Energy

Special Report

Highlights So What? Donald Trump's reelection depends on the timing of the next recession. Why? The midterm elections will not determine Trump's reelection chances. Rather, the timing of the next recession will. BCA's House View expects it by 2020. Otherwise, President Trump is favored to win. Trump may be downgrading "maximum pressure" on Iran, reducing the risk of a 2019 recession. Trade war with China, gridlock, and budget deficits are the most investment-relevant outcomes of U.S. politics in 2018-20. Feature The preliminary results of the U.S. midterm elections are in, with the Democrats gaining the House and failing to gain the Senate, as expected. Our view remains that the implications for investors are minimal. The policy status quo is now locked in - a gridlocked government is unlikely to produce a major change in economic policy over the next two years. While the election is to some extent a rebuke to Trump, this report argues that he remains the favored candidate for the 2020 presidential election - unless a recession occurs. A Preliminary Look At The Midterms First, the preliminary takeaways from the midterms, as the results come in: The Democrats took the House of Representatives, with a preliminary net gain of 27 seats, resulting in a 51%-plus majority, and this is projected to rise to 34 seats as we go to press Wednesday morning. This is above the average for midterm election gains by the opposition party, especially given that Republicans have held the advantage in electoral districting. Performance in the Midwest, other swing states, and suburban areas poses a threat to Trump and Republicans in 2020. Republicans held the Senate, with a net gain of at least two seats, for a 51%-plus majority. Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Trump won in 2016. While Democrats did well in the Midwest, these candidates had the advantage of incumbency. On the state level, the Democrats gained a net seven governorships, two of them in key Midwestern states. The gubernatorial races were partly cyclical, as the Republicans had hit a historic high-water mark in governors' seats and were bound to fall back a bit. However, the Democratic victory in Michigan and Wisconsin, key Midwestern Trump states, is a very positive sign for the Democrats, since they were not incumbents in either state and had to unseat incumbent Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin. (Their victory in Maine could also help them in the electoral college in 2020.) The governors' races also suggest that moderate Democrats are more appealing to voters than activist Democrats. Candidate Andrew Gillum's loss in Florida is a disappointment for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.1 With the House alone, Democrats will not be able to push major legislation through. In the current partisan environment it will be nigh-impossible to reach the 60 votes needed to end debate in the Senate ("cloture"), and even then House Democrats will face a presidential veto. They will not be able to repeal Trump's tax cuts, re-regulate the economy, abandon the trade wars, resurrect Obamacare, or revive the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. Like the Republicans after 2010, they will be trapped in the position of controlling only one half of one of the three constitutional branches. The most they can do is hold hearings and bring forth witnesses in an attempt to tarnish Trump's 2020 reelection chances. They may eventually bring impeachment articles against him, but without two-thirds of the Senate they cannot remove him from office (unless the GOP grassroots abandons him, giving senators permission to do so). U.S. equities generally move upward after midterm elections - including midterms that produce gridlock (Chart 1A & Chart 1B). However, the October selloff could drag into November. More worryingly, as Chart 1B shows, the post-election rally tends to peter out only six months after a gridlock midterm, unlike midterms that reinforce the ruling party. Chart 1AMidterm U.S. Elections Tend To Be Bullish... Chart 1B... But Markets Lose Steam Six Months Post-Gridlock However, the 2018 midterms could be mildly positive for the markets, as they do not portend any major new policies or uncertainty. Trump's proposed additional tax cuts would have threatened higher inflation and more Fed rate hikes, whereas House Democrats will not be able to raise taxes or cut spending alone. Bipartisan entitlement reform seems unlikely in 2018-20 given the acrimony of the two parties and structural factors such as inequality and populism. An outstanding question is health care, which Republicans left unresolved after failing to repeal Obamacare, and which exit polls show was a driving factor behind Democratic victories. Separately, as an additional marginal positive for risk assets, the Trump administration has reportedly granted eight waivers to countries that import Iranian oil. We have signaled that Trump's "maximum pressure" doctrine poses a key risk for markets due to the danger of an Iran-induced oil price shock. A shift toward more lax enforcement reduces the tail-risk of a recession in 2019 (Chart 2). Of course, the waivers will expire in 180 days and may be a mere ploy to ensure smooth markets ahead of the midterm election, so the jury is still out on this issue. Chart 2Rapid Increases In Oil Prices Tend To Precede Recessions This brings us to the main focus of this report: what do the midterms suggest about the 2020 election? Bottom Line: The midterm elections have produced a gridlocked Congress. Trump can continue with his foreign policy, most of his trade policy, his deregulatory decrees, and his appointment of court judges with limited interference from House Democrats. The only thing the Democrats can prevent him from doing is cutting taxes further. He tends to agree with Democrats on the need for more spending! While the U.S. market could rally on the back of this result, we do not see U.S. politics being a critical catalyst for markets going forward. On balance, a gridlocked result brings less uncertainty than would otherwise be the case, which is positive for markets in the short term. The Midterms And The 2020 Election There is a weak relationship at best between an opposition party's gains in the midterms and its performance in the presidential election two years later. Given that the president's party almost always loses the midterms - and yet that incumbent presidents tend to be reelected - the midterm has little diagnostic value for the presidential vote, as can be seen in recent elections (Chart 3A & Chart 3B). Chart 3AMidterm Has Little Predictive Power For Presidential Popular Vote ... Chart 3B... Nor For Presidential Electoral College Vote Nevertheless, historian Allan Lichtman has shown that since 1860, a midterm loss is marginally negative for a president's reelection chances.2 And for Republicans in recent years, losses in midterm elections are very weakly correlated with Republican losses of seats in the electoral college two years later (Chart 4). Chart 4Republican Midterm Loss Could Foreshadow Electoral College Losses Still, this midterm election does not give any reason to believe that Trump's reelection chances have been damaged any more than Ronald Reagan's were after 1982, or Bill Clinton's after 1994, or Barack Obama's after 2010. All three of these presidents went on to a second term. A midterm loss simply does not stack the odds against reelection. Why are midterm elections of limited consequence for the president? They are fundamentally different from presidential elections. For instance, "the buck stops here" applies to the president alone, whereas in the midterms voters often seek to keep the president in check by voting against his party in Congress.3 Despite the consensus media narrative, the president is not that unpopular. Trump's approval rating today is about the same as that of Clinton and Obama at this stage in their first term (Chart 5). This week's midterm was not a wave of "resistance" to Trump so much as a run-of-the-mill midterm in which the president's party lost seats. Its outcome should not be overstated. Bottom Line: There is not much correlation between midterms and presidential elections. The best historians view it as a marginal negative for the incumbent. This result is not a mortal wound for Trump. Chart 5President Trump Is Hardly Losing The Popularity Contest 2020: The Recession Call Is The Election Call The incumbent party has lost the White House every single time that a recession occurred during the campaign proper (Chart 6).4 The incumbent party has lost 50%-60% of the time if recession occurred in the calendar year before the election or in the first half of the election year. Chart 6A 2020 Recession Is Trump's Biggest Threat This is a problem for President Trump because the current economic expansion is long in the tooth. In July 2019, it will become the longest running economic expansion in U.S. history, following the 