (lower than the ECB policy rate) all through the global recovery in 2016 and 2017. Quantitative easing has also been extended up until 2020, well ahead of the ECB’s renewed asset purchase program announcement. Both have tremendously eased monetary conditions in Sweden, including via a weaker currency. Going forward, there are a few key reasons to believe  the path of least resistance for the krona is now up: A weak krona has typically helped the manufacturing sector with a lag of twelve months.  A weak krona has typically helped the manufacturing sector with a lag of twelve months. Negative divergences only tend to happen ahead of deep recessions. Unless we are in that particular situation now, better demand for relatively cheaper Swedish goods (think Volvo versus BMW) should lead to a stronger krona (Chart I-6). Yes, the Riskbank has been conducting QE, but the pace of expansion in its balance sheet has been slowing in recent quarters. USD/SEK has tended to track relative balance sheet trends between the Riksbank and the Fed, but a gaping wedge has opened up in favor of the krona (Chart I-7). Meanwhile, with the Fed about to re-expand its balance sheet, this should also favor a stronger SEK versus the USD. Chart I-6Swedish Krona And Manufacturing Chart I-7USD/SEK And Relative Balance Sheets The Swedish housing market is becoming a thorn in the Riksbank’s side. When negative rates were introduced in 2015, growth in house prices exploded to the tune of 15% year-on-year (Chart I-8). More recently, a curb on migration has allowed a cooling of sorts, but Swedish household leverage remains very elevated. With the memory of the 1990s housing crisis still fresh in their minds, this is making the Riksbank quite uncomfortable with its current policy stance. The carry cost is lower from being short NZD compared to being short the U.S. dollar. Our bias is that though Governor Stefan Ingves prefers to renormalize policy as quickly as possible, given that he is managing a small-open economy with trade a whopping 45% of GDP, but is held hostage to external conditions. The SEK is the cheapest currency in the G10 universe, and could bounce sharply on even the softest evidence indicating global growth has bottomed. Furthermore, rising global growth will tighten resource utilization, which should begin to boost underlying inflationary pressures in Sweden (Chart I-9) Chart I-8House Prices In Sweden##br## Are Bubbly Chart I-9Resource Utilization And Inflation In Sweden In terms of SEK trading strategy, USD/SEK and NZD/SEK tend to be highly correlated; since the SEK has a higher beta to global growth than the kiwi (Sweden exports 45% of its GDP versus 27% for New Zealand). On a relative basis, the Swedish economy appears to have bottomed relative to that of the U.S., making the SEK/NZD an attractive way to play USD/SEK downside. Meanwhile, the carry cost is lower from being short NZD compared to being short the U.S. dollar (Chart I-10). As for EUR/SEK, the cross could consolidate at current levels before heading lower but will ultimately peak once global growth reaccelerates. Chart I-10Remain Long SEK/NZD Bottom Line: We remain long the SEK/NZD as a relative value play, but the true upside lies in the SEK/USD cross. Our bias is that SEK weakness has been driven by the market’s focus on disappointing soft data, while hard data remains relatively resilient. Once it becomes clearer that the global growth environment is not as precarious as the surveys suggest, the krona could bounce sharply. Housekeeping Our long GBP/JPY position hit 5% this week. We are tightening stops to 138 in order to protect profits. We were also stopped out of short EUR/NOK for a 2% loss. We are standing aside for now. EUR/NOK is now trading above 2008 recession levels, which is only justifiable by a prolonged growth recession, but risk management warrants patience for now. Stay tuned.   Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver,” dated October 11, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. have been soft: Retail sales contracted by 0.3% month-on-month in September. Industrial production fell by 0.4% month-on-month. Both export and import prices fell by 1.6% year-on-year in September. Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index grew to 96 in October, up from 93.2 in the previous month. NY Empire State Manufacturing Index increased to 4 in October, up from 2 in September. Building permits and housing starts both fell by 2.7% and 9.4% month-on-month in September, but the housing recovery remains intact. Initial jobless claims increased to 214K for the week ended Oct 11th. The DXY index depreciated by 0.7% this week. The latest Beige Book summarized that the U.S. economy expanded at a slight-to-modest pace. The slowdown in the manufacturing sector remains the biggest risk to the economy, while trade tensions continue to weigh on business sentiment and capex intensions. The most recent “entente” in trade discussions might represent a pivotal shift from heightened uncertainty that has prevailed throughout the summer. Report Links: On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 Preserving Capital During Riot Points - September 6, 2019 Has The Currency Landscape Shifted? - August 16, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area remain subdued: Headline inflation fell to 0.8% year-on-year in September, the slowest in nearly three years. Core inflation however, increased to 1% year-on-year. Industrial production in the euro area continued to contract, by 2.8% year-on-year in August. The ZEW sentiment in the euro area fell further to -23.5 in October, however this is well above expectations of -33. The ZEW sentiment for Germany also fell to -22.8 in October. It is worth noting that expectations continue to improve relative to the current situation. The trade balance in the euro area improved to €20.3 billion in August, up from the downward-revised €17.5 billion in July. However, this is mostly due to a contraction in imports. EUR/USD rose by 0.9% this week, in part helped by broad dollar weakness. The trade dynamics in the euro area remain worrisome: exports fell by 2.2% year-on-year in August, while imports plunged by 4.1% year-on-year. Notably, year-to-date, the EU’s trade surplus with U.S. grew to €103 billion, up from €91 billion a year earlier, while the trade deficit with China widened further to €127 billion from €116 billion. Report Links: On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan continue to disappoint: Industrial production fell by 4.7% year-on-year in August. Capacity utilization decreased by 2.9% month-on-month in August. The Japanese yen fell by 0.8% against the U.S. dollar this week. Kuroda has again emphasized that the BoJ will not hesitate to act if economic developments continue to deteriorate. On the other hand, while the Fed and the ECB are both on course to expand their balance sheets through asset purchases, it is an open question as to how much more the BoJ can do, beyond yield curve control. We remain long the yen in anticipation that it will require a “Lehman moment” for the BoJ to act aggressively. Report Links: A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Has The Currency Landscape Shifted? - August 16, 2019 Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. have been mostly negative: The ILO unemployment rate slightly increased to 3.9% in August. Average earnings quarterly growth slowed to 3.8%, however this was above expectations of 3.7%. The Retail price index grew by 2.4% year-on-year in September, a slowdown from 2.6% in the previous month. Headline inflation was unchanged at 1.7% year-on-year in September, while core inflation jumped to 1.7% from 1.5%. Retail sales grew by 3.1% year-on-year in September, up from 2.6% in the previous month. GBP/USD surged by 3.3% this week on optimism towards the European Council Summit on Brexit. From a valuation perspective, the pound is trading at a large discount to its fair value. Should positive Brexit news continue to hit the headlines, the pound could continue to soar. We are long GBP/JPY, which is above 5% in the money. Tighten stop to 138. Report Links: A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdon: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been modest: NAB business confidence fell further to -2, while conditions improved to 1 in Q3. On the labor market front, the unemployment rate fell further to 5.2% in September. 14.7K jobs were created, consisting of 26.2K full-time jobs and a loss of 11.4K part-time jobs. AUD/USD increased by 0.4% this week. RBA minutes were released earlier this week. Interestingly, it presents a sharp debate about the effects of low rates. On the one hand, lower rates have been theoretically justified to achieve full employment and the inflation target. On the other hand, some RBA members fear that low rates could fuel already inflated house prices. The probability for another rate cut has thus decreased post RBA minutes. Report Links: A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been negative: Visitor arrivals increased by 1.8% year-on-year in August, slightly down from 2% in the previous month. Headline inflation slowed to 1.5% year-on-year in Q3. NZD/USD has been more or less flat this week. Closely tied to global growth, the New Zealand dollar has been fluctuating with the ebb and flow of the U.S.-China trade headlines. The two countries have agreed on a partial deal last week, however the details remain vague. While the kiwi is a high beta currency, it should unerperform at the crosses. We continue to play the kiwi weakness through the Aussie dollar and the Swedish Krona. Report Links: USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been relatively strong: The unemployment rate decreased further to 5.5% in September. Moreover, average hourly wages continued to grow by 4.3% year-on-year, up from 3.8% in the previous month. Lastly, 53.7K jobs were created in September, well above expectations of 10K. Both headline and core inflation were unchanged at 1.9% year-on-year in September. The Canadian dollar has appreciated by 1% against the U.S. dollar, on the back of the positive employment data last Friday. All eyes are on the federal election this month, which could be crucial for the future of the Canadian energy sector and environment policies.  Report Links: Preserving Capital During Riot Points - September 6, 2019 Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been positive: The trade surplus (excluding precious metals) widened sharply to CHF 2.88 billion in September. Notably, Swiss exports grew by 8.2% month-on-month to CHF 20.3 billion, led by higher sales of chemical and pharmaceutical products. Swiss imports slightly dropped by 1.4% month-on-month to CHF 17.4 billion. Producer and import prices continued to fall by 2% year-on-year in September. USD/CHF fell by 1% this week. The Swiss franc will continue to fight a tug-of-war between being a defensive currency, but a tool of manipulation by the SNB. Our guestimate is that EUR/CHF 1.06 is an ultimate stress point.  Global portfolios should hold the Swiss franc as insurance, for the simple reason that the currency is a structural outperformer. Report Links: Notes On The SNB - October 4, 2019 What To Do About The Swiss Franc? - May 17, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been depressed: The trade balance shifted to a deficit of NOK 1.2 billion in September. That’s a decrease of NOK 24 billion year-on-year. The Norwegian krone has depreciated by nearly 1% against the U.S. dollar this week. Energy prices remain subdued over the past few weeks. Moreover, the Norwegian trade balance has shifted to a deficit for the first time since November 2017. Exports plunged by 19.5% year-on-year, due to lower sales of energy products, while imports jumped by 12.9% year-on-year. The message is clear – Norway continues to hold up well domestically, but dependence on petroleum exports is introducing volatility into any growth forecasts. BCA has lowered its oil price projections for 2019, which has dampened the appeal of the Norwegian Krone. Stay tuned. Report Links: A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been neutral: The unemployment rate was unchanged at 7.1% in September. USD/SEK fell by 1.1% this week. As the worst performing G-10 currency this year, the Swedish krona is now trading at a large discount to its fair value. Please refer to our front section this week which presents an in-depth analysis on the Swedish economy and the krona. Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 201 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights The manufacturing slowdown, on its own, is unlikely to tip the economy into a recession. The sector accounts for a small share of U.S. output and employment, and will gain a tailwind from a pick-up in global growth. A larger and more stable service sector mitigates manufacturing’s impact on the employment and consumption outlook. The bar is too high for manufacturing job losses to lift the overall unemployment rate towards recession-inducing levels. The recent divergence between alternative measures of U.S. manufacturing activity confirms the resilience of the domestic manufacturing sector relative to the rest of the world. Feature Manufacturing activity has been the most prominent casualty of the trade war between the U.S. and China, and global manufacturing PMIs have languished as tensions have intensified with no clear end in sight. Throughout the spring and early summer, manufacturing activity in the comparatively closed U.S. economy held up better than it did overseas. In August, however, the ISM Manufacturing PMI finally crossed the 50 expansion/contraction line and subsequently dipped well below it in September. Evidence of weakness was broad-based throughout September’s report and the fact that forward-looking components like new orders, new export orders and backlogs of orders all contracted further has caught our attention. Although, like most developed markets, the U.S. is a service economy, and consumption accounts for the lion’s share of its GDP, it is certainly not immune to manufacturing cycles. We are not turning a blind eye to the global manufacturing slowdown, nor downplaying its magnitude, but for now we are not overly worried about it. Regular readers know that we continue to believe that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong, supported most of all by an especially robust labor market. The manufacturing slowdown is near the top of investors’ concerns, however, so we measure how severe a manufacturing slowdown would have to be to cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. We find that the bar is high and the slowdown has low odds of getting that bad if, as we expect, global growth eventually recovers. Until a pick-up truly materializes, we remain comforted by our expectation that buoyant consumption and government spending will keep the U.S. economy out of too much trouble. David And Goliath Chart 1Services May Be Larger, But Goods Punch Harder Technology and globalization have revolutionized the manufacturing process and disrupted the global economic landscape. As the outsourcing of manufacturing activities to lower-cost countries has become more and more prevalent, developed markets have steadily transitioned to service economies. Since the 1950s, goods-producing sectors’ share of U.S. GDP has decreased from half to 29%. Nevertheless, a third of the economy is not negligible, especially when it swings much more wildly than the services sector, which is more than twice its size (Chart 1). In a previous report1 where we looked at the components of the U.S. GDP equation, we showed that smaller, more volatile fixed investment was considerably more likely to negate trend growth in the rest of the economy than giant, but stable, consumption. This narrative echoes the dynamics at play with the manufacturing portion of