1991-2001 expansion. The 2020 election will occur sixteen months after the record is broken, which means that averting a recession over this entire period will be remarkable. BCA's House View holds that 2020 is the most likely year for a recession to occur. The economy is at full employment, inflation is trending upwards, and the Fed's interest rate hikes will become restrictive sometime in 2019. The yield curve could invert in the second half of 2019 - and inversion tends to precede recession by anywhere from 5-to-16 months (Table 1). No wonder Trump has called the Fed his "biggest threat."5 Table 1Inverted Yield Curve Is An Ominous Sign The risks to this 2020 recession call are probably skewed toward 2021 instead of 2019. The still-positive U.S. fiscal thrust in 2019 and possibly 2020 and the Trump administration's newly flexible approach to Iran sanctions, if maintained, reduce the tail-risk of a recession in 2019. If there is not a recession by 2020, Trump is the favored candidate to win. First, incumbents win 69% of all U.S. presidential elections. Second, incumbents win 80% of the time when the economy is not in recession, and 76% of the time when real annual per capita GDP growth over the course of the term exceeds the average of the previous two terms, which will likely be the case in 2020 unless there is a recession (Chart 7). Chart 7Relative Economic Performance Could Give Trump Firepower The above probabilities are drawn from the aforementioned Professor Allan Lichtman, at American University in Washington D.C., who has accurately predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1984 (except the disputed 2000 election). Lichtman views presidential elections as a referendum on the party that controls the White House. He presents "13 Keys to the Presidency," which are true or false statements based on historically derived indicators of presidential performance. If six or more of the 13 keys are false, the incumbent will lose. On our own reading of Lichtman's keys, Trump is currently lined up to lose a maximum of four keys - two shy of the six needed to unseat him (Table 2). This is a generous reading for the Democrats: Trump's party has lost seats in the midterm election relative to 2014; his term has seen sustained social unrest; he is tainted by major scandal; and he is lacking in charisma. Yet on a stricter reading Trump only has one key against him (the midterm). Table 2Lichtman's Thirteen Keys To The White House* What would it take to push Trump over the edge? Aside from a recession (which would trigger one or both of the economic keys against him), he would need to see two-to-four of the following factors take shape: a serious foreign policy or military failure, a charismatic Democratic opponent in 2020, a significant challenge to his nomination within the Republican Party, or a robust third party candidacy emerge. In our view, none of these developments are on the horizon yet, though they are probable enough. For instance, it is easy to see Trump's audacious foreign policy on China, Iran, and North Korea leading to a failure that counts against him. Thus, as things currently stand, Trump is the candidate to beat as long as the economy holds up. What about impeachment and removal from office prior to 2020? As long as Trump remains popular among Republican voters he will prevent the Senate from turning against him (Chart 8). What could cause public opinion to change? Clear, irrefutable, accessible, "smoking gun" evidence of personal wrongdoing that affected Trump's campaigns or duties in office. Nixon was not brought down until the Watergate tapes became public - and that required a Supreme Court order. Only then did Republican opinion turn against him and expose him to impeachment and removal - prompting him to resign. Chart 8Trump Cannot Be Removed From Office All that being said, Trump tends to trail his likeliest 2020 adversaries in one-on-one opinion polling. Given our recession call, we would not dispute online betting markets giving Trump a less-than-50% chance of reelection at present (Chart 9). The Democratic selection process has hardly begun: e.g. Joe Biden could have health problems, and Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, or other surprise candidates could decide to run. The world will be a different place in 2020. Bottom Line: The recession call is the election call. If BCA is right about a recession by 2020, then Trump will lose. If we are wrong, then Trump is favored to win. Chart 9A Strong Opponent Has Yet To Emerge Is It Even Possible For Trump To Win Again? Election Scenarios Is it demographically possible for Trump to win? Yes. In 2016 BCA dubbed Trump's electoral strategy "White Hype," based on his apparent attempt to increase the support and turnout of white voters, primarily in "Rust Belt" battleground states. While Republican policy wonks might have envisioned a "big tent" Republican Party for the future, demographic trends in 2016 suggested that this strategy was premature. Indeed, drawing from a major demographic study by the Center for American Progress and other Washington think tanks,6 we found that a big increase in white turnout and support was the only 2016 election scenario in which a victory in both the popular vote and electoral college vote was possible. In other words, while "Minority Outreach" have worked as a GOP strategy in the future, Donald Trump's team was mathematically correct in realizing that only White Hype would work in the actual election at hand. This strategy did not win Trump the popular vote, but it did secure him the requisite electoral college seats, notably from the formerly blue of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Comparing the 2016 results with our pre-election projections confirms this point: Trump won the very swing states where he increased white GOP support and lost the swing states where he did not. Pennsylvania is the notable exception, but he won there by increasing white turnout instead of white GOP support.7 Can Trump do this again? Yes, but not easily. Map 1 depicts the 2016 election results with red and blue states, plus the percentage swing in white party support that would have been necessary to turn the state to the opposite party (white support for the GOP is the independent variable). In Michigan, a 0.3% shift in the white vote away from Republicans would have deprived Trump of victory; in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, a 0.8% shift would have done the same; in Florida, a 1.5% change would have done so. Map 1The 'White Hype' Strategy Narrowly Worked In 2016 Critically, the country's demographics have changed significantly since 2016 - to Trump's detriment. The white eligible voting population in swing states will have fallen sharply from 81% of the population to 76% of the population by 2020 (Chart 10). Chart 10Demographic Shift Does Not Favor Trump Thus, to determine whether Trump still has a pathway to victory, we looked at eight scenarios, drawing on the updated Center for American Progress study. The assumptions behind the scenarios in Table 3 are as follows: Status Quo - This replicates the 2016 result and projects it forward with 2020 demographics. 2016 Sans Third Party - Replicates the 2016 result but normalizes the third party vote, which was elevated that year. Minority Revolt - In this scenario, Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities turn out in large numbers to support Democrats, even with white non-college educated voters supporting Republicans at a decent rate. The Kanye West Strategy - Trump performs a miracle and generates a swing of minority voters in favor of Republicans. Blue Collar Democrats - White non-college-educated support returns to 2012 norms, meaning back to Democrats. Romney's Ghost - White college-educated support returns to 2012 levels. White Hype - White non-college-educated support swings to Republicans. Obama versus Trump - White college-educated voters ally with minorities in opposition to a surge in white non-college-educated voters for Republicans. Table 3Assumptions For Key Electoral Scenarios In 2020 The results show that Trump's best chance at remaining in the White House is still White Hype, as it is still the only scenario in which Trump can statistically win a victory in the popular vote (Chart 11). Another pathway to victory is the "2016 Sans Third Party" scenario. But this scenario still calls for White Hype, since a third party challenger is out of his hands (Chart 12).8 Chart 11'White Hype' May Be Only Way To Secure Both Popular And Electoral College Vote...   Chart 12... Although Moving To The Center Could Still Yield Electoral College Vote However, the data show that Trump cannot win merely by replicating his white turnout and support from 2016, due to demographic changes wiping away the thin margins in key swing states. He needs some additional increases in support. These increases will ultimately have to be culled from his record in office - which reinforces the all-important question of the timing of recession, but also raises the question of whether Trump will move to the center to woo the median voter. In the "Kanye West" and "Romney's Ghost" scenarios, Trump wins the electoral college by broadening his appeal to minorities and college-educated white voters. This may sound far-fetched, but President Clinton reinvented himself after the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 by compromising with Republicans in Congress. The slim margins in the Midwest suggest that the probability of Trump shifting to the middle is not as low as one might think. Especially if there is no recession. Independents remain the largest voting block - and they have not lost much steam, if any, since 2016. Moreover, the number of independents who lean Republican is in an uptrend (Chart 13). Without a recession, or a failure on Lichtman's keys, Trump will likely broaden his base. Chart 13Trump Shows Promise Among Independents Bottom Line: Trump needs to increase white turnout and GOP support beyond 2016 levels in order to win 2020. Demographics will not allow a simple repeat of his 2016 performance. However, he may be able to generate the requisite turnout and support by moving to the center, courting college-educated whites and even minorities. His success will depend on his record in office. Investment Implications What are the implications of the above findings for 2018-20 and beyond? The Rust Belt states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will become pseudo-apocalyptic battlegrounds in 2020. The Democrats must aim to take back all three to win the White House, as they cannot win with just two alone.9 They are likely to focus on these states because they are erstwhile blue states and the vote margin is so slim that the slightest factors could shift the balance - meaning that Democrats could win here without a general pro-Democratic shift in opinion that hurts Trump in other key swing states such as Florida, North Carolina, or Arizona. The "Blue Collar Democrat" scenario, for instance, merely requires that white non-college-educated voters return to their 2012 level of support for Democrats. Joe Biden is the logical candidate, health permitting, as he is from Pennsylvania and was literally on the ballot in 2012! Moreover, these states are the easiest to flip to the Democratic side via the woman vote. In Michigan, a 0.5% swing of women to the Democrats would have turned the state blue again; in Pennsylvania that number is 1.6% and in Wisconsin it is 1.7% (Table 4). These are the lowest of any state. Women from the Midwest or with a base in the Midwest - such as Michelle Obama or Oprah Winfrey - would also be logical candidates. Table 4Women Voters May Hold The Balance The Democrats could also pursue a separate or complementary strategy by courting African American turnout and support, especially in Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. But it is more difficult to flip these states than the Midwestern ones. With the Rust Belt as the fulcrum of his electoral strategy and reelection, Trump has a major incentive to maintain economic nationalism over the coming two years. Trump may be more pragmatic in the use of tariffs, and will certainly engage in talks with China and others, but he ultimately must remain "tough" on trade. He has fewer constraints in pursuing trade war with China than with Europe. For the same Rust Belt reason, the Democrats, if they get into the Oval Office, will not be overly kind to the "butchers of Beijing," as President Clinton called the Chinese leadership in the 1992 presidential campaign (after the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident). Hence we are structurally bearish U.S.-China relations and related assets. Interestingly, if Trump moves to the middle, and tones down "white nationalism" in pursuit of college-educated whites and minorities, then he would have an incentive to dampen the flames of social division ahead of 2020. The key is that in an environment without recession, Trump has the option of courting voters on the basis of his economic and policy performance alone. Whereas if he is seen fanning social divisions, it could backfire, as Democrats could benefit from a sense of national crisis and instability in a presidential election. Either way, culture wars, controversial rhetoric, identity politics, unrest, and violence will continue in the United States as the fringes of the political spectrum use identity politics and wedge issues to rile up voters.The question is how the leading parties and their candidates handle it. What about after 2020? Are there any conclusions that can be drawn regardless of which party controls the White House? The two biggest policy certainties are that fiscal spending will go up and that generational conflict will rise. On fiscal spending, Trump was a game changer by removing fiscal hawkishness from the Republican agenda. Democrats are not proposing fiscal responsibility either. The most likely areas of bipartisan legislation in 2018-20 are health care and infrastructure - returning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mentioned infrastructure several times in her election-night speech - which would add to the deficit. The deficit is already set to widen sharply, judging by the fact that it has been widening at a time when unemployment is falling. This aberration has only occurred during the economic boom of the 1950s and the inflation and subsequent stagflation beginning in the late 1960s (Chart 14). The current outlook implies a return of the stagflationary scenario. In the late 1960s, the World War I generation was retiring, lifting the dependent-to-worker ratio and increasing consumption relative to savings. Today, as Peter Berezin of BCA's Global Investment Strategy has shown, the Baby Boomers are retiring with a similar impact. Chart 14The Deficit Is Blowing Out Even Without A Recession Trump made an appeal to elderly voters in the midterms by warning that unfettered immigration and Democratic entitlement expansions would take away from existing senior benefits. By contrast, Democrats will argue that Republicans want to cut benefits for all to pay for tax cuts for the rich, and will try to activate Millennial voters on a range of progressive issues that antagonize older voters. The result is that policy debates will focus more on generational differences. Mammoth budget deficits - not to mention trade war - will be good for inflation, good for gold, and a headwind for U.S. government bonds and the USD as long as the environment is not recessionary. The greatest policy uncertainties are health care and immigration. These are the two major outstanding policy issues that Republicans and Democrats will vie over in 2018 and beyond. While President Trump could achieve something with the Democrats on either of these issues with some painful compromises, it is too soon to have a high conviction on the outcome. But assuming that over the coming years some immigration restrictions come into play and that some kind of public health care option becomes more widely available, there are two more reasons to expect inflation to trend upward on a secular basis. Also on a secular basis, defense stocks stand to benefit from geopolitical multipolarity, especially U.S.-China antagonism. Tech stocks stand to suffer due to the trade war and an increasingly bipartisan consensus that this sector needs to be regulated.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com   1 Furthermore, victories on the state level, if built upon in the 2020 election, could give the Democrats an advantage in gerrymandering, i.e. electoral redistricting, which is an important political process in the United States. 2 Please see Allan J. Lichtman, Predicting The Next President: The Keys To The White House 2016 (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016). 3 Please see Joseph Bafumi, Robert S. Erikson, and Christopher Wlezien, "Balancing, Generic Polls and Midterm Congressional Elections," The Journal of Politics 72:3 (2010), pp. 705-19. 4 Please see footnote 2 above. 5 Please see Sylvan Lane, “Trump says Fed is his ‘biggest threat,’ blasting own appointees,” The Hill, October 16, 2018, available at thehill.com. 6 Please see Rob Griffin, Ruy Teixeira, and William H. Frey, "America's Electoral Future: Demographic Shifts and the Future of the Trump Coalition," Center for American Progress, dated April 14, 2018, available at www.americanprogress.org. 7 In several cases, he did not have to lift white support by as much as we projected because minority support for the Democrats dropped off after Obama left the stage. 8 Interestingly, however, this scenario would result in an electoral college tie! Since the House would then vote on a state delegation basis, it would likely hand Trump the victory (and Pence would also win the Senate). 9 However, if they win Pennsylvania plus one electoral vote in Maine, they can win the electoral college with either Michigan or Wisconsin.

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

Mounting supply-side uncertainty will keep the risk premium in oil prices - and volatility - elevated after U.S. export sanctions against Iran kick in November 4 (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekOil-Price Risk Premium Will Continue To Increase These sanctions likely will remove 1.0 - 1.5mm b/d of Iranian exports, and absorb the combined spare capacity of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia (Chart 2) in the process. Export capacity expansions on KSA's West coast - intended to keep oil flowing if the Strait of Hormuz is closed - put the supply-side risks sharply in focus. Chart 2Lost Iranian Exports Could Exceed KSA's and Russia's Spare Capacity OPEC 2.0's production increases last month calmed markets.1 All the same, it is worth noting they occurred just before a widely expected U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) release coinciding with refinery turnarounds, and one-off Asian demand shocks. On the back of these supply boosts, and an upward revision to U.S. shale output (see below), and a slight decrease in our expected demand growth next year, we lowered our 2019 Brent forecast to $92/bbl from $95/bbl. We now expect Brent prices to peak in April 2019. WTI will trade $6/bbl lower (Chart 3). Our forecasts are conditioned on Iranian export losses of 1.25mm b/d, and Venezuelan losses of just over 450k b/d. A loss of 1.7mm+ b/d of Iran exports, as Platts Analytics expects, or a Venezuela collapse, means an unplanned outage anywhere will take prices above $100/bbl. Chart 3OPEC 2.0 Production Hike Pushes Price Spike To 2Q19 Highlights Energy: Overweight. The IMF downgraded global GDP growth expectations from 3.9% to 3.7% p.a. this year and next. This reduced our base case demand growth for 2019 slightly, to 1.5mm b/d from 1.6mm b/d previously. Base Metals: Neutral. Global copper stocks stand at half their late April peak - the lowest level since late 2016, on the back of restrictions on Chinese scrap imports. Precious Metals: Neutral. Palladium traded to record levels above $1,140/oz this week, as persistent physical deficits into 2020 are priced into the market. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's Crop Progress Report showed soybean harvests accelerating: 53% of the crop was harvested as of last week, below the 2013 - 17 average of 69%, but well above the previous week's 38% level. Feature U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is convinced global oil markets have fully priced in the loss of Iranian crude oil exports arising from the re-imposition of export sanctions by the U.S. November 4. Speaking with Reuters over the weekend, he said, "Oil prices have already gone up, so my expectation is that the oil market has anticipated what's going on in the reductions. I believe the information is already reflected in the price of oil."2 We are not so sure. The price-decomposition model shown in the Chart of the Week is a bottom-up fundamental model that assesses how changes in OPEC and non-OPEC supplies, global demand and inventories contribute to overall price changes, as new information becomes available regarding these variables. These variables are shown in Chart 4 and Table 1.3 Chart 4BCA Global Oil Supply-Demand Balances The "residual" term in the model covers everything not explained by these fundamental variables.4 We believe the unexplained effect on prices in the residuals reflects market participants' perception of riskiness - either to supply or demand - given the big fundamental drivers of price are accounted for in the other variables. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d) Close inspection reveals the residual term has been increasing as we approach the deadline for the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran. And the fact is, estimates of the loss in Iranian exports are widely dispersed - from less than 1mm b/d to 1.7mm b/d by tanker trackers like Platts Analytics. As Chart 2 shows, export losses at the high end of this range would absorb almost all of the world's spare capacity - the 1.3mm b/d the U.S. EIA estimates for OPEC (most of it held by KSA, plus whatever other Gulf Arab producers can muster). Russia, which is producing at a record of ~ 11.4mm b/d, likely has ~ 250k b/d of spare capacity at its disposal. With the increase in global demand largely being covered by U.S. shales, which are constrained to ~ 1.3mm b/d of growth p.a. until 2H19, when we expect production to increase at a 1.44mm b/d annual rate, this leaves the global market perilously exposed to any and all unplanned production outages. Any deterioration in Venezuela's production, which we expect to fall to 865k b/d on average in 2019 (versus 1.3mm b/d on average this year), or an unplanned loss in exports from historically unstable states like Nigeria and Libya - where we raised our production estimates to 1.75mm b/d and 1.05mm b/d in line with OPEC survey data - almost surely will spike prices above $100/bbl.5 OPEC 2.0 Got Lucky OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition led by KSA and Russia - picked a fortuitous moment to increase production this past month. OPEC, led by KSA, lifted crude and liquids production 140k b/d in September, while Russia's production rose 150k b/d. It is worth noting these output increases occurred just before a widely expected U.S. SPR release in October - November, which overlapped with refinery maintenance (turnaround) season in the U.S. Midwest refiners were expected to take 300k to 460k b/d of capacity offline in September and October, a relatively high level of maintenance, while Gulf Coast refiners were expected to take 430k to 535k b/d down.6 Both events raise the supply of crude relative to demand, and reduce inventory drawdowns. In addition, one-off Asian demand shocks - an earthquake and typhoon in Japan - dented demand. KSA lifted its production to 10.5mm b/d in September, bringing average 3Q18 production to 10.4mm b/d versus a bit more than 10mm b/d in 1H18. Russia's crude and liquids output rose to 11.45mm b/d in 3Q18 versus 11.2mm b/d in 1H18. The higher production calmed markets somewhat. OPEC 2.0 effectively got a two-month assist from the U.S. refinery turnarounds and a U.S. SPR release, just as markets were fretting prices would breach $90/bbl earlier this month.7 These production boosts will allow OECD inventories to rebuild somewhat going in to the Northern Hemisphere's winter (Chart 5). Nonetheless, OPEC 2.0 has begun tearing into spare capacity with these output increases. Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Production Boost Allows OECD Stocks To Rebuild KSA Talks Markets Lower... While the U.S. SPR release and inventory builds associated with U.S. turnarounds progressed, KSA's Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih was reassuring markets the Kingdom can ramp production to 11mm b/d, and even 12mm b/d if needs be. KSA has been increasing rig counts in 2H18 as Brent prices rise, but we remain highly dubious KSA can ramp production to 11mm b/d - let alone 12mm b/d - and sustain it for any meaningful length of time (Chart 6). Chart 6KSA Increasing Rig Counts, After Price-Induced Slowdown The likelihood KSA can significantly boost production before the end of 1H19 became even more doubtful, following reports the Kingdom and Kuwait were having difficulty agreeing on restarting Neutral Zone production. We've downgraded our assessment that 350k b/d of Neutral Zone production will be returned to the market beginning in 2Q19 to a 50% likelihood, following reports KSA and Kuwaiti officials are diverging on operational control of the production. Apparently, the two states also differ on geopolitical issues in the Gulf, as well - e.g., the Qatar blockade lead by KSA, and Iran policy.8 While core Gulf Arab producers are raising output, we expect the non-Gulf members of the Cartel continue to see output decline (Chart 7). Indeed, with the exception of the core OPEC Gulf Arab producers, U.S. shale operators and Russia, the rest of the world is barely keeping its output level (Chart 8). Chart 7Non-Gulf OPEC Output Continues to Decline Chart 8Global Production Growth Stalls Outside U.S. Onshore, GCC And Russia ...And Shores Up Export Capacity Export capacity expansions on KSA's West coast - intended to keep oil flowing if the Strait of Hormuz is closed - put global supply-side risks sharply in focus. KSA has added 3 mm b/d of oil export capacity to the Red Sea coast of the Kingdom, with an upgrade to its Yanbu crude oil terminal. Prior to the expansion, Yanbu terminal's export capacity was 1.3mm b/d; it was used mainly for refined products and petrochemicals shipments, due to its relative proximity to refineries in Yanbu, Rabigh, Yasref, Jeddah and Jazan. Shipping via the Red Sea port allows KSA to move crude to Asia through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait to the south, which at times is threatened by Yemen's Houthi militia, and the north to Western markets through the Suez Canal. In addition, KSA's national oil company, Aramco, says it intends to restore operations at al-Muajjiz crude oil terminal, which has been out of operation since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Aramco intends to integrate the Muajjiz terminal into the Yanbu facilities to expand Red Sea export capacity from ~ 8 mm b/d to some 11.5 mm b/d. KSA's total export capacity is scheduled to reach 15mm b/d by year-end. These expansions give KSA the option to reroute all of its ~ 7mm b/d exports through the Red Sea, in the event the Strait of Hormuz is closed by Iran. However, this option could be limited by pipeline infrastructure. The current capacity of the East - West crude pipeline is 5mm b/d, although Aramco signalled its intention to boost capacity to 7mm b/d by end-2018. No announcements indicating this was on schedule or completed could be found. Global Demand Holds Up The IMF downgraded its global GDP growth expectation from 3.9% p.a. to 3.7% this year and next. This reduced our base case demand growth for 2019 to 1.5mm b/d from 1.6mm b/d. Even so, we note that oil prices for EM consumers in local-currency terms are at or close to post-GFC highs (Charts 9A and9B). A number of EM governments relaxed or removed subsidies on fuel prices following the oil-price collapse of 2014 - 16, which means consumers in these states are feeling most or all of the effect of higher prices directly for the first time in the modern era (beginning in the 1960s, when OPEC became the dominant producer cartel in the market).9 Chart 9ALocal-Currency Cost Of Oil In Select EM Economies Chart 9BLocal-Currency Cost Of Oil In Select EM Economies As we've noted previously, high fuel costs (in local-currency terms) coupled with high absolute prices deliver a double-whammy to EM consumers, which are the driving force in global oil-demand growth. In fact, 1.1mm b/d of the 1.5mm b/d of demand growth we expect next year in our base case is accounted for by EM growth. In our scenarios analysis, we assume every $10/bbl jump in prices above $90/bbl destroys 100k b/d of EM demand. This lowers the unconstrained oil-price trajectory, and reduces our base case growth estimate of 1.5mm b/d next year to 1.3mm b/d (Chart 10). Chart 10An Oil-Supply Shock Would Lower Demand An oil-supply shock that seriously erodes EM demand would - in the course of months, we believe - translate into a disinflationary impulse into DM markets. This could force the Fed to change course and dial its rates-normalization policy back, as we recently noted.10 Bottom Line: Volatility will remain elevated following the re-imposition of sanctions against Iran's oil exports next month. OPEC 2.0's fortuitously timed production increases - coincident with a scheduled U.S. SPR release and refinery turnarounds - will be absorbed by markets once turnaround season ends in the U.S. Global spare capacity is insufficient to cover Iranian export losses at the high end of market expectations, if Venezuelan production falls more than expected or that state collapses. Any unplanned outage anywhere will quickly push prices through $100/bbl, necessitating further U.S. SPR releases. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/non-OPEC coalition led by KSA and Russia. This coalition likely will be formalized at the December 7 OPEC meeting in Vienna via treaty. This has been alluded to over the past year, most recently in an interview given to Tass, the Russian state-owned news agency. Please see "Saudi energy minister Al-Falih speaks to TASS on OPEC+, oil prices and Khashoggi," published by TASS, October 22, 2018. 2 Please see "Mnuchin says it will be harder for Iran oil importers to get waivers," published by uk.reuters.com October 21, 2018. 3 The Federal Reserve Bank of New York publishes a similar price-decomposition model weekly in its "Oil Price Dynamics Report," which is available online. 4 We can assume USD effects will be reflected in demand and supply at the margin - i.e., a stronger USD reduces demand by raising the local-currency costs of oil, and increases supply by lowering the local-currency costs of production, and vice versa. Uncertainty as to the USD's trajectory adds to overall uncertainty in the model. 5 This likely would trigger withdrawals from the U.S. SPR, or the EU's strategic petroleum reserves, but that will take time to implement. Both Libya and Nigeria likely will hold elections next year: Nigeria in February, Libya possibly on December 10, but more likely next year following passage of a UN resolution to extend the mandate of its political mission there to September 15, 2019. Civil unrest in Libya has been increasing, as ISIS fighters increase the tempo of operations on the ground. 6 Please see "Falling into refiner Turnaround Season & Maintenance outlook," published by Genscape August 23, 2018. 7 This occurs at a fortuitous time in the U.S. election cycle, as mid-terms will be held November 6, two days after Iran sanctions kick in. We expected an SPR draw ahead of midterms; please see "Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ... Assessing Downside Risk," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy August 23, 2018. It is available at: ces.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see "Oil output from Saudi, Kuwait shared zone on hold as relations sour," published by uk.reuters.com October 18, 2018. 9 The U.S. Federal Reserve is in the process of a rates-normalization cycle, which likely will keep the USD appreciating against EM currencies into next year. Our House view calls for five additional hikes between December and the end of 2019. Please see "Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ... Assessing Downside Risk," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy August 23, 2018, for further discussion. ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 We discuss this at length in a Special Report published last week with BCA Research's entitled "Man Bites Dog: Could Sharply Rising Oil Prices Lead To Lower Global Bond Yields in 2019?" It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trade Recommendation Performance In 3Q18 Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Summary Of Trades Closed In 2017

Highlights Policy easing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a bottom in the business cycle. For monetary easing to become effective, there should be loan demand, banks should be willing to lend, and businesses and consumers should be keen to spend more. In China, risks to both the money multiplier and the velocity of money are to the downside. This will hinder the effectiveness of monetary policy easing in generating economic growth. Eroding business and consumer confidence in China will - for now - negate the budding improvement in its broad money impulse. Emerging markets risk assets and currencies are set to drop further. Stay put. Feature The selloff in EM and Chinese stocks has begun to weigh heavily on DM share prices. The global equity index has broken below its January lows, entailing further downside. Importantly, global cyclical equity sectors such as global industrials, materials and semiconductors are underperforming, and are breaking down in absolute terms. This confirms global trade is in a full downturn swing (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Global Trade Is Decelerating What is required to turn around this global trade slowdown? Our bias is that this growth slump has roots in China/EM and trade tensions are dampening business and investor sentiment on top of that. Consequently, a reversal in the equity selloff is largely contingent on an improvement in China's economy. It is in this context that we devote this week's report to an extensive discussion surrounding the issues of policy stimulus, deleveraging and growth in China. In this report, we answer the questions we think are most pertinent to investors at this moment. Question: Why are financial markets rioting, even though China has announced stimulus? Answer: The market's interpretation is that these stimuli are insufficient to turn around China's business cycle immediately. We agree with this assessment. Policy easing does not always immediately translate into higher share prices and improving growth. For example, amid China's 2015 stock market crash, the Chinese authorities began aggressively stimulating in the middle of 2015, yet Chinese and global markets continued to riot until February 2016 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2China In 2015: Money Growth Preceded Bottom In Markets By Seven Months Indeed, there was a period of seven months when EM and DM stocks plummeted, despite on-going and very aggressive policy easing in China. In short, these stimulus measures did not preclude a considerable drawdown in global and EM share prices. Outside China, there have been other examples where policy easing did not preclude a full-fledged bear market. For instance, in 2001-'02 and 2007-'08, the Federal Reserve was cutting interest rates aggressively, yet the bear market in U.S. equities did not reverse (Chart I-3). Chart I-3AFed's Easing Did Not Prevent Equity Bear Market Chart I-3BFed's Easing Did Not Prevent Equity Bear Market Similarly, the ECB was expanding its balance sheet from the onset of the euro area debt crisis in 2011, yet the region's share prices did not bottom until the middle of 2012, 12 months later (Chart I-4). Chart I-4ECB Balance Sheet Expansion Did Not Prevent Equity Bear Market Question: It is clear there could be a time lag between policymakers stimulating and financial markets and the business cycle turning the corner. What is causing these time lags, and how should one handicap them? Answer: Indeed, monetary and fiscal policies affect the economy with time lags. These lags vary from cycle to cycle. In China, the broad money impulse has improved of late (Chart I-5). Historically, this has led the mainland's business cycle by about nine months on average. Hence, it signifies a tentative bottom early next year. Chart I-5China: Money Impulse Has Bottomed The credit impulse, however, has not improved at all (Chart I-6). The current divergence between credit and money impulses is due to a plunge in shadow (non-bank) credit (Chart I-7). The distinction between broad money and credit is as follows: money is originated by commercial banks when they lend to or acquire an asset from non-banks. Meanwhile, total credit also includes lending and bond purchases by non-banks. Chart I-6China: Credit Impulse Has Not Yet Bottomed Chart I-7Bank And Non-Bank Credit Have Diverged Importantly, money/credit fluctuations are not the sole factors that generate swings in economic activity. Companies' and households' willingness to consume and invest matter too. We have written extensively in the past that changes in the velocity of money mirror fluctuations in the marginal propensity to consume and invest.1 Technically speaking, nominal GDP growth is a product of money growth and change in the velocity of money. Nominal GDP = Money Growth x Velocity Of Money When a decline in the velocity of money - stemming from eroding business and consumer confidence - overwhelms an acceleration in money growth, economic growth weakens, despite improvement in the money impulse. Notably, money and credit have led previous business cycles in China by varying time periods. In other words, the velocity of money has not been constant on the mainland. In particular, both the money and credit impulses were early - by about 12 months - in forecasting a growth slowdown in China and global trade at the beginning of 2017. The reason why a growth slowdown did not commence at that time was due to the surge in the velocity of money. The latter is akin to confidence among economic agents. In short, companies and households turned their money balances faster, which offset the impact of weak money/credit impulses on economic activity. Concerning fiscal policy, time lags differ because of implementation delays and varying fiscal multipliers. In China, aggregate fiscal spending, including central, local governments and managed funds, has not yet accelerated (Chart I-8). Chart I-8China: No Rebound In Broad Fiscal Spending While special bond issuance by local governments spiked in August and September, overall credit flows in the economy have not yet improved - please refer to Chart I-6. As an aside, there are reports that 42% of the amount raised via special bond issuance will be used to purchase land rather than for infrastructure spending.2 This will not benefit economic growth much. Question: Do you think the time lag between the bottom in China's money/credit impulses and the business cycle will be longer or shorter this time around? Answer: Our bias is that the time lag between the bottom in money/credit impulses and the resultant pickup in growth will be longer than before. Presently, there is some evidence that both business and consumer sentiment in China are beginning to whither at the hands of the trade wars, tanking domestic share prices and budding deflation in real estate prices. Eroding business and consumer confidence in China will - for now - negate the improvement in the broad money impulse. Chart I-9 depicts the velocity of money in China. After rising over the past two years, our bias is that it will drop again. It is critical to realize that forecasting the direction and magnitude of swings in the velocity of money - the marginal propensity to spend - is a dismal science. It reflects business and consumer sentiment, and any assessment on this is very subjective. This is why economic forecasting and investment calls are more of an art. Chart I-9China: The Velocity Of Money Among many variables we are monitoring to gauge the turn in the mainland's business cycle is the marginal propensity to invest among mainland industrial companies. This indicator is falling, suggesting that monetary policy easing is facing formidable hurdles in re-igniting investment appetite among Chinese companies (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Companies' Marginal Propensity To Spend The BCA Emerging Markets Strategy team's assessment is that China-related financial markets are in an air pocket. Investors should not try to catch falling knives. On the contrary, there is still meaningful downside. Question: But the People's Bank of China has been injecting a lot of liquidity into the system via various facilities. Would this liquidity not find its way into financial markets and the real economy? Answer: When a central bank injects liquidity into the banking system, it creates excess reserves. Excess reserves also rise when a central bank cuts the required reserve ratio (RRR). It is essential to differentiate money that households and business use to conduct transactions from reserves of commercial banks at the central bank. Required and excess reserves are not a part of narrow and broad monetary aggregates. Excess reserves are the banking system's liquidity held at the central bank. Importantly, banks do not lend reserves, and do not use reserves to pay for assets they purchase from non-banks. Banks use reserves to settle transactions/payments among themselves. Reserves are "manufactured" solely by central banks. Commercial banks cannot create reserves. They do, however, create the overwhelming majority of money when they lend to or purchase an asset from non-banks. Central banks create broad money - that circulates in the economy - only when they lend to or buy assets from non-banks. Given central banks typically do few transactions with non-banks, central banks originate a very small portion of the broad money supply. For example, as a part of quantitative easing efforts, new money is originated only when a central bank buys bonds from a non-bank (say, an insurance company). In contrast, no money is created when a central bank buys bonds from a bank. In brief, there is no automatic leakage of reserves into the real economy and financial markets. Banks need to be willing to lend to and purchase assets from non-banks for the money supply to expand. Question: But won't expanding excess reserves - banking system liquidity - eventually encourage banks to lend and purchase financial assets? Answer: It will at some point, but it is not imminent. The mainland banking system's excess reserves ratio is depicted in Chart I-11. A few observations are in order: Chart I-11China: Excess Reserves Not Are Growing First, the excess reserve ratio - excess reserves (ER) as a share of total deposits - is currently rather low (Chart I-11, top panel). The absolute level of ER is not elevated either (Chart I-11, middle panel). To adjust the absolute level of ER for seasonality, we show the annual change of this measure - it has dropped to zero in September (Chart I-11, bottom panel). This is in contrast to the prevailing market narrative that the PBoC is injecting a lot of liquidity into the system. While they have been injecting liquidity via RRR cuts, at the same time many lending facilities have been maturing without renewal. Does the low level of ER ratio mean the PBoC has been tightening? No, it has not been tightening. Shrinking excess reserves that lead to higher money market rates would qualify as tightening. Provided money market rates are low and are not rising in China, there has been no de-facto tightening, despite the low level of reserves (Chart I-12). Chart I-12China: Excess Reserves And Interest Rates Second, any central bank can simultaneously target either quantity of reserves or short-term interest rates, but not both. Before 2014, the PBoC was targeting the level of ER. As a result, short-term interest rates fluctuated a lot to equilibrate demand and supply for ER. Since early 2014, the PBoC has switched to targeting interest rates. Therefore, the level of ER is no longer a policy objective, but rather a tool to navigate interest rates. Chart I-13 illustrates what drives PBoC policy in terms of interest rates and liquidity management. The PBoC sets interest rates based on the strength in the economy - i.e., interest rates rise when loan demand is improving and fall when loan demand is weakening (Chart I-13, top panel). Chart I-13China: What Drives Interest Rates? Then, the central bank adjusts the amount of ER to achieve its desired level of short-term interest rates. Hence, the amount of ER is a function of demand for reserves by banks at the current level of interest rates. The current low level of ER is indicative of weak demand for ER by banks. As loan origination has diminished, economic activity has cooled off and the number of transactions by companies and consumers has dwindled, demand for reserves among banks has declined. Third, declining/expanding ER do not always cause a slowdown/acceleration in money/credit growth, as demonstrated on Chart I-14. There is another variable that stands between ER and money/credit: the money multiplier (MM). The latter is defined as how much broad money/credit banks create per one unit of ER. A rising money multiplier reflects banks' willingness and ability to expand their balance sheets aggressively. A falling multiplier signifies growing risk aversion among banks, or their inability to expand their balance sheets. Chart I-14China: Excess Reserves And Money/Credit Impulses Notably, the credit boom in China since 2009 has been driven not by rapidly expanding ER but primarily by a surging MM. The MM has skyrocketed from 40 in 2008 to 65 presently (Chart I-15). This was the manifestation of excessive risk taking by banks. Chart I-15China: Money Multiplier Why is it sensible to expect the MM in China to decline? With ongoing regulatory tightening, falling asset prices and rising defaults, the odds are non-trivial that mainland banks will be reluctant to expand their balance sheets aggressively. We are not implying they will not boost lending forever, but they may be slower to do so compared to previous downturns. Following the peak in their respective credit bubbles and experiencing deteriorating asset quality, banks in Japan, the U.S., the U.K. and euro area shrunk their balance sheets - even though their respective central banks provided enormous amount of excess reserves, and interest rates were at zero. We do not expect bank credit growth to contract in China like it did in those countries. In fact, bank assets and broad credit are still growing at an annual rate of 7% and 12%, respectively (Chart I-16 and Chart I-7 above). Our point is that deleveraging in China has barely begun, and it still remains a policy priority. Consequently, money and credit growth will languish longer in this downturn than in previous ones. Chart I-16China: Bank Asset Growth To Stay Tame Question: So, how would you summarize the key known unknowns to gauge whether and when monetary policy easing will translate into stronger economic growth? Answer: For monetary policy easing to translate effectively into economic growth, the MM and the velocity of money should rise. Both are driven by sentiment and marginal propensity to lend, borrow and spend. Hence, variations in the MM as well as the velocity of money are contingent on sentiment and behavior among bankers, companies and households. The regulatory clampdown on banks and non-bank financial institutions will hamper their willingness and ability to lend, despite sufficient liquidity and low interest rates. Hence, the MM could surprise on the downside. A combination of the ongoing crackdown on leverage, the starting point of high indebtedness, falling asset prices and trade confrontations, will likely weigh on corporate and consumer sentiment, curb their spending and, thereby, dampen the velocity of money. All in all, risks to both the MM and the velocity of money are to the downside rather than upside at the moment. This will hinder the transmission mechanism from policy easing to economic growth. Question: What is your take on financial markets? Are we close to the bottom in EMs and China-related plays? Answer: EMs and China-plays are in a genuine bear market as we have argued in past.3 BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service reckons there is still meaningful downside in EM risk assets and currencies. The EM/China bear market will continue. The Fed is not about to come to markets' rescue, because U.S. growth is very robust and inflation is rising. A very important market to watch is the RMB exchange rate. If the RMB depreciates further - which is our baseline scenario - Asian and other EM financial markets will continue plunging. The RMB/USD exchange rate has been closely tracking the interest rate differential between China and the U.S. (Chart I-17). As the Fed continues to raise rates and China maintains rates at their current level or reduces them to stimulate, the RMB will depreciate. Chart I-17RMB/USD And Interest Rate Differentials Yuan depreciation will lead to a decline in other Asian currencies. In fact, the Korean won is at a critical technical juncture, and a major move is in the cards. Our bias is it will likely break down, consistent with our bearish view on EM risk assets and currencies. As the RMB depreciates, the amount of U.S. dollars that China emits to emerging economies via imports will decline. This will hurt EM exports to China, their currencies and commodities prices. Overall, the U.S. dollar has more upside. The growth disparity between the U.S. and the rest of world warrants a stronger greenback. The latter and a slowdown in EM/China herald a considerable drop in commodities prices. Question: One commodity that has defied the dollar rally and slowdown in China is oil. Will crude continue to float higher? Answer: Oil prices have risen much further and for far longer than we expected.That said, it appears that oil prices are finally beginning to crack, and we see considerable downside.4 China's imports of oil and petroleum products has decelerated substantially (Chart I-18, top panel). This is occurring at a time when Chinese oil strategic and commercial inventories are very elevated (Chart I-18, bottom panel). Chart I-18China's Oil Imports To Weaken Further Oil prices in local currency terms are at record highs in many developing countries. Given oil and fuel subsidies have been removed or reduced in recent years, high oil prices are curbing oil demand in many emerging economies. Global oil production has been outpacing global oil demand since May (Chart I-19, top panel). Typically, this heralds a rollover in oil prices (Chart I-19, bottom panel). Chart I-19A Risk To Oil Prices Finally, oil output has been surging in the U.S. and strong in Russia (Chart I-20); further, Saudi Arabia could boost its crude output as per its recent pledge. Chart I-20Global Oil Output Has Been Surging While geopolitics remains a supportive factor for crude prices, it seems a lot of good news is already priced in the oil market and investors are very long. In short, oil prices are probably heading south. This will contribute to the negative investment sentiment toward EM financial markets. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Questions For Emerging Markets," dated November 29, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-21/china-s-195-billion-debt-splurge-has-less-bang-than-you-think 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EMs Are In A Bear Market," dated October 18, 2018; the link is available on page 17. 4 This is BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team's view and differs from the BCA house view on oil. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Bank Credit Analyst

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

  Overweight For the better part of this decade, the rise and fall of WTI has been the fundamental driver of the fortunes of the S&P oil & gas exploration & production (E&P) index, as it should be. However, starting in 2017, WTI began a pronounced recovery that was not matched by the relative performance of E&P stocks; this divergence has grown excessive (top panel). Such a divergence would be logical if domestic production had not matched the recovery in oil prices though, as shown in the second panel, this is not the case. Forward earnings projections too have been moving upward at a pace broadly similar to the underlying commodity, which we think marks conservatism on the part of sell-side analysts who are still stinging from being caught offside in 2014. Typically, we would expect increasing fixed cost absorption to drive multiplicative returns to profit growth as the price of oil increases. Nevertheless, forward earnings have been rising much faster than share prices, meaning valuations have collapsed to the normal range before the 2014 oil price decline (bottom panel). We reiterate our overweight recommendation on the S&P oil & gas E&P index and our high-conviction overweight recommendation on the broader S&P energy index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILP - COP, EOG, APC, PXD, DVN, CXO, MRO, APA, HES, NBL, EQT, COG, XEC and NFX.  

Highlights The long term direction for the pound is higher... ...but as the EU withdrawal bill passes through the U.K. parliament, expect a very hairy ride. The stock markets in Norway, Sweden and Denmark are driven by energy, industrials, and biotech respectively. Upgrade Sweden to neutral and downgrade Denmark to underweight. Think of semiconductors as twenty-first century commodities. Overweight the semiconductor sector versus broader technology indexes. Chart of the WeekBritish Public Opinion On Brexit Is Shifting Feature The Brexit drama is playing out exactly as scripted (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Pound Is Following The Brexit Drama In July, we wrote: "The U.K. government's much hyped 'Chequers' proposal for Brexit risks getting a cold shower... the EU27 will almost instantaneously reject the proposed division between goods and services as 'cherry-picking' from its indivisible four freedoms - goods, services, capital, and people... the rejection will be based not just on the EU's founding principles, but also on the practical realities of a modern economy - specifically, the distinction between goods and services has become increasingly blurred." 1 Hence, the Chequers proposal to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic is just wishful thinking: "The Irish border trilemma will remain unsolved, leaving a 'backstop' option of Northern Ireland remaining in the EU single market - an outcome that will be politically unpalatable." 2 What happens next? Understanding Brexit In a sense, Brexit is very simple. The EU27 sees only three options for the long-term political and economic relationship between the U.K. and the EU. Remain in the EU (no Brexit). Plug into an off-the-shelf setup, either the European Economic Area (EEA), European Free Trade Association (EFTA), or a permanent customs union, which already establish the EU relationship with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland (soft Brexit). Become a 'third country' to the EU like, for example, Canada (hard Brexit). The first option, to stay in the EU, is politically impossible unless a new U.K. referendum overturned the original referendum's vote to leave. The second option, to join the EEA, EFTA, or permanent customs union is very difficult for Theresa May - because it is strongly opposed by many of the Conservative government's ministers and members of parliament who regard the option as 'Brino' (Brexit in name only). However, in a significant recent development, the opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn has committed the Labour party to a Brexit that keeps the U.K. in a permanent customs union.3 The third option, to become a 'third country', would very likely require some sort of border in Ireland. As already discussed, the only way to avoid a border would be a perfect alignment between the U.K and EU on tariffs and regulations for goods and services. But then, there would be little point in becoming a third country. Here's the crucial issue. The EU27 does not know which option the U.K. will eventually take, yet it must provide an 'all-weather' safeguard for the Good Friday peace agreement, requiring no border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Therefore, the EU27 will need the withdrawal agreement to commit: either the whole of the U.K. to a potentially permanent customs union with the EU; or Northern Ireland to a potentially permanent customs separation from the rest of the U.K. - in effect, breaking up the U.K by creating a border between Britain and Northern Ireland. Clearly, the hard Brexiters and/or Northern Ireland unionist MPs will vote down a withdrawal bill which contains either of these commitments, thereby wiping out Theresa May's slender majority. The intriguing question is: might Labour MPs - or enough of them - vote for a potentially permanent customs union to get the soft Brexit they want? Labour would be torn between the national interest and the party interest, as it would be missing a golden opportunity to topple the Conservative government. If the withdrawal bill musters a majority, it would remove the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit and the pound would rally - because it would liberate the Bank of England to hike interest rates more aggressively (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). If the bill failed, the government and specifically Theresa May would be badly wounded. She might call a general election there and then. Chart I-3Absent Brexit, U.K. Interest Rates Would Be Higher Chart I-4Absent Brexit, U.K. Interest Rates Would Be Higher If May limped on, parliament would nevertheless have the final say on whether to proceed with a no deal Brexit. And the parliamentary arithmetic indicates that a clear majority of MPs would vote against proceeding over the cliff-edge. At this point with the government paralysed, the only way to unlock the paralysis would be to go back to the people. Either in a general election or in a new referendum, the key issue for the public would be a choice between one of the three aforementioned options for the U.K./EU long-term relationship - because by then, it would be clear that those are the only options on offer. Based on a clear recent shift in British public opinion, the preference is more likely to be for a soft (or no) Brexit than to become a third country (Chart of the Week). Bottom Line: The long term direction for the pound is higher but, as the withdrawal bill passes through parliament, expect a very hairy ride. Understanding Scandinavian Stock Markets The Scandinavian countries - Norway, Sweden, and Denmark - have many things in common: their languages, cultures, and lifestyles, to name just a few. However, when it comes to their stock markets, the three countries could not be more different. Looking at the three bourses, each has a defining dominant sector (or sectors) whose market weighting swamps all others. In Norway, oil and gas accounts for over 40 percent of the market; in Sweden, industrials accounts for 30 percent of the market and financials accounts for another 30 percent; and in Denmark, healthcare accounts for 50 percent of the market (Table I-1). Table I-1The Scandinavian Stock Markets Could Not Be More Different! In a sense, the dominant equity market sectors in Norway and Sweden just reflect their economies. Norway has a large energy sector; Sweden specializes in advanced industrial equipment and machinery and it also has very high level of private sector indebtedness, explaining the outsized weighting in banks. However, Denmark's equity market - dominated as it is by Novo Nordisk, which is essentially a biotech company - has little connection with Denmark's economy. The important point is that the four dominant sectors - oil and gas, industrials, financials, and biotech - each outperform or underperform as global (or at least pan-regional) sectors. If oil and gas outperforms, it outperforms everywhere and not just locally. It follows that the relative performance of the four dominant equity sectors drives the relative stock market performances of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Norway versus Sweden = Energy versus Industrials (Chart I-5) Chart I-5Norway Vs. Sweden = Energy Vs. Industrials Norway versus Denmark = Energy versus Biotech (Chart I-6) Chart I-6Norway Vs. Denmark = Energy Vs. Biotech Sweden versus Denmark = Industrials and Financials versus Biotech (Chart I-7) Chart I-7Sweden Vs. Denmark = Industrials And Financials Vs. Biotech Last week, we upgraded some of the more classical cyclical sectors to a relative overweight. Our argument was that if an inflationary impulse is dominating, beaten-down cyclicals have more upside than the more richly-valued equity sectors; and if a disinflationary impulse from higher bond yields is dominating, its main casualty will be the more richly-valued equity sectors. On this basis, our ranking of the four sectors is: Industrials, Financials, Energy, Biotech. Which means the ranking of the Scandinavian stock markets is: Sweden, Norway, Denmark. Bottom Line: From a pan-European perspective, upgrade Sweden to neutral and downgrade Denmark to underweight. Understanding Semiconductors The best way to understand semiconductors is to think of them as twenty-first century commodities. In the twentieth century, many everyday goods and products contained a classical commodity such as copper. Today, the ubiquity of electronic gadgets, devices, and screens contains a twenty-first century equivalent: the microchip. Hence, semiconductors are to the tech world what classical commodities are to the non-tech world. They exhibit exactly the same cycle of relative performance. If, as we expect, beaten-down industrial commodities outperform, it follows that the beaten-down semiconductor sector will outperform broader technology indexes (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Semiconductors Follow The Commodity Cycle Bottom Line: Overweight the semiconductor sector versus technology. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 For example, the sale of a car is no longer the sale of just a good. As car companies often structure the financing of the car purchase, a car purchase can be a hybrid of a good - the car itself, and a service - the financing package. Therefore, a single market for cars requires a single market for both goods and services. 2 The Irish border trilemma comprises: 1. the U.K./EU land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic; 2. the Good Friday peace agreement requiring the absence of any physical border within Ireland; 3.the Northern Ireland unionists' refusal to countenance a U.K./EU border at the Irish Sea, which would entail a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. 3 At the Labour Party's just-held 2018 conference, Jeremy Corbyn made a commitment to joining a permanent U.K./EU customs union. Fractal Trading Model* This week's recommended trade comes from Down Under. The 25% outperformance of Australian telecoms (driven by Telstra) versus insurers (driven by IAG and AMP) over the past 3 months appears technically extended, with a 65-day fractal dimension at a level that has regularly indicated the start of a countertrend move. Therefore, the recommended trade is short Australian telecoms versus insurers, setting a profit target of 7% and a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, long CRB Industrial commodities versus MSCI World Index achieved its profit target very quickly, leaving four open trades. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart I-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart I-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

Highlights The pace of "de-capacity" reforms in China will continue to diminish, with declining shutdowns of inefficient capacity and rising advanced capacity over the next 12-15 months. Coal prices may have less downside than steel prices due to more resilient domestic demand, and lower production growth for the former than the latter. Meanwhile, iron ore prices may have limited downside and could outperform steel prices due to increasing shutdowns of domestic iron ore mines. Go long September 2019 thermal coal and iron ore futures versus September 2019 steel rebar futures. Chinese coal producers' shares may outperform Chinese steel producers' shares. Feature This April, our Special Report titled, "Revisiting China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms," painted a negative picture for steel and coal prices over 2018 and 2019 on diminishing pace of "de-capacity" reforms and rising steel and coal output.1 So far, our call has not yet played out. Both steel and coal prices have been firm over the past five months (Chart 1A). Meanwhile, iron ore and coking coal have also rebounded (Chart 1B). Chart 1ASteel And Coal Prices: More Upside Ahead? Chart 1BIron Ore And Coking Coal Prices: Following Steel And Coal Prices? In this report, we return to the analysis we laid out back in April, with the goal of identifying whether or not the rally in steel and coal prices will continue. Another major question to answer is why share prices of coal and steel companies have continued to plunge, even though coal and steel prices have held up well. In brief, our research findings still suggest that steel and coal prices are likely to fall over the next 12-15 months on a diminishing pace of de-capacity (less shutdowns of old capacity) and rising advanced capacity. We also reckon that coal prices may have less downside than steel prices over the next 12-15 months due to more resilient domestic demand and smaller production growth compared to steel; we conclude by outlining a long/short trade opportunity tied to this view. Understanding The Recent Price Rally The recent strength in both steel and coal prices has been due to a tighter supply-demand balance than we expected: Steel Falling steel product output and still-solid steel demand growth have pushed up steel prices this year. While crude steel production has had strong growth so far this year (9% year-on-year and 50 million tons in volume), total output of steel product has actually declined by 20 million tons (2.7%) year-on-year during the same period (Chart 2). Steel products, including rebars, wire rods, sheets and other items, are made from crude