the U.S. economy. Given their greater variability, goods-producing sectors are just as likely to wipe out 2% trend growth in services as services are to wipe out 2% manufacturing growth (Table 1). Table 1Another Road To Recession This would be bad news if we thought the manufacturing slowdown had a lot more downside. We continue to believe in a global growth recovery narrative, however, powered by impending Chinese stimulus and revived trade negotiations. U.S. industrial production and capacity utilization both surprised to the upside in August and global growth is showing budding signs of a recovery (Chart 2). Moreover, our colleagues at Global Investment Strategy have found that industrial cycles last an average of 36 months, divided into an 18-month uptrend and an 18-month downtrend.2 Absent any major trade deterioration, the tenure of the current down leg suggests that an upturn in manufacturing activity is on its way (Chart 3). Chart 2Towards A Global Growth Pick-Up Chart 3The Global Manufacturing Cycle Has Likely Reached A Bottom   Another channel through which the manufacturing slowdown could hurt the U.S. economy is via manufacturing job losses and the detrimental effect they would have on overall U.S. consumption. Goods-producing sectors employ 21.1 million, including 12.9 million in manufacturing roles - a puny 14% and 8% of total nonfarm payrolls, respectively. The productivity gains that technological improvements and automated processes have unlocked over the years have allowed a modest share of U.S. workers who make tangible things to produce double their proportionate share of U.S. output. Bottom Line: Goods-producing sectors represent less than a third of U.S. GDP and less than a sixth of U.S. jobs. That’s enough for the global manufacturing slowdown to cause some domestic slowing, but not enough to end the expansion on its own. A High Pain Threshold Akin to the goods-producing sectors’ contribution to overall U.S. GDP, aggregate manufacturing payrolls tend to exhibit more volatility than aggregate services payrolls, particularly on the downside (Chart 4). Before the 1980s, because manufacturing activity accounted for a larger share of the U.S. economy and created a larger portion of jobs, a mere deceleration in the pace of payroll expansion was sufficient to tip the economy into a recession. The paradigm has shifted and it now takes a more severe manufacturing downturn to inflict real harm on the U.S. economy. Since the 1980s, no recession has occurred independent of a full-on contraction in manufacturing employment. We are not there yet, as manufacturing payrolls are still growing at a 1.1% pace. Aggregate manufacturing payrolls tend to exhibit higher volatility than aggregate services payrolls, particularly on the downside. Chart 4A Paradigm Shift Our Global Investment Strategy colleagues have previously shown that throughout the post-war era, whenever the 3-month moving average of the unemployment rate has risen by at least a third of a percentage point from its cyclical lows, a recession has ensued (Chart 5). The U.S. unemployment rate just made a fifty-year low and we do not expect a quick material reversal in the short run. A resilient service sector, ambitious hiring plans and elevated levels of job openings, coupled with a revival in global growth, should hold the U.S. unemployment rate in check for the time being (Chart 6). Chart 5The Recession-Inducing Level Of Unemployment... Chart 6...Is Not Imminent Given Strong Hiring Plans Investors are right to be concerned about the manufacturing slowdown nonetheless. To address those concerns more closely, and to challenge our own view, we calculated the number of manufacturing job losses that would be required to push the unemployment rate up to recession-inducing levels. The U.S. unemployment rate fell to a fifty-year low of 3.5% in September, tugging the 3-month moving average down to 3.6%. There are several paths the unemployment rate can take from current levels for its 3-month moving average to grow by a third of a percentage point. It may gain a linear 10 basis points a month and reach a 3.9% average in the fifth month. Myriad non-linear paths could get the moving average to 3.9% in more or less than five months. For the sake of this exercise, we do not choose a particular path, but simply assume that the 3-month moving average of the unemployment rate reaches 3.9% over three, six and twelve months. We build on the work of the economists at the Atlanta Fed and calculate the number of manufacturing job losses required to achieve a 3.9% target unemployment rate over those three timeframes. We used the Atlanta Fed Jobs Calculator’s3 default inputs, and the details and results of our subsequent calculations are summarized in Table 2. Table 2The Payroll Road To Recession Chart 7The Bar Is High For Manufacturing To Trigger A Recession Under the default assumptions of a constant participation rate and a population growth rate unchanged from the past twelve months’, it would take 313,000 job losses over three months for the overall U.S. unemployment rate to reach 3.9%. We assume that the private service sector, which shows no sign of distress, will continue to add jobs. It has done so at a historical average monthly growth rate of 0.19% but given that the overall economy has clearly slowed, we assume instead that the service sector will continue to add jobs at the slower 0.13% pace of the past twelve months. Under this more conservative assumption, the economy would gain 560,000 nonmanufacturing jobs over the next three months. Consequently, it would take 873,000 manufacturing job losses alone to offset these gains and lift the unemployment rate to 3.9% within three months. Over a six- and twelve-month horizon, the number of manufacturing job losses required to offset payroll expansion in services reaches 1.1 and 1.6 million, respectively.4 These levels of manufacturing job losses – equivalent to a 7% to 12% contraction in manufacturing payrolls - seem like a stretch in the current macroeconomic backdrop. The only time in the past seventy years when the U.S. economy experienced manufacturing job losses of this magnitude on a 3- month time period was in the first quarter of 1975, when the U.S. economy confronted a tripling of oil prices from the oil embargo. Manufacturing job losses in excess of 1.1 and 1.6 million jobs over a 6- and 12-month horizon have historically been more attainable (Chart 7). That said, manufacturing payrolls are still expanding on a 6- and 12-month horizon, albeit at a decelerating pace. Not only are manufacturing payrolls gains far from recession-inducing levels, manufacturing employment will gain a tailwind from the pick-up in global growth and turn in global industrial production cycles that we expect. These levels of manufacturing job losses – equivalent to a 7% to 12% contraction in manufacturing payrolls – seem like a stretch in the current macroeconomic backdrop. Bottom Line: The bar seems a little too high for the manufacturing slowdown alone to destroy enough jobs to tip the U.S. economy into a full-fledged recession. What Oil Shock? One can argue that the September oil shock caused by attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure will exert further pressure on global manufacturing activities. While it is true that large jumps in oil prices have often preceded recessions, we think the probability is slight that September’s event will jeopardize the prospects of a global growth recovery (Chart 8). Chart 8Oil Spikes And Recessions Chart 9U.S. Output Is Less Dependent On Oil First, not only was the September surge in oil prices tame relative to the spikes that have preceded past recessions, but the quicker-than-expected return of Saudi oil production has calmed markets. For now, the oil scare ended as quickly as it appeared. Second, higher oil prices are less of a drag on the U.S. economy than they were in the 1970s, as the country has become one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world and approaches true energy independence. The gradual shift from a manufacturing to services economy has also reduced the oil intensity of the U.S. economy to a little more than a third of what it was at the time of the 1970s oil embargo (Chart 9). Moreover, higher gasoline prices are less likely to hurt U.S. consumers now that filling the tank takes up a smaller portion of their wallets (Chart 10). As Fed Chair Jay Powell put it in a speech last week, “we now judge that a price spike would likely have nearly offsetting effects on U.S. GDP.” Chart 10Filling The Tank Takes Up A Smaller Portion Of Consumers' Wallets Conflicting Messages? Chart 11The ISM Manufacturing PMI's Sensitivity To Global Growth The ISM Manufacturing Composite PMI is our favored measure of U.S. manufacturing activity as its long track record allows for comparison across multiple business cycles. Although it only offers insights back to 2011, the alternative IHS Markit Manufacturing PMI is nevertheless widely watched by investors and we take note of its moves. While the recent ISM readings have been dismal, the Markit Manufacturing PMI for the U.S. accelerated to 51.1 in September. At first glance, it might seem that both readings are contradicting each other. In fact, the current divergence is not unprecedented and stems from differences in sub-component weighting methodology and in sample size and composition. The ISM reading focuses on larger multinational companies, whereas the U.S. Markit PMI polls a wider array of companies by size. Multinationals’ earnings are more directly affected by global growth developments than smaller and domestically-focused firms. Therefore, in periods of accelerating global and ex-U.S. growth, the ISM PMI tends to score higher than the Markit PMI, and vice versa (Chart 11). A still-expanding Markit Manufacturing PMI combined with a contracting ISM Manufacturing PMI simply reinforces the argument that the domestic manufacturing sector is more resilient than ex-U.S. manufacturing activity, and highlights the potential for an improvement in business confidence if the U.S. and China can reach some sort of detente. Investment Implications In spite of evidence that global manufacturing weakness is spreading, our overall assessment of the U.S. economy remains intact. Assuming an exogenous event does not snuff out the expansion, we do not expect the next recession to occur until after monetary policy turns restrictive. Since the Fed has pivoted to accommodation, along with the world’s other major central banks, we have pushed out our recession timetable back to at least the middle of 2021. We therefore think it is too early to de-risk investment portfolios. We have previously shown that bull markets tend to sprint to the finish line and we remain bullish on a 12-month cyclical horizon. Though we are not concerned that the end of the cycle is at hand, tariff tensions are squeezing trade flows and business confidence. Volatility is likely to remain elevated in the near term until trade tensions die down and the global economy demonstrates that an upturn is at hand. We are therefore neutral on equities over the tactical 0-to-3-month timeframe and recommend investors overweight cash to keep some dry powder at hand. We still recommend that investors underweight bonds in balanced portfolios.   Jennifer Lacombe, Senior Analyst jenniferl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “If We Were Wrong”, dated April 8, 2019, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The reason underpinning this cyclicality is that most purchased goods retain some value for a certain amount of time before they need to be replaced. 3 The Atlanta Fed Jobs Calculator tool is available at https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/calculator?panel=1 4 Had we assumed that the nonmanufacturing payrolls continue to grow at the historical average monthly rate of 0.19% instead, the levels of manufacturing job losses required to offset the nonmanufacturing gains and lift the unemployment rate to 3.9% would be 1.1 million, 1.6 million and 2.6 million manufacturing job losses over a 3-, 6- and 12-month time horizon, respectively.

Highlights We still don’t see a recession occurring in the next twelve months, … : Recessions only occur when monetary policy is restrictive. It’s easy now, and it will be a while before conditions push the Fed to execute the requisite series of rate hikes to make it tight. … but that doesn’t mean that we don’t worry anyway, … : Although the inverted yield curve looks more like a reflection of the Fed’s asset purchases than a telltale sign of trouble, leading indicators have been moving in the wrong direction all year. … as survey data clearly indicate that household and business confidence is fragile: Consumer confidence indexes and the latest ISM surveys testify to a worsening mood. Hard data are faring better than soft data, but there is a danger that anxiety could become self-fulfilling. We remain constructive, but alert for risks to the growth outlook: The labor market remains vibrant enough to exert downward pressure on the unemployment rate, and services continue to expand despite the contraction in manufacturing, both here and abroad. The expansion has slowed, but it’s not finished yet. Feature Although the oil market quickly shrugged off last month’s attack on Saudi energy infrastructure (Chart 1), investors don’t lack for other concerns. It’s not easy for a business to commit to longer-term investment spending when U.S.-China negotiations yo-yo between thawing and frigid depending on the day, Brexit remains a pratfall wrapped in a farce inside an absurdity, and trenches are being dug for a bitter impeachment battle in Washington. Global export volumes have contracted on a year-over-year basis in six of eight months through July (Chart 2), casting a chill over multinationals’ profit outlooks. Workers know that companies cut headcount when profits fall, so consumer confidence is also subject to the ebb and flow of the trade negotiations. Chart 1Middle East Tensions Are So Last Month The worries are well known, but they could spark a recession themselves if they persist long enough. Chart 2If You Want Less Of Something, Tax It It would be hard to see the glass as half-full if markets hadn’t long since priced in the China and Brexit pressures. The impeachment spectacle is new, but we’re not sure what investors and businesses would have to fear from a Pence administration. It would be hard to see the glass as half-empty if survey data weren’t flagging a steady deterioration in sentiment that could sow the seeds of a recession. The bottom line is that it’s late in the cycle, and the combination of softening data and geopolitical tensions is chipping away at what’s left of investor optimism. Our Recession/Bear Market Indicator Tight monetary policy is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for a recession. Over the 60-year period that we maintain estimates of an equilibrium fed funds rate, expansions have not stopped in their tracks when the fed funds rate crossed above our equilibrium estimate, but no recession has occurred unless it did (Chart 3). We currently estimate that the equilibrium rate is well above the 2% target rate, which appears to be headed for 1.75% at the FOMC meeting at the end of the month. Given the benign pace of current inflation, monetary policy should remain accommodative for all of 2020, provided our equilibrium estimate is in the ballpark. Chart 3Monetary Policy Is Easy And Getting Easier: Green Though we are confident that the Fed isn’t about to kill the expansion, the other components of our simple recession indicator are sending worrisome signals. The yield curve has been inverted for five straight months. An inverted curve has historically been a reliable indicator that monetary policy is too tight, and has therefore compiled an enviable track record for calling recessions (Chart 4). Today’s unprecedentedly negative term premium may well be scrambling the yield curve’s message, however, distorting comparisons with past periods.1 Chart 4The Curve Has Inverted, But ... : Yellow The year-over-year change in the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Index (LEI) is the other component of our recession indicator. The LEI has been just as reliable as the yield curve, and it is rapidly decelerating (Chart 5). We note, however, that the LEI has previously pulled out of two similar dives in this expansion, and it has not yet contracted. Given its heavy manufacturing focus, the LEI won’t likely begin to accelerate without a material easing of trade tensions, but a limited deal between the U.S. and China is not out of the realm of possibility. Chart 5LEI Growth Is Rapidly Decelerating: Yellow Bottom Line: One green light and two yellow lights are less than a resounding endorsement of the business cycle’s prospects, but the mix nonetheless argues for staying the risk-friendly course that has amply rewarded investors throughout the expansion. A Dismal Manufacturing ISM … The U.S. is impacted by global conditions with a lag, but September’s manufacturing ISM report confirmed that it is eventually impacted by them. Last Tuesday’s dreary manufacturing ISM report sparked a two-day sell-off in the S&P 500 that financial TV networks were quick to highlight as the worst start to a fourth quarter since the crisis. The composite index came in far below the 50 consensus, falling to its lowest level since June 2009, and spent a second consecutive month below the 50 boom/bust line for the first time since the 2015-16 global manufacturing recession (Chart 6, top panel). Crumbling exports (Chart 6, second panel) and stalled new orders (Chart 6, third panel) weighed on the composite reading. The only slight glimmer of hope was that a good-sized inventory contraction (Chart 6, fourth panel) allowed the New-Orders-to-Inventories ratio to rise (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6The Global Manufacturing Slowdown Reaches The U.S. Chart 7Consumers Didn't Sweat The ISM ... The surprisingly bad report stoked another round of recession hand-wringing in the media, though not, apparently, among the broader public (Chart 7). The potential economic threat stems from the possibility that the release will discourage hiring and investment. The NFIB monthly jobs report released Thursday afternoon suggests that smaller businesses are still actively seeking to fill positions, though the pool of qualified applicants continues to shrink. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model trimmed its projection of nonresidential fixed investment’s contribution to 3Q GDP from +10 to -10 basis points following the manufacturing ISM release, but it sees overall growth of 1.8%. … And Eroding Consumer Confidence … The leading consumer sentiment surveys have also been slipping, though they remain at high levels relative to their history (Chart 8). That dichotomy sustains the bull-versus-bear debate, as bulls point to the lofty level while bears cite the flagging direction. We will not resolve the level-versus-direction question here, but note that real consumption growth has exhibited a robust correlation with the expectations components of the surveys. Declining expectations point to a decline in consumption, but as long as the expectations index remains at or above the mid-90s, it appears that consumption will keep economic growth around its trend level (Chart 9). Chart 8... And They Remain Fairly Optimistic Chart 9Consumption Still Looks Fine … Square Off With Still-Solid Hard Data While the survey data have been steadily disappointing expectations (including, last week, the formerly redoubtable non-manufacturing ISM), hard data have been a source of positive surprises. Since the beginning of July, when the economic surprise index finally bottomed and went about the business of mean-reverting, measures of real activity have been encouraging (Chart 10). Though the September employment situation report showed that the pace of hiring is also slowing, and wage growth puzzlingly hit a wall, the broader definition of the unemployment rate broke below 7% for the first time since the peak of the dot-com boom and is only one tick above its all-time low (Chart 11). Robust year-to-date equity gains have pushed the multiple of household net worth to disposable personal income right back to its all-time highs, suggesting that there is little need for households in the aggregate to increase their savings rate (Chart 12). Chart 10Hard Data Have Cleared A Low Bar Chart 11The Labor Market Is Still Absorbing Slack Chart 12There's Room For The Savings Rate To Come Down Putting It All Together The U.S. is a comparatively closed economy that customarily reacts to global developments with a longer lag than its major-economy peers. It was due to slow this year from a declining domestic fiscal impulse, but global weakness has now begun to wash up on its shores. The question for investors is how far will the deceleration go? Is it simply a mid-cycle slowdown that will dent growth for a quarter or two, or is it the end of the expansion? The Fed has promised to act appropriately to sustain the expansion so many times this year that it’s become a mantra. Markets are taking it to heart, just as they did last Thursday, when the S&P 500 turned a 1% decline immediately after the release of the non-manufacturing ISM into a 1% gain, and Friday, when a mixed employment situation report gave rise to another 1% bump. Bad news is still good news for equities as long as investors believe the Fed is willing and able to ease monetary policy to mitigate risks to the growth outlook. In a world where monetary accommodation is currently the rule among central banks large and small, and the Fed has dry powder to ease, we think stocks are getting it right. There’s no lack of things for investors to worry about, but they shouldn’t forget that worry fuels bull markets. Our sanguine take is also supported by a useful trading maxim. When a stock doesn’t go down on bad news (or up on good news), it’s telling you something. In this case, we think the S&P 500’s repeated failure to capsize in the face of wave after wave of bad news reveals that it has already discounted a considerable amount of pessimism. If some significantly good news were to come out of U.S.-China trade negotiations, for example, stocks could resume their march higher in line with the historical bull market pattern of sprinting to the finish line. Investment Implications Fears that weak surveys could morph into weak activity are well-founded. There is clear potential for poor corporate and consumer sentiment to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If corporate managers sit on their hands amidst uncertainty over trade rules, corporate investment and hiring could dry up. One person’s spending is another person’s income, and vice versa, and if households divert spending to saving, income will fall. If households turn tail at a time when skittish businesses have little appetite for investment, their savings will lie fallow, doing nothing but lowering interest rates, which could stoke additional anxiety about the growth outlook. We may not have much more to fear than fear itself, but that’s enough, given fear’s viral, self-reinforcing nature. The good news from our perspective is that we do not believe that businesses or households have reached the point of no return. Real final domestic demand (GDP ex-inventory adjustments and net exports) is holding up well despite the sharp market sell-offs in last year’s fourth quarter, the month-long federal government shutdown and the ongoing tariff follies. The labor market remains tight, which should help wage gains accelerate at a time when there’s little chance that the Fed will intervene to counter budding inflation pressures, opening the door to a virtuous circle. No cycle lasts forever, and this one is surely in its latter stages, though we remain positive over the three-to-twelve-month cyclical timeframe. We are more cautious in the near term, and it may well be appropriate to position portfolios more conservatively than normal over the zero-to-three-month tactical timeframe while keeping positions on a shorter leash. Though investors will have to live with an elevated sense of worry over the coming months, they shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that bull markets climb a wall of it. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA’s U.S. Investment Research Weekly Report titled “Everybody Into The Pool!,” published June 24, 2019. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights U.S. growth will soon rebound thanks to robust drivers of domestic activity, and strengthening money and credit trends. The U.S. Federal Reserve will maintain an easing bias and will expand its balance sheet again. A growing Fed balance sheet will catalyze an underlying improvement in global liquidity conditions and boost the global economy. Brexit, China and Iran are key risks. The dollar will depreciate, bond yields will rise further and silver will outperform gold. Equities will surpass bonds on both cyclical and structural investment horizons. Financials and energy are more attractive than tech and healthcare. Thus, Europe is becoming increasingly appealing relative to the U.S. Feature Global equities are only 5% below their January 2018 all-time highs and the S&P 500 is close to breaking out above its July 2019 record. Meanwhile, yields are rebounding and value stocks are crushing momentum plays. Are these trends durable? Global growth is the key. If economic activity around the world can stabilize and ultimately improve, then stocks will break out and bond prices will suffer in the coming year. Otherwise, these recent financial market developments will undo themselves. Even if current activity remains weak, the outlook for global growth is looking up, despite trade wars, Brexit, Middle East tensions and problems in the interbank market. Therefore, we continue to favor stocks over bonds, because the backup in yields has further to go. If the dollar weakens, our pro-risk stance will only strengthen. U.S. Growth Drivers Are Healthy Chart I-1Recession Indicators Are Flashing A Yellow Flag The U.S. is near the end of a potent mid-cycle slowdown, but a recession will be avoided. Current conditions support an improvement in U.S. activity next year, even if key recessionary indicators, such as the yield curve and the annual rate of change of the Leading Economic Indicator, are still sending muddy signals (Chart I-1). U.S. growth will intensify because of five fundamental factors that will ultimately push the LEI higher and force the yield curve to re-steepen: A budding housing rebound, robust household spending, a stabilizing manufacturing sector, limited inflationary pressures, and a pick-up in money and credit trends. Housing The housing market has stabilized, buoyed by strong household formation, decent affordability, passing of the shock created by the cap in state and local tax deductions, and a 110-basis point collapse in mortgage yields since November 2018. Housing market indicators are finally catching up with leading variables, such as mortgage applications. In the past nine months, the NAHB housing market index has recovered nearly two-thirds of its decline since December 2018. Building permits and housing starts are at their highest levels since 2007, despite a significant fall last year. Even existing home sales have increased by 11% since December and are tracking the stimulation offered by lower borrowing costs (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Housing Recovery Is Real Residential investment should soon boost economic activity after curtailing the level of GDP by 1% over the past six quarters. Moreover, rebounding housing activity implies that policy is not constraining growth. The real estate sector is historically the most sensitive to monetary conditions. Households Are Still Doing Well Core U.S. real retail sales continue to grow at a more than 4% annual pace and the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model forecasts a healthy 3.1% annual rise in consumer spending in the third quarter. This resilience is particularly impressive in the face of economic uncertainty and an ISM Manufacturing index below the 50 boom-bust line. Strong balance sheets are crucial to households. After 12-years of deleveraging, household debt has contracted by 37 percentage points to 99% of disposable income. Consequently, debt-servicing costs only represent 10% of disposable income, the lowest level in more than 45 years. Moreover, the household savings rate is a healthy 7.9% of after-tax income, which is particularly high in the context of the highest net worth ever and the lowest debt-to-asset ratio since 1985. Household income creates an additional support to consumption. Real disposable income is expanding at a 3% annual rate, despite slowing job creation. A tight labor market explains this apparent paradox. The employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers is our favorite measure of labor market slack, and it has escalated to 79.7%, a level consistent with the 2.9% pace of annual growth in wages and salary (Chart I-3). The UAW strike at GM, the quits-rate at an 18-year high, and the difficulties small firms face to find qualified workers, all suggest that wages (and thus, consumption) will remain well underpinned (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Improving Manufacturing Outlook Manufacturing activity is set to rebound, despite the weakness in the ISM Manufacturing index. Recent industrial production numbers have already improved. Monthly IP expanded at a 0.6% monthly pace in August, but as recently as April, it was shrinking at a -0.6% rate. U.S. monetary conditions will continue to support asset prices and worldwide economic activity for the coming 18 months or so. The car sector will soon bottom. Weak auto production has been a primary diver of the recent global manufacturing slowdown. The automotive component of GDP contracted at a stunning 29.1% annual rate in the second quarter. However, U.S. light-vehicle sales are essentially flat. This dichotomy implies that the automobile sector’s inventories are contracting briskly (Chart I-4). Chart I-3A Tight Labor Market Supports Consumption Chart I-4Will Auto Production Rebound Soon?   Capex should also recover. Last quarter, investment in structures and equipment subtracted from GDP growth. Before this, capex intentions had fallen significantly, now, the Philly Fed’s capital expenditure component is trying to stabilize. Capex must stop falling if global manufacturing is to strengthen. Limited Inflationary Pressures Inflationary pressures remain muted in the U.S., which supports growth in two ways. First, muted inflation allows the Fed to maintain accommodative monetary conditions. In the absence of crippling debt-servicing costs, easy policy guarantees a continued expansion. Secondly, low inflation keeps real income growth higher and increases the welfare of households. At 2.4%, core CPI is perky, but will soon roll over. Core goods prices have been driving fluctuations in aggregate core prices in the past three years, while service sector inflation has been stable at 2.7% during this period. Goods inflation will soon weaken for the following reasons: Chart I-5The Trade War Is Masking The Economy's Deflationary Tendencies Soft global economic activity will drive down global inflation. Inflation lags real activity and proxies for the global economy, such as Singapore’s GDP, point to weaker core CPI in the OECD (Chart I-5). This weakness will act as a drag on U.S. inflation because U.S. goods prices have a large international component. U.S. import prices peaked 15 months ago and they normally lead goods inflation by roughly a year and a half. The strength in the broad trade-weighted dollar, which has climbed by nearly 15% in the past 18 months to an all-time high, will hurt goods prices. U.S. capacity utilization declined through 2019 and remains well below the 80% level that historically causes core goods prices to overheat. The White House’s tariffs on China are boosting inflation but this effect will prove transitory. The tariffs are pushing up inflation for goods touched by the levies, while unaffected goods are experiencing deflation (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Given that tariffs have a one-off impact and that inflation expectations are hovering near record lows, inflation for tariffed-goods will converge toward the underlying trend in non-tariffed goods. Stronger Money And Credit Trends Money and credit trends indicate that the recent slump will not translate into a recession. Moreover, improving U.S. private-sector liquidity conditions argues that the mid-cycle slowdown is ending. Chart I-6Liquidity Indicators Point To A Growth Rebound U.S. broad money is recovering. After falling to 0.9% last November, U.S. real M2 growth is expanding at a 3% annual rate, a pace in keeping with the end of mid-cycle slowdowns. Moreover, money is also accelerating relative to credit issuance, which historically has pointed to quicker industrial activity. Similarly, our U.S. financial liquidity index is rapidly escalating, a development that normally precedes turning points in the ISM manufacturing (Chart I-6) index. Credit activity is also picking up. Corporate bond issuance is firming and, according to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey, demand for loans is rebounding across the board. The yield collapse is boosting credit growth across the G-10. Gold is outperforming bonds, which confirms that a mid-cycle slowdown occurred. If inflation is not a problem, then the yellow metal always underperforms bonds ahead of recessions. However, before mid-cycle slumps, gold consistently outperforms bonds (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Bonds Outperform Gold Ahead Of Recession More Fed Easing Imminent U.S. monetary conditions will continue to support asset prices and worldwide economic activity for the coming 18 months or so. The Fed will ease policy further and is a long way from tightening. Last week, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) curtailed the fed funds target rate by 25 basis points to 2%. Additionally, while the median projection shows that Fed members expect no more rate cuts for at least the next 18 months, the reality is more subtle. Among 17 FOMC members, 7 expect to cut the fed funds rate by another 25 basis points by year end, and 8 foresee a lower policy rate in late 2020. The greenback is very expensive and will decline as global liquidity conditions improve. We are still on track for three 25-basis-point rate cuts this year. The Fed remains highly data dependent and is particularly sensitive to depressed inflation expectations. This means the Fed is acutely aware of the danger created by a sudden tightening in financial conditions. If by year-end the market has not moved away from discounting another cut in 2019, the FOMC will likely deliver this easing. Otherwise, financial conditions could suddenly tighten, which would hurt inflation expectations and the economic outlook. If global growth does not recover in early 2020, the Fed would probably cut rates an additional time in the first quarter, which would validate the current 12-month pricing in the OIS curve. Chart I-8Not Enough Excess Reserves The Fed will again increase the size of its balance sheet. Interbank markets have boxed the FOMC into adding welcomed stimulus to the global economy. Allowing commercial bank excess reserves to grow anew will have a greater positive impact for global growth compared with rate cuts alone. Last month, we highlighted the risks to the repo market created by the combination of the dwindling of excess reserves, the bloated securities inventory of primary dealers financed via repo transactions, and the growth in the issuance of Treasurys.1 These risks materialized last week, when the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) suddenly spiked above 5% (Chart I-8). To calm the market, the Fed injected $75 billion each day last week starting Tuesday to bring repo rates closer to the Interest Rate on Excess Reserves (IOER). But this is not a long-term solution. Chart I-9Higher Excess Reserves Will Hurt The Dollar And Boost Global Growth Paradoxically, the crystallization of the repo market tensions is good news for the global economy because it will force the Fed to again expand its balance sheet as soon as next month. The supply of funds to the repo market needs to increase permanently, which means that banks’ excess reserves must re-expand. As we showed last month, higher excess reserves will hurt the U.S. dollar, lift EM exchange rates and boost global PMIs (Chart I-9). Higher excess reserves ease global liquidity conditions. The money injected will find its way to the rest of the world. The dollar trades 25% above its long-term, fair-value estimate of purchasing power parity. Therefore, a growing fiscal deficit indirectly financed by a larger Fed balance sheet will lead to a larger U.S. current account deficit, which in turn, will lift global FX reserves. As a result, the Fed’s custodial holdings of securities on behalf of other central banks will rise. Thus, global dollar-based liquidity will stop contracting relative to the stock of U.S. dollar-denominated foreign currency debt it supports (Chart I-10). Higher excess reserves will also ease global financial conditions. By boosting dollar-based liquidity, a larger Fed balance sheet will dampen offshore dollar interest rates. Moreover, rising excess reserves depreciate the greenback, which further cuts the cost of credit for foreign entities borrowing in U.S. dollars. This phenomenon is especially significant for EM. Therefore, we should see an easing of EM financial conditions, which are heavily dependent on EM exchange rates. Historically, looser EM financial conditions lead to stronger global growth (Chart I-11). Chart I-10High-Powered Liquidity Set To Improve Chart I-11Easier EM FCI Should Lead To Faster Growth   Risks: The U.K., China And Iran While the outlook generally points to a rebound in global growth, which will create a positive environment for risk assets, the situations in the U.K., China, and Iran should be closely monitored. The U.K. Brexit remains a potential danger for the world even though our base case calls for a benign outcome. U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s gambit to push for a No-Deal Brexit to force the EU to make concessions could result in a miscalculation. Such a turn of events would plunge a European economy – already damaged by weak global trade – into recession. The dollar would strengthen and global financial conditions would tighten. Global growth would take another hit. Chart I-12U.K.: No Clear Winner Ahead Of A Potential Election Following this week’s Supreme Court unanimous ruling against Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament, No-Deal carries a less than 10% probability. Johnson lacks a majority in a Parliament staunchly against a hard Brexit and he is unable to call an election prior to the October 31st deadline to leave the EU. Therefore, a delay is the most likely outcome, which will allow the EU and the U.K. to reach a deal on the Irish backstop that Parliament can then ratify. Ultimately, the U.K. needs another election to break the current logjam, which could materialize in November or December. However, the Remain vote is split between Labour, Lib Dems, and the SNP, but the Brexit vote is not nearly as divided. (Chart I-12). Hence, Brexit will remain a risk lurking in the background even if it does not morph into a full-blown assault on global growth. China Chart I-13Chinese Stimulus Remains Too Tepid To Move The Needle China’s economic activity continues to soften. In August, industrial production and fixed-asset investment decelerated to 4.4% and 5.5%, respectively. Moreover, total social financing growth slowed on an annual basis and overall Chinese credit flows decreased as a share of GDP (Chart I-13). Chinese policy reflation remains too tepid to undo the drag created by trade uncertainty and the weakness in the marginal propensity to spend (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Sino-U.S. trade tensions have significantly decreased in recent months, but they will remain an important source of uncertainty for China and the world. China and the U.S. will again hold high-level talks next month, U.S. President Donald Trump has again postponed some of the tariff increases, and China is again buying mid-Western soybeans and pork. But last Friday’s cancelation of U.S. farm visits by Chinese officials reminds us that the situation is very fluid. Ultimately, China and the U.S. are long-term geopolitical rivals. Trump may be constrained by the 2020 election, but China could still drive a hard bargain. Hence, it is prudent to expect a stop-and-go pattern in the negotiations. Chart I-14Deflation Unleashes A Vicious Circle Of Higher Real Borrowing Costs A weak China will sow the seeds of its own recovery. In addition to the negative effect on capex intentions and credit demand of trade uncertainty, Beijing faces deteriorating employment and producer price inflation of -0.8% (Chart I-14, top panel). As PPI inflation becomes more negative, heavily indebted corporate borrowers face rising real interest rates (Chart I-14, bottom panel). This higher cost of debt weakens an already vulnerable economy, unleashing a vicious circle. Chinese policymakers are unlikely to tolerate this situation for much longer. The cumulative 400-basis point cuts in the reserve requirement ratio since April 2018 are steps in the right direction, but are not yet enough. The dovish change to the Politburo’s and State Council’s language indicates that greater stimulus is forthcoming. Thus, credit expansion, local government special bonds issuance and fiscal stimulus will become even more prevalent in the final quarter of 2019. This policy should noticeably goose economic activity in 2020, which will help global growth accelerate. Iran Tensions are re-flaring and a spike in oil prices would threaten the fragile global economy. However, this remains a risk, not a central case. In the July issue of The Bank Credit Analyst, we warned that tensions with Iran were the greatest visible risk to global growth and risk assets.2 This danger came into focus last week with the drone attacks on the Khurais oil field and Abqaiq oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia, which curtailed global oil supply by an unprecedented 5.7 million bbl/day, or 5.5% of global demand. Unsurprisingly, Brent prices quickly surged by 12% to $68/bbl. Chart I-15Higher Energy Efficiency Makes The World More Robust A durable spike in oil prices would push the global economy into a recession, especially while the global economy is already on weak footing. Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Anastasios Avgeriou reminded his clients3 that according to a seminal 2011 paper by Prof. James D. Hamilton, a doubling of oil prices preceded all but one of the post-war recessions.4 However, an oil-induced recession would likely be shallow because the oil intensity of the global economy has significantly declined in the past 30 years (Chart I-15). Moreover, global fiscal authorities would respond forcefully to an economic contraction, which would also limit the impact of the shock. There is a low likelihood that oil will double by year-end. It would require Brent prices to surge to $100/bbl. Saudi Arabia has already stated that production will return to pre-crisis levels in the coming days and not a single shipment will be missed. This promise implies further inventory drawdowns. Aramco also expects to achieve maximum output by late November. Moreover, higher oil prices will encourage further activity in the U.S. shale patch. Consequently, oil prices are unlikely to surge by another $35/bbl in the next three months. However, Brent prices could climb to $75/bbl next year, because while oil demand is set to recover, investors must also embed a greater risk premium against Saudi supply disruptions. A military conflict with Iran is a tail risk, but if it were to materialize, crude prices would surge by $35/bbl or more in an instant. According to Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical strategist, the appetite for such a conflict is low in the U.S.5 President Trump has isolationist instincts and does not want to be mired in another conflict. Investment Implications The Dollar The dollar has significant downside. The greenback is very expensive and will decline as global liquidity conditions improve (Chart I-16). These dynamics reflect the countercyclical nature of the dollar and also lead to strong greenback momentum, both on the way up and down. The dollar would weaken in response to improving global growth and liquidity conditions, the lower dollar would ease global financial conditions, further stimulating the global economy. A virtuous circle could then emerge. Chart I-16Increasing Financial Liquidity Will Hurt The Greenback Repatriation flows will also move from a tailwind to a headwind for the greenback. Prompted by both rising risk aversion and the Trump tax cuts, U.S. economic agents have repatriated $461 billion in the past 18 months. This has created powerful support for the USD (Chart I-17). The effect of the tax cut is vanishing and rising global growth will incentivize U.S. households and firms to buy foreign assets more levered to the global business cycle. In the process, they will sell the dollar. Chart I-17Repatriation Will Not Support The Dollar For Much Longer The euro will continue to behave as the anti-dollar, a consequence of the pair’s plentiful market liquidity. Moreover, the euro trades at a 17% discount to its purchasing power parity equilibrium. After last week’s rate cut and QE announcement, the European Central Bank has no more room to ease. Instead, the recent fall in peripheral bond spreads is loosening European financial conditions, which is boosting European growth prospects. This makes the euro more attractive. Bonds And Precious Metals Safe-haven yields will have significant upside in the coming 12 to 18 months. As we highlighted last month, bonds are so expensive, overbought and over-owned that they suffer from an extremely elevated probability of negative cyclical returns (Chart I-18, left and right panels). Moreover, excess reserves will once again grow when the Fed re-starts to expand its balance sheet. Higher excess reserves lead to a steeper yield curve slope (Chart I-19). Short rates have limited downside, therefore, the curve can only steepen via higher 10-year yields. Chart I-18AValuation And Technicals Point Toward Higher Yields In 12 Months (I) Chart I-18BValuation And Technicals Point Toward Higher Yields In 12 Months (II)   Chart I-19Fed Purchases Will Steepen The Curve Short-term dynamics are more complex. Treasury yields have climbed by 21 basis points since their September 3rd low, mostly on the back of decreasing trade tensions. In previous mid-cycle slowdowns, bond price tops only emerged after the ISM bottomed. We are not there yet. We expect substantial short-term volatility in yields in view of the unpredictable Sino-U.S. negotiations and the current lack of pick-up in global growth. During this transition process, cyclical investors should use bond rallies such as the current one to build below-benchmark duration positions in their fixed-income portfolios. Within precious metals, we continue to prefer silver to gold. We have favored precious metals since late June,6 but higher bond yields are negative for gold. However, central banks are maintaining a dovish bias aimed at lifting inflation breakevens back to their historical norm of 2.3% to 2.5%. This process increases the chance that the economy will overheat late next year. For the next 12 months, rising inflation expectations, not higher real rates, will push up bond yields. Combined with a weaker dollar, this configuration is mildly bullish for gold. Silver has a higher beta and more industrial uses than gold, which will allow for a period of outperformance if global growth increases. In this context, the silver-to-gold ratio, which stands at its 6th percentile since 1970, is an attractive mean-reversion play (Chart I-20). Chart I-20The Silver-Gold Ratio Is A Bargain Equities Investors should continue to favor stocks relative to bonds in the next year. Equities perform well up to six months before a recession starts (Table I-1). Moreover, our monetary and technical indicators are upbeat (see Section III). Additionally, sentiment surveys do not show rampant investor complacency (see Section III), which limits risks from a contrarian perspective. Meanwhile, yields have upside, which implies an outperformance of stocks versus bonds. Table I-1The S&P 500 Doesn’t Peak Until Six Months Before A Recession The short-term picture is more complex. P/E ratio expansion powered 90% of the S&P 500’s gains since it bottomed in December 24, 2018, and according to our model, U.S. operating earnings will contract for at least eight more months (Chart I-21). Thus, if yields mount through the rest of the year, multiples will likely contract. The S&P 500 is set to continue to churn over that time frame. Chart I-21U.S. Profits Still Have Downside In this context, strategy dictates investors focus on internal stock market dynamics. Namely, investors should favor financials and energy at the expense of tech and healthcare for the following reasons: Rising bond yields lift financials’ net interest margins. They also hurt multiples for tech stocks, which carry a large percentage of their intrinsic value in long-term cash flows and their terminal value. Thus, rising yields correlate with an outperformance of financials relative to tech (Chart I-22). Moreover, financials’ valuations and technicals are very depressed relative to tech, while comparative earnings estimates are equally morose (Chart I-23). Finally, our U.S. Equity Strategy team expects buybacks by financials to increase significantly.7 Chart I-22If Yields Rise, Financials Will Beat Tech Chart I-23Valuations, Technicals And Sentiment Favor Financials Over Tech     Rising yields also hurts healthcare stocks. Additionally, the rising popularity of Democratic progressives like Senator Elizabeth Warren requires investors embed a risk premium in the price of healthcare stocks (Chart I-24). The progressives want to nationalize healthcare insurance and compress healthcare profit margins, from drugs to hospitals. Chart I-24The Rise Of The Progressives Requires A Risk Premium In Health Care Stocks We have used energy stocks as a hedge against rising tensions in the Middle East. Now, our U.S. Equity Strategy colleagues have become more positive on this sector. Energy valuations and technicals are very attractive relative to the S&P 500 (Chart I-25).8 Energy stocks will outperform if global growth recovers and lifts global bond yields These sectoral recommendations argue investors should soon begin to favor European relative to U.S. stocks. Financials and energy are overrepresented in European equities while tech and healthcare are large overweight’s in the U.S. (Table I-2). Moreover, European activity is more sensitive to global economic momentum than the U.S. Thus, when global yields rally and the world economy stabilizes, European stocks will outperform their U.S. counterparts (Chart I-26). Additionally, European banks trade at 0.6-times book value which makes them the ultimate value play, one highly geared to easier European financial conditions and higher yields. Chart I-25Energy Is A Compelling Buy Table I-2Overweighting Europe Is Consistent With Our Sectoral RecommendationsChart I-26Europe Will Soon Outperform The U.S. Chart I-27Long-Term Investors Should Favor Stocks Over Bonds These sectoral biases are also consistent with value stocks outperforming growth equities. However, as Xiaoli Tang from BCA’s Global Asset Allocation service argues in Section II, the value-versus-growth question is a complex one that needs to be differentiated across geographies and equity size. Finally, long-term investors should also favor stocks over bonds. According to BCA Chief Global Strategist Peter Berezin, global stocks at their current valuations offer an expected 10-year real return of 4.2%. By historical standards, these are not elevated returns, but they are still much more generous than government bonds. Based on their dividend yields, U.S., Japanese and European equities need to fall by 18%, 28% and 40% before underperforming bonds on a 10-year basis, respectively.9 This is a large margin of safety (Chart I-27). We prefer foreign stocks with their more attractive valuations and local-currency expected returns. Additionally, the dollar is expensive and will weaken in a 5- to 10-year investment horizon. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst September 26, 2019 Next Report: October 31, 2019   II. Value? Growth? It Really Depends! Investors should pay particular attention to definition and methodology when evaluating value versus growth strategies, both academically and in practice. Value investors should focus on non-U.S. markets, especially the emerging market small-cap universe. Growth investors should focus on large caps, especially the U.S. large-cap universe. Small-cap investors should focus on value. Large- and mid-cap investors should not be making bets between value and growth strategically. Tactical style rotation should be done only when valuation spreads reach extreme levels.  GAA remains neutral on value versus growth, but prefers to use sector positioning (cyclicals versus defensives, financials versus tech and health care) and country positioning (euro area versus U.S.) to implement style tilts. Investing by way of style is as old as investing itself. Value versus growth has been one of the most frequently asked questions among our clients of late, particularly given the sharp style reversal in recent weeks. In this report, we attempt to answer some of the most often-asked questions on value versus growth. We have arranged these questions into five separate sections: First, we look at 93 years of history of the Fama-French value and growth portfolios to see how value, growth, and size have interacted over time, because academics have mostly used the Fama-French framework. Second, we look at how comparable U.S. style indices are, including the S&P, the Russell and the MSCI, since practitioners mostly use these commercial indices as their benchmarks. Third, we investigate if international markets share the same value-growth performance cycles as the U.S., using the MSCI suite of value-growth indices (since MSCI is the only index provider that produces value-growth indices for each market under its global coverage). Fourth, we investigate if pure exposure to value and growth can actually improve the value-growth performance spread by comparing the pure style indices from the S&P and the Russell to their standard counterparts. Finally, we present the GAA approach to style tilts in a section on our investment conclusions. 1. Is It True That Value Outperforms Growth In The Long Run? There has been overwhelming academic evidence supporting the existence of the value premium.10 Academically, the “value premium”, also known as the HML (high minus low) factor premium, or the value outperformance, is defined as the return differential between the cheapest stocks and the most expensive. Even though Fama and French used book-to-price as the sole valuation criterion,11 many researchers have combined book-to-price with other valuation measures such as earnings-to-price, sales-to-price, dividend yield,12 and so on.  There is also academic evidence suggesting that “value outperformance is almost non-existent among large-cap stocks.”13 What is more, in 2014 Fama and French caused a huge stir by publishing “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model” working paper demonstrating that “HML is a redundant factor” because “the average HML return is captured by the exposure of the HML to other factors” (such as size, profitability, and investment pattern) based on U.S. data from 1963 to 2013.14 Asset owners and allocators should pay special attention when selecting benchmarks for value and growth. For non-quant practitioners, especially the long-only investors, value and growth are two separate investment styles, even though the style classification shares the same principle as the academic “value factor.” Their definitions vary, as evidenced by how S&P Dow Jones, FTSE Russell, and MSCI define their value and growth indexes (see next section on page 7). In general, value stocks are cheap, with lower-than-average earnings growth potential, while growth stocks have higher-than-average earnings growth potential but are very expensive. The indices published by commercial index providers do not have very long histories, however. Fortunately, Fama and French also provide value-growth-size portfolios on their publicly available website.15 Table II-1 shows that for 93 years, from July 1926 to June 2019, U.S. value portfolios in both large-cap and small-cap buckets based on the well-known Fama-French approach have returned more than their growth counterparts, no matter whether the portfolios are equal-weighted or market-cap-weighted. Most strikingly, equal-weighted small-cap value outperformed its growth counterpart by over 10% a year in absolute terms, and has more than doubled the risk-adjusted return compared to its growth counterpart. Table II-1Fama-French Value-Growth-Size Portfolio Performance* Some media reports have claimed that value stocks are “less volatile” because they are on average “larger and better-established companies.”16 This may be true for some specific time periods. For the 93 years covered by Fama and French, however, this common belief is not supported. In fact, value portfolios in both the large- and small-cap universes have consistently had higher volatility than growth portfolios, no matter how the components are weighted. The excess returns, however, have more than offset the higher volatilities in three out of four pairs, with the exception being market cap-weighted large-cap growth, which has a slightly higher risk-adjusted return due to much lower volatility than its value counterpart. From a very long-term perspective, the value outperformance does come from taking higher risk. Further investigation shows that the superior long-run outperformance of value relative to growth came mostly in the first 80 years of Fama and French’s 93-year sample. In more recent years since 2007, however, value has underperformed growth significantly in three out of the four Fama-French value-growth pairs, with the equal-weighted small-cap value-growth pair being the sole exception, as shown in Table II-2. Even though the equal-weighted small-cap value has still outperformed its growth counterpart in the most recent period, the hit ratio drops to 54% compared to 76% in the first 80 years, while the magnitude of average calendar-year outperformance drops to a meager 1.3%, compared to 12.5% in the first 80 years. Table II-2The Fight Between Value And Growth* Statistical analysis is sensitive to the time period chosen. How have value and growth been performing over time? Chart II-1 shows the long-term dynamics among value, growth, and size. The following conclusions are clear: Chart II-1Fama-French Value-Growth-Size Peformance Dynamics* Value investors should favor small caps over large caps, while growth investors should do the opposite, favoring large caps over small caps, albeit with much less potential success (Chart II-1, panel 1). Small-cap investors should favor value stocks over growth stocks (panel 2). Value outperformance in the large-cap space (panel 3) is much weaker than in the small-cap space (panel 2). Fama and French define small and large caps based on the median market cap of all NYSE stocks on CRSP (Center for Research In Security Prices), then use the NYSE median size to split NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ (after 1972) into a small-cap group and a large-cap group. The value and growth split is based on book-to-price, with stocks in the lowest 30% classified as growth, and the highest 30% as value. Interestingly, small-cap value and small-cap growth account for only a very small portion of the entire universe, as shown in Charts II-2A and II-2B. Value stocks’ average market cap is about half of that of growth stocks, in both the large- and small-cap universes (panel 3 in Charts II-2A and II-2B). Again, this does not support some media claims that value stocks are larger and better-established companies. However, it does add further support to the claim that all investors should favor small-cap value stocks. Unfortunately, “small-cap value” is a very small universe. As of June 2019, the CRSP total U.S. equity market cap was $26.2 trillion, with small-cap value accounting for only 1.5% (about $383 billion); even large-cap value comprises only a relatively small weight, 13% (US$3.5 trillion). Chart II-2ASmall-Cap Value-Growth Portfolios* Chart II-2BLarge-Cap Value-Growth Portfolios*   The U.S. market is dominated by large-cap growth stocks with a heavy weight of 56% (US$14.7 trillion, as of June 2019). This is encouraging because academic research does show that the value premium among large caps is weak. But the large-cap value weakness mostly started from 2007, after 80 years of strength relative to large-cap growth (Chart II-1, panel 3). The Fama-French approach is widely used in academic research, partly due to its long history from 1926. For non-quant practitioners, especially long-only investors, however, commercial indexes from FTSE Russell, S&P Dow Jones, and MSCI are more often used as performance benchmarks. In this report, we study a series of commercial value-growth indexes in the U.S. and globally to shed light on value-growth dynamics, and how asset allocators can incorporate them into their decision-making processes. 2. Not All U.S. Style Indexes Are Created Equal Three major index providers have style indices. They are FTSE Russell (which launched the industry’s first set of value-growth indexes in 1987), S&P Dow Jones, and MSCI. MSCI is the only provider that has a full suite of value-growth indices for all individual markets under coverage. While all three provide “standard” style indices that include the full component of the parent index, the FTSE Russell and the S&P Dow Jones also provide “pure” style indices. There are two major differences between “standard” and “pure” style indices: 1) the standard indices are market-cap weighted, while the “pure” indices are weighted based on style score. 2) Standard value and standard growth have overlapping components, while pure value and pure growth do not share any common components. We prefer to use sector and country positioning to implement style tilts tactically. Other than book-to-price, the value variable used by the Fama-French approach, the three providers have added different variables in the determination of value and growth, as shown in Table II-3. This also reflects the evolution of the industry’s understanding on value and growth. For example, when MSCI first launched its style index in 1997, it used only book-to-price, but changed its approach in May 2003 to the current “multi-factor two-dimension” framework. Table II-3Value-Growth Index Criteria Because of the differences in index construction methodology, value-growth indices for the U.S. have behaved differently. The S&P 500, the Russell 1000, and the MSCI standard (large and mid-cap) indices are widely followed institutional benchmarks, with back-tested history dating to the 1970s. Chart II-3 shows the relative value/growth performance dynamics from the three index providers, together with that from Fama and French (market value-weighted, to be consistent with the approach from the index providers). One can observe the following: Chart II-3Which Value/Growth? None of the three pairs looks exactly like Fama-French’s market-cap value-weighted value/growth. This raises the question of how historical analysis based on the long history of Fama-French value/growth portfolios can be applied to the commercial indices. In the first cycle from 1975 to February 2000, all three index pairs made a round trip, with flat performance between value and growth. Also, even though the S&P 500 and Russell 1000 were more closely correlated with one another than with the MSCI, the three were quite similar. In the current cycle that began in February 2000, however, Russell value/growth has rebounded much more strongly than the other two. But in the down period that started in 2007, the three indices performed in line with each other, as shown in Table II-4. Table II-4U.S. Style Index Performance* In addition, the difference between S&P and Russell does not just lie between the S&P 500 and the Russell 1000. It actually exists in every market-cap segment, as shown in Chart II-4. Unfortunately, MSCI does not provide history from 1975 for the detailed cap segments. In the current cycle since February 2000, S&P value rebounded the least between 2000 and 2006. Why? Chart II-4Know Your Benchmark Further investigation reveals some interesting observations, as shown in Chart II-5. Chart II-5Value/Growth: Russell Vs. S&P At the aggregate level, the S&P 1500, the Russell 3000 and their respective style indices have performed largely in line with one another in the most recent cycle starting from February 2000 (Chart II-5, panel 4), reflecting the industry trend of index convergence. In different market cap segments, however, the divergence is still prominent, especially in the small-cap space (panel 1). The S&P 600 has consistently outperformed the Russell 2000 in both the value and growth categories. In addition to different style factors, this consistency also reflects different universes, size distribution, and sector exposure, as explained in an earlier GAA Special Report on small caps.17 Managers with Russell 2000 as their performance benchmark could simply beat it by doing a total-return-performance swap between the Russell 2000 and the S&P 600. Bottom Line: Asset owners and allocators should pay special attention when selecting benchmarks for value and growth.  3. How Have Value And Growth Performed Globally? MSCI is the only index provider that also produces value-growth indices for each equity market under its global coverage, using the same methodology. Unfortunately, only the “standard” (i.e., large- and mid-cap) universe has a long history, dating from December 1974. Charts II-6A and II-6B show the value/growth dynamics in major DM and EM markets. The relative performance of MSCI DM value versus growth shares a similar pattern to that of the U.S. in the latest cycle since 2000, but looks very different in the period before 2000 (Chart II-6A). The ratio of EM large- and mid-cap value versus growth did not peak until February 2012, about five years after the peak of its DM peer (Chart II-6B, panel 1). On the other hand, EM small-cap value has resumed its outperformance versus growth since early 2016 after having peaked around the same time as its large-cap counterpart. Chart II-6AIs Value Dead In DM? Chart II-6BIs Value Dead In EM?   The global value/growth dynamics also show that the “value outperforming growth” effect is more prominent in the small-cap space. But why has small value also underperformed small growth in most DM markets? Our explanation is that the EM universe is much less efficient than the DM universe because there are not many quant funds dedicated to the EM small-cap space – in addition to the fact that, in general, EM small caps are much smaller than those in DM markets. This is also in line with our finding that, in general, factor premia are more prominent in the EM universe.18 Bottom Line: Value premium is more prominent in non-U.S. markets, especially the EM small-cap universe. 4. Do Pure Style Indices Improve Performance? Both S&P Dow Jones and FTSE Russell provide pure-value and pure-growth indices. Unlike the standard value-growth indices, which target about 50% of the parent market cap, the pure-style indices include only stocks with the strongest value and growth characteristics. There is no overlap between the two. In theory, the pure-style indices should outperform the standard-style indices because of their concentrated exposure to style factors. How do they do in reality? Table II-5 shows that in terms of absolute return, this is indeed the case for 14 out of the 18 pairs of indices from S&P and Russell for the period between 1998 and 2019. However, the higher returns from greater exposure to style factors have largely come from much higher volatility in 17 out of the 18 pairs. Pure style has higher volatility than standard style in general, the only exception being the Russell mid-cap value space. As such, on a risk-adjusted basis, pure style is not necessarily better. Table II-5Purer Is Not Necessarily Better Charts II-7A and II-7B show the different performance dynamics for the S&P and Russell families of style indices. For the S&P indices, pure growth has outperformed standard growth for the entire period in all three market-cap segments, but only the S&P 500 pure value outperformed its standard counterpart. Therefore, more concentrated exposure to style characteristics has improved the value-growth spread only in the large-cap space, but it has actually worsened the value-growth spread in the mid- and small-cap universes (Chart II-7A). Chart II-7AS&P Pure Styles* Chart II-7BRussell Pure Styles*   For the Russell indices, it’s clear that there were a lot more tech stocks in its pure-growth indices leading up to the 2000 tech bubble, because pure growth shot up significantly more than the standard growth before the bubble burst, and also crashed more severely following it. Overall, only in the small-cap space did the value-growth spread improve by the more concentrated exposure to style factors. However, this improvement was not because of the outperformance of the pure-style relative to the standard indices. In fact, both pure value and pure growth in the small-cap universe underperformed their standard counterparts, but pure growth performed even worse (Chart II-7B and Table II-5). 5. Investment Conclusions Value and growth can mean very different things and behave very differently. Investors should pay special attention to the definitions and methodologies when evaluating style indices or strategies, both academically and in practice. Depending on an investor’s mandate, the following is recommended: Value investors should focus on non-U.S. markets, especially the emerging market small-cap universe. Growth investors should focus on large caps, especially the U.S. large-cap space. Small-cap investors should focus on value. Large-and mid-cap investors should not make bets between value and growth strategically. Tactical style rotation should be done only when valuation spreads reach extreme levels. Price-to-book is the only common variable used in the determination of value and growth by academics and practitioners. Its track record as a systematic return predictor has been poor, as shown in panel 2 of Charts II-8A and II-8B. Another factor we have a long history for is dividend yield. Its predictive power is even worse than that of price-to-book (panel 3). Chart II-8AValuation Is A Poor Timing Tool In The U.S. Chart II-8BValuation Is A Poor Timing Tool Globally   Many factors have been used in conjunction with price-to-book by both academics and practitioners to time the rotation between value and growth. However, the results have been mixed. Regression models that correctly predicted in the past may not work in the future. For example, a regression model based on valuation spread and earnings-growth spread using data from January 1982 to October 1999 successfully predicted the rebound of value outperformance starting in early 2000,19 but the universal suffering of value funds over the past several years implies that this model may have given many false signals. Chart II-9 demonstrates how difficult it is to use regression models as a timing tool for value and growth rotation. A simple regression is conducted between value and growth return differentials (subsequent 60-month returns) and relative price-to-book. For data from December 1974 to July 2019, the r-squared for the MSCI world is 0.38 and for the U.S. it is 0.09. In hindsight, both models predicted the value outperformance starting in early 2000. However, the gaps between actual value and fitted value started to open, long before 2000. By late 1998, the gaps were already wider than the previous cycle lows, yet they continued to widen as value continued to underperform growth until February 2000. Chart II-9How Good Is The Fit? What should investors currently do, based on these models? The gaps are large, but not as large as in early 2000. At which point should investors start to shift into value given its more than 12 years of underperformance? We have often written that we prefer to use sector and country positioning to implement style tilts.20, 21  This preference has not changed. Value and growth indices have sector tilts that change over time. Currently, the S&P Dow Jones large- and mid-cap value indices have a clear overweight in financials but an underweight in tech and health care compared to their growth counterparts (Table II-6). Table II-6Sector Bets In Value And Growth Indices* Chart II-10Prefer Sector And Country Positioning To Style We have been neutral on value and growth, but would likely change this view if we change our country equity allocation between the U.S. and the euro area, and our equity sector allocation between cyclicals and defensives as well as between financials and information technology (Chart II-10). Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President Global Asset Allocation III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 will continue to churn this year. U.S. stocks have rebounded sharply through the month of September, yet, sentiment is neutral. Nonetheless, for now, stocks are likely to find it hard to meaningfully break above their July highs. Short-term momentum oscillators are overbought and U.S. profits still have downside. Because this year’s equity rally has been nearly entirely driven by multiples, this leaves equities vulnerable to any back-up in yields. As yields have not priced in any pick-up in growth, potential positive economic surprises are more likely to lift yields than stock prices. However, if growth disappoints, weak rates will cushion to blow to expected earnings. In line with this picture, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continues to shun stocks. 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 strong market momentum is not supported by valuations and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Global growth remains the biggest problem for stocks. Until the global economy finds a floor, the outlook for profits will be poor and our RPI will argue against buying equities. The outlook for next year remains constructive for stocks. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. and Japan is markedly improving. However, it continues to deteriorate 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. Global yields remain very depressed at highly stimulatory levels. Moreover, money growth has picked up around the world, and global central banks are cutting rates and expanding their balance sheets again. As a result, our Monetary Indicator remains at its most accommodative level since early 2015. Furthermore, our Composite Technical Indicator might not be improving anymore but it is still very much in constructive territory. Therefore, unlike four years ago, equities are more likely to avoid the headwind created by their overvaluation, especially as our BCA Composite Valuation index continues to improve.  10-year Treasurys may have cheapened a bit since last month, but they remain very expensive. Moreover, when current overvaluation levels are met by our technical indicator being as massively overbought as it is today, safe-haven bonds experience significant price declines over the following 12 months. That being said, the timing of a backup in yields is uncertain. If previous mid-cycle slowdowns are any guide, yields might need to wait for a bottom in the global manufacturing PMIs before rising freely. Nonetheless, the current setup argues against adding to long-duration bets. On a PPP basis, the U.S. dollar is only growing more expensive and the U.S. current account is deteriorating anew. For now, weak global manufacturing activity has helped the dollar stay well bid. However, our Composite Technical Indicator has lost momentum and has formed a negative divergence with the Greenback’s level. This means that the dollar is highly vulnerable to any stabilization in growth. In fact, we would argue that the USD might prove to be the best variable to evaluate whether global growth is forming a durable bottom or not.   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 Section I, “September 2019,” dated August 29, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Section I, “July 2019,” dated June 27, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3       Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Oil Factor,” dated September 23, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 4              J. D. Hamilton, "Historical Oil Shocks," NBER Working Paper No. 16790. 5       Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "Policy Risk, Uncertainty Cloud Oil Price Forecast," dated September 19, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 6       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Section I, “July 2019,” dated June 27, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7       Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Great Rotation,” dated September 16, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 8       Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Oil Factor,” dated September 23, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 9       Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?,” dated August 23, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 10     Antti Ilmanen, Ronen Israel, Tobias J. Moskowitz, Ashwin Thapar, Franklin Wang, “Factor Premia and Factor Timing: A Century of Evidence,” AQR Working Paper, July 2, 2019. 11     Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “Common risk factors in the return on stocks and bonds,” Journal of Financial Economics, 33 (1993). 12     Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz, “Fact, Fiction, and Value Investing,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Vol. 42 No.1, Fall 2015. 13     Ronen Israel and Tobias J. Moskowitz, “The Role of Shorting, Firm Size and Time on Market Anomalies,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol 108, Issue 2, May 2013 14      Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model,” Working Paper, University of Chicago, September 2014. 15             Fama-French value-growth-size portfolios. 16     Mark P. Cussen, “Value or growth Stocks: Which are Better?” Investopedia, Jun 25, 2019. 17     Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report titled “Small Cap Outperformance: Fact or Myth?” dated April 7, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 18     Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report titled, “Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?” dated July 8, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 19    Clifford S. Asness, Jacques A Friedman, Robert J. Krail and John M Liew, “Style Timing: Value versus Growth,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Spring 2000. 20     Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, “Quarterly - March 2016,” dated March 31, 2016, and available at gaa. bcaresearch.com. 21     Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, “Quarterly - April 2019,” dated April 1, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed wants to maintain accommodative financial conditions, and will therefore deliver another rate cut this year if it is expected by the market. This creates a supportive environment for spread product. Ultimately, stronger global growth will lead rate expectations higher over the next 12 months. Keep portfolio duration low. Money Markets & Fed Balance Sheet: Investors shouldn’t worry about last week’s chaotic action in money markets, and should pay less attention to the Fed’s balance sheet policy in general. Yes, the Fed will start growing its balance sheet again in the coming months, but this is much less important than what it decides to do with the fed funds rate. Global Economy: Leading indicators suggest that the global manufacturing downturn is near a trough, but the coincident PMI data have not yet bottomed. Treasury yields won’t move significantly higher until the Global Manufacturing PMI reverses course. Feature Chart 1Fed Dots Versus Market Expectations Fed Chairman Jerome Powell had his work cut out for him at last week’s FOMC press conference. First, he had to craft a coherent message about the Fed’s reaction function following a meeting where three voting members dissented from the committee’s decision to lower the funds rate by 25 bps. One dissenter, St. Louis Fed President James Bullard, wanted a 50 bps reduction. The other two, Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and Kansas City Fed President Esther George, preferred to leave rates unchanged. Not only that, but Powell also had to field questions about the recent turmoil in money markets. Turmoil that caused the overnight repo rate to spike and the effective fed funds rate to briefly print outside the Fed’s target band (see section titled “Repo Madness” below). Chart 2Tracking Financial Conditions How did he perform? On all accounts we give the Chairman top marks. He managed to articulate a reaction function that didn’t commit to any near-term policy action, but most importantly, he did so in a way that prevented a sharp tightening of financial conditions. As we have argued in past reports, Chairman Powell’s most important job is to ensure that financial conditions remain accommodative so that the economic recovery can continue for long enough to bring long-dated inflation expectations back up to target.1 Chart 2 shows that, even after a tricky Fed meeting, financial conditions remain significantly more accommodative than they were earlier in the month: Credit spreads are tighter (Chart 2, panel 2) The yield curve has un-inverted (Chart 2, panel 3) TIPS breakeven inflation rates have widened (Chart 2, panel 4) The trade-weighted dollar has weakened (Chart 2, bottom panel) All this with only 7 out of 17 FOMC participants agreeing with the market’s assessment that one more 25 bps rate cut before year-end will be appropriate (see Chart 1). All in all, Powell did exactly what he needed to do. Investment Implications Table 1What's Priced In For The Rest Of 2019? As mentioned above, the market is priced for roughly one more 25 bps rate cut before the end of the year. More specifically, the fed funds futures market is split 50/50 on whether that rate cut occurs at the October or December FOMC meeting (Table 1). The market currently sees only a 4% chance of a rate cut at both meetings, and zero chance of no rate cut at all. We think the market’s view of the next two FOMC meetings is roughly correct, though we would not discount the possibility that global economic data improve enough that further rate cuts are avoided (see section titled “Still Searching For A Bottom” below). Ideally, the Fed wants the economic data to lead rate expectations higher so that it can avoid cutting rates without shocking the market and tightening financial conditions. Conversely, if the market starts to fully price-in an October rate cut in the next few weeks, then the Fed will likely deliver. This reaction function is extremely supportive for credit spreads, and we recommend sticking with an overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. Chart 3Treasury Returns Track Rate Expectations As for portfolio duration, we continue to abide by our Golden Rule framework.2 If the Fed delivers less than the 57 bps of easing that the market expects over the next 12 months, then the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index will likely underperform a position in cash (Chart 3). We see better odds of zero or one rate cut over that timeframe, and therefore recommend a below-benchmark duration stance. Bottom Line: The Fed wants to maintain accommodative financial conditions, and will therefore deliver another rate cut this year if it is expected by the market. This creates a supportive environment for spread product. Ultimately, stronger global growth will lead rate expectations higher over the next 12 months. Keep portfolio duration low. Repo Madness What Happened? Chart 4What Happened Here? As mentioned above, overnight U.S. interest rates spiked dramatically last week, grabbing headlines and causing many to question the stability of financial markets. The commotion peaked last Tuesday when the overnight general collateral repo rate closed at just under 7% and the effective fed funds rate ended the day above the upper limit of the Fed’s target band (Chart 4). Why Did This Happen? Chart 5Looking For The Culprit The turmoil’s proximate cause is that dealer banks found themselves short of cash. They therefore scrambled to borrow in money markets, driving overnight rates higher. Dealer banks were short on cash for a number of reasons. Many corporations withdrew funds to pay tax bills, and there was an unusually large amount of Treasury issuance in September, along with few redemptions (Chart 5). Dealer banks must purchase Treasury debt at auction, and of course require cash on hand to do so. But setting the proximate cause aside, the more important question is: Why don’t dealer banks have sufficient cash to weather such periods, which are bound to occur from time to time? The answer to this question has to do with the quantity of reserves being supplied to the banking system, which is ultimately a result of the Fed’s balance sheet policy. The Fed’s Balance Sheet & The Supply Of Bank Reserves Table 2Simplified Fed Balance Sheet Table 2 shows an abridged version of the Fed’s balance sheet as of last Wednesday, September 18. Notice that the Fed’s securities holdings appear on the asset side of the balance sheet, while the Fed’s liabilities include: (i) currency in circulation, (ii) the Treasury department’s cash account and (iii) bank reserves. Reserves are a liability on the Fed’s balance sheet, but appear as an asset on the consolidated balance sheet of the U.S. banking system. In other words, the banking system’s supply of liquid reserves is always equal to the Fed’s assets less the amount of currency in circulation and the Fed’s other “non-reserve liabilities”. Put simply, if dealer banks don’t have enough cash, it is because the Fed is not holding enough securities. Chart 6The Fed's Balance Sheet Over Time In fact, the Fed has been steadily draining the supply of bank reserves since 2014 (Chart 6). Initially, it did so passively by keeping its securities holdings constant and allowing reserves to decline by the amount of increase in currency-in-circulation and other “non-reserve liabilities”. Then, between October 2017 and July of this year, it actually shrank its portfolio, causing reserves to leave the system even more quickly. In August, the Fed returned to a policy of keeping its securities holdings constant, slowing the rate of decline in bank reserves.   It is also worth mentioning that the rate of decline in bank reserves was recently exacerbated by a sharp increase in the Treasury department’s cash holdings (Chart 6, bottom panel). The Treasury department needed to rebuild its cash balance after having run it down in advance of the last debt ceiling deadline. Like currency-in-circulation, the Treasury department’s cash holdings are a liability on the Fed’s balance sheet. All else equal, an increase in the Treasury’s cash holdings leads to a decline in the supply of bank reserves. Next Steps Chart 7The Fed's Floor System This year the Fed has been navigating through a process of “balance sheet normalization” where it seeks to reduce its asset holdings while still supplying enough bank reserves to ensure the effective operation of monetary policy. The Fed has already decided to operate monetary policy using a “floor system”, in contrast to the “corridor system” it employed prior to the financial crisis. In a corridor system, the Fed keeps the supply of bank reserves scarce, and then engages in daily repo transactions to ensure that it supplies just enough bank reserves to prevent the overnight rate from breaking through the top of its target range. In contrast, to operate a floor system the Fed must supply more reserves than the banking system demands. The excess supply of reserves forces the overnight rate down toward a floor set by the Fed’s overnight reverse repo facility (ON RRP). Essentially, the Fed sets the ON RRP rate at a level near the bottom of its target range, and pledges to pay that rate to any banks with excess cash (Chart 7). The fact that interest rates broke out above the top-end of the Fed’s target band last week suggests that the Fed is not supplying enough reserves to effectively operate its floor system. This means that we should consider the Fed’s “balance sheet normalization” process complete. In the coming weeks the Fed will roll out a plan to start growing its securities portfolio. It will do this by purchasing Treasuries with a maturity structure that roughly matches that of the outstanding debt load. The pace of Treasury purchases will either be set equal to the estimated rate of growth in non-reserve liabilities, a pace that would keep the supply of bank reserves flat and one that the Fed calls “organic growth”. Alternatively, the Fed might decide that the supply of reserves needs to rise for a time before leveling off. In that case, it would purchase Treasuries at a somewhat faster pace for a few months, before settling into an “organic growth” regime. The Fed will probably also roll out a standing repo facility in the coming months, with a rate set close to the upper-end of its target band. This will act as the mirror image of the current ON RRP, essentially capping the upside in interest rates by agreeing to lend overnight cash at a stated rate. The supply of bank reserves necessary for the Fed to maintain effective control of interest rates is much higher than during the pre-crisis.period  It will take at least a few weeks for the Fed to roll out its new balance sheet strategy and standing repo facility. In the meantime, the New York Fed will transact daily in the repo markets to ensure that enough reserves are supplied. This action represents a temporary return to a corridor system. Once the Fed starts growing its Treasury holdings again, it will be able to resume its floor system and the daily repo transactions will not be necessary. Some have probably already noted that the supply of bank reserves necessary for the Fed to maintain effective control of interest rates is much higher than during the pre-crisis period (see Chart 6). This is purely the result of the new post-crisis regulatory environment (see Box). Box - New Regulations Mean Banks Want More Reserves Two new regulations, specifically, have increased the amount of reserves that banks wish to hold. The first is the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR). The LCR mandates that banks hold sufficient high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) to cover 30 days of cash outflows in a stressed scenario. Bank reserves qualify as HQLAs, as do Treasury securities. Some other securities can also count as  HQLAs after a haircut is applied. While banks can opt to hold Treasuries instead of reserves and still maintain compliance with the LCR. A St. Louis Fed report from March showed that large U.S. banks are using reserves to cover 20% - 65% of their net outflows.3  The second relevant regulation is the resolution plan, or living will, that large banks are now forced to file with regulators. While the criteria here are more opaque, banks must demonstrate to regulators that they have enough short-term liquidity to cover demands from counterparties and other stakeholders in the event of material financial distress. Regulators likely put a greater emphasis on reserves than Treasury securities during such stress tests, since during a period of financial turmoil there may be doubts about how quickly a bank can convert a Treasury security into cash in the repo market.  Is This The Return Of QE? The answer really depends on how you want to define QE. If you want to call any increase in the Fed’s securities holdings QE, then yes the Fed will soon re-start QE. If you want to define QE as an expansion in the supply of bank reserves, then the Fed might briefly engage in QE for a few months, before reverting to an “organic growth” policy that keeps the reserve supply stable. In any event, unless you are active in money markets, we would advise investors to pay much less attention to the Fed’s balance sheet policy. The goal of its balance sheet policy is to ensure that interest rates remain within its target band, and the Fed will move that target band around independently of what is happening with its balance sheet. Changes in the Fed’s target interest rates are what matter for financial markets. Still Searching For A Bottom For reasons articulated in prior reports – notably, accommodative financial conditions and resolute service sector growth – we remain convinced that the current global manufacturing slowdown is near a trough.4 However, we must also point out that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield tends to track the broad swings in the Global Manufacturing PMI, and a significant rebound in the 10-year yield is unlikely without a corresponding PMI upswing (Chart 8). Chart 8No PMI Rebound Yet... Chart 9...But Leading Indicators Are Hooking Up On that note, September Flash PMI data for the U.S. and Eurozone were released yesterday, and were at best a mixed bag. The Eurozone Manufacturing PMI fell from 47.0 in August to 45.6 in September (Chart 8, bottom panel) while its U.S. counterpart ticked higher from 50.3 to 51.0 (Chart 8, panel 3). In general, it is too early to say that the global PMI data have bottomed, especially with the CRB Raw Industrials index – a broad commodities benchmark – still in free fall (Chart 8, panel 2). Global Leading Economic Indicators paint a somewhat rosier picture than the PMIs. In fact, our Global LEI appears to have bottomed, and should eventually lead the Global PMI higher if prior correlations hold (Chart 9). We also observe that the U.S. economic data are once again beating expectations, an occurrence that usually corresponds with higher yields (Chart 9, bottom panel). In general, it is too early to say that the global PMI data have bottomed. Bottom Line: Leading indicators suggest that the global manufacturing downturn is near a trough, but the coincident PMI data have not yet bottomed. Treasury yields won’t move significantly higher until the Global Manufacturing PMI reverses course.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Act As Appropriate”, dated August 27, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3  https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2019/march/banks-demand-reserves-face-liquidity-regulations 4  Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Where’s The Positive Carry In Bond Markets?”, dated August 20, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Analyses on Indonesia and South Africa are available below. The slowdown in Chinese domestic demand has been the main culprit behind the global trade contraction - not the U.S.-China trade confrontation. China’s economy is not reliant on exports to the U.S. and there has been little damage to Chinese total exports. In contrast, Chinese imports have been contracting, dampening global trade. A recovery in the former is contingent on credit stimulus. Feature Chart I-1Chinese Imports Are Contracting Yet U.S. Ones Are Not With odds of a potential trade deal between the U.S. and China rising, the question now becomes whether an imminent acceleration in global trade will occur, sparking a rally in EM risk assets and currencies. We believe the trade confrontation between the U.S. and China has not been the main culprit behind the global trade contraction and manufacturing recession. The latter has primarily been due to a slowdown in Chinese domestic demand. Chart I-1 illustrates that Chinese imports for domestic consumption (excluding processing trade) are shrinking at 6% while U.S. total imports are still growing at 2% from a year ago. Consequently, an improvement in the global business cycle due to a potential trade agreement between the U.S. and China will be limited. Provided the global business cycle is the main factor driving EM risk assets and currencies, there is no sufficient reason to turn bullish on EM at the current juncture. Origin Of The Global Trade Slowdown Tariffs have mainly affected global growth indirectly (via dampening business confidence) rather than directly – by derailing Chinese exports to the U.S. or by affecting American consumer spending. First, U.S. household spending is still reasonably robust, and U.S. imports from the rest of the world have slowed but have not contracted (Chart I-2). Hence, the trade confrontation has not derailed U.S. household spending, and the latter’s impact on global trade has been mildly positive rather than negative. An improvement in the global business cycle due to a potential trade agreement between the U.S. and China will be limited. Second, Chinese exports have been more resilient than those of other Asian economies (Chart I-3). If the tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S. were the main cause of the global trade slump, Chinese exports would be shrinking the most. Yet Chinese exports are not contracting – their growth rate is close to zero while Korean and Japanese exports have been plummeting (Chart I-3). Chart I-2U.S. Consumer Spending And Imports Have Not Been A Drag On Global Trade Chart I-3Exports In China Are Faring Better Than Those In Japan And Korea   While China’s shipments to the U.S. have certainly plunged, there is both anecdotal and empirical evidence that mainland-produced goods have been making their way to the U.S. via Taiwan, Vietnam and other economies (Chart I-4). This is why Chinese aggregate exports are not contracting. Third, Chinese exports are doing better than imports (Chart I-5). This tells us that the underlying reason for the slowdown both in China and globally is not tariffs, but rather the weakness in Chinese domestic demand. Chart I-4China's Exports To U.S. Have Been Re-Routed Via Rest Of Asia Chart I-5Chinese Imports Are Worse Than Its Exports   Importantly, ongoing contraction in Chinese imports excluding processing trade (i.e., excluding imports of inputs that are assembled and then re-exported) is a clear indication of a slump in Chinese domestic demand (please refer to Chart I-1 on page 1). Capital outlays in general and construction activity in particular remain very weak (Chart I-6). This is consistent with shrinking import volumes of capital goods, base metals, chemicals and lumber (Chart I-7). Chart I-6China: Capex Is In Doldrums Chart I-7China: Capex-Exposed Imports Are Shrinking   Chart I-8China's Economy Is Not Reliant On Exports To The U.S. Finally, Chart I-8 shows that Chinese exports to the U.S. before the commencement of the trade war represented less than 4% of Chinese GDP. In contrast, capital spending in China is 42% of GDP. Hence, China’s economy is not reliant on exports to the U.S. This is why in our research and strategy we emphasize the mainland’s money/credit cycle – which leads capital spending – much more than its exports. To be clear, we are not implying that the U.S.-China trade confrontation has had no bearing on global growth. It has certainly affected business and consumer sentiment in China and hurt confidence among multinational companies. Hence, a trade deal could boost sentiment among these segments, leading to some improvement in their spending. Nevertheless, odds are that businesspeople in China and multinational CEOs around the world will realize that we are witnessing a secular rise in the U.S.-China confrontation, and that any trade deal will be temporary. The basis is that the genuine interests of the U.S. go against China’s national interests, since the U.S. has an interest in preventing the formation of a regional empire that can then challenge it for global supremacy. Conversely, whatever is in the long-term interests of China will not be acceptable for the U.S., particularly China’s rapid military and technological advancement. As such, global CEOs may see through a trade deal and any improvement in their confidence will likely be muted. In fact, if a China-U.S. trade détente leads Chinese authorities to resort to less stimulus going forward, odds are that China’s domestic demand revival will be delayed. Hence, the positive boost to global trade will not be substantial. The underlying reason for the slowdown both in China and globally is not tariffs, but rather the weakness in Chinese domestic demand. In such a case, global manufacturing and trade contraction will likely last longer than financial markets are presently pricing in. Asset prices will need to be reset in this scenario before a new cyclical rally begins. Bottom Line: The trade confrontation has not been the main reason behind the global trade slowdown. Consequently, its temporary resolution may not be enough to produce a cyclical recovery in global trade. Given financial markets have already bounced back in recent weeks, they may follow a “buy the rumor, sell the news” pattern regarding the trade deal. Investors should continue to underweight EM equities, sovereign credit and currencies within respective global portfolios. In absolute term, risks to EM assets and currencies are still tilted to the downside too. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Indonesia: Relapsing Growth Risks Foreign Outflows Indonesian stocks and the rupiah have been benefiting from falling U.S. interest rate expectations. This has been occurring even though domestic fundamentals, namely economic growth and the outlook for corporate profits, have been deteriorating. The Indonesian economy is undergoing a sharp slowdown: The private credit impulse is declining (Chart II-1, top panel). Retail sales volume of various goods are heading south (Chart II-1, middle panel). Mirroring the weakness in investment expenditures, capital goods imports are shrinking (Chart II-1, bottom panel). Passenger car sales are shrinking and sales of other types of vehicles have stalled. The real estate sector has entered a weak spot as well. House prices are only growing at 2% in nominal local currency terms according to data from the central bank. Growth in rail freight transport has stalled and the manufacturing PMI has dipped below the critical 50 level (Chart II-2, top and middle panels). Domestic cement consumption is contracting (Chart II-2, bottom panel). Chart II-1Indonesia: Domestic Demand Is Slumping Chart II-2Indonesia: Business Activity Is Anemic Finally, exports are dwindling at an annual rate of -8% from a year ago. Chart II-3Borrowing Costs Are Elevated Relative To Nominal Income Growth This growth deceleration is due to the ongoing contraction in exports, slowing domestic loan growth and somewhat conservative fiscal policy. These factors have altogether hit nominal incomes and hurt spending. Meanwhile, Indonesia’s lending rates remain elevated and well above nominal growth (Chart II-3). Such a gap between nominal income growth and borrowing costs is exerting deflationary pressures on the Indonesian economy. Consistent with worsening growth dynamics, non-financial stocks have been struggling and small cap stocks have been in a bear market since 2013 (Chart II-4). The basis is poor and deteriorating profitability among non-financial firms (Chart II-5). Chart II-5Indonesia: Poor Profitability Among Non-Financial Companies Chart II-4Non-Financial & Small Caps Stocks: Dismal Performance   Only shares prices of three banks - Bank Central Asia, Bank Rakyat and Bank Mandiri - have been in a genuine bull market. These three stocks now account for 40% of the overall Indonesia MSCI Index and their rally has prevented an outright decline in the bourse. Chart II-6Indonesian Banks: Higher Provisions, Lower Profits We agree that these three banks are well provisioned and extremely well capitalized. Nevertheless, at a price-to-book value ratio of 4.7 for Bank Central Asia, 2.8 for Bank Rakyat and 1.8 Bank Mandiri, they are expensive. Given the ongoing economic slowdown and still high real borrowing costs, these three banks as well as all commercial banks in Indonesia will face higher NPLs and will be forced to provision for them. As NPL provisioning rise, banks’ profits will slow (Chart II-6). Such a scenario will likely lead to a 10-15% decline in these banks’ share prices in local currency terms. In U.S. dollars terms, the decline will be larger. Finally, as foreign investors in Indonesia begin digesting the magnitude of the country’s ongoing growth slump, their expectations for Indonesia’s return on capital will decline and they will likely reduce their exposure. This will trigger a selloff in the rupiah. Historically, foreign investors in Indonesia have cumulatively pumped $175 billion into debt securities and $105 billion into equity and investment funds. Indonesia’s lending rates remain elevated and well above nominal growth. Moreover, foreign ownership of local currency bonds and equities is high at 38% and 45%, respectively. Therefore, a decline in the rupiah will likely intensify the selloffs in the bond and equity markets. Bottom Line: For now, we continue recommending EM dedicated investors to remain underweight Indonesian equities, local currency bonds and U.S. dollar sovereign credit within their respective portfolios. We continue to recommend a short position in the IDR versus USD trade. Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com South Africa: On An Unsustainable Path The backdrop for South African financial assets remains poor, despite the recent surge in precious metals prices and Federal Reserve easing. The rand will continue to depreciate, even if precious metals prices continue to rise. Such a decoupling will not be historically unprecedented. Chart III-1 shows the long-term relationship between gold and the rand. The rand has failed to rally on several occasions during periods of rising gold prices. Chart III-1Rand Has Diverged Historically From Gold Prices What’s more, contrary to popular narrative, the rand and the majority of EM currencies do not typically appreciate when U.S. interest rate expectations drop. We have elaborated on this topic in depth in previous reports. Ultimately, widening twin deficits, dwindling growth and declining return on capital will continue to depress the rand and risk assets. Supply constraints are preventing South Africa from capitalizing on rising gold prices – gold mining output is plummeting (Chart III-2). In fact, the trade deficit has been widening, despite surging gold prices (Chart III-3). Chart III-2Contracting Mining Output Chart III-3Rising Gold Prices ≠ Improving Trade Balance   The overall and primary fiscal deficits are also widening, as government revenues are slumping (Chart III-4). On top of this, the government recently announced a $4.2 billion (ZAR 59 billion) bailout for state-owned utility company Eskom, further worsening the country’s debt sustainability position. The combination of plummeting nominal GDP growth and still-high borrowing costs (Chart III-5) have also worsened debt dynamics among private borrowers, hurting private consumption and investment. Chart III-4Fiscal Deficit Will Widen Further Chart III-5Interest Rates Are Restrictive For Growth   Both business and household demand remain lackluster. South African non-financial companies’ return on assets (RoA) has been declining and has dropped below EM for the first time in the past 20 years (Chart III-6). Falling RoA has been due not only to cyclical growth headwinds but also structural issues such as lack of productivity growth. The falling RoA explains South African financial assets’ underperformance versus their EM counterparts. Finally, the rand is not very cheap (Chart III-7). Given poor fundamentals, including but not limited to a lack of productivity growth and a low and falling return on capital, the currency may need to get much cheaper. Chart III-6Non-Financials: Return On Assets Chart III-7The Rand Needs To Get Cheaper!   Overall, South Africa’s current macro dynamics are unsustainable. On the one hand, widening twin deficits will augment the country’s reliance on foreign funding. FDI inflows have been rather meager and are likely to stay that way. Hence, South Africa remains extremely dependent on volatile foreign portfolio inflows. Historically, foreign investors have cumulatively pumped $100 billion into debt securities and $120 billion into equity and investment funds. In turn, foreign portfolio inflows are contingent on a firm currency and high interest rates. Widening twin deficits, dwindling growth and declining return on capital will continue to depress the rand and risk assets. On the other hand, the economy is choking and public debt dynamics are worsening at a torrid pace due to high interest rates. Much lower domestic interest rates and a cheaper currency are necessary to reflate the economy and stabilize the public debt-to-GDP ratio. Ultimately, financial markets will likely push for a resolution of these contradictions. In the medium to long run, international capital flows gravitate towards countries that offer a high or rising return on capital. Provided return on capital in South Africa is very low and falling, foreign portfolio inflows will at some point diminish or grind to a halt. This will likely coincide with a negative global trigger for overall EM.  Reduced inflows or mild outflows of foreign portfolio capital will cause sizable rand depreciation. Bottom Line: The economy requires a cheaper rand and much lower interest rates to grow. The rand will likely act as a release valve: it will depreciate a lot, improving the trade balance, which in turn will ultimately allow interest rates to decline - although local bond yields will spike initially on rand weakness.  Investment recommendations: Remain short the rand versus the U.S. dollar, and underweight stocks and sovereign credit in respective dedicated EM portfolios. Concerning bonds, a depreciating rand will initially cause a selloff in local currency government bonds, warranting an underweight position for now. In the sovereign credit space, we are maintaining the following trade: sell CDS on Mexico / buy CDS on South Africa and Brazil. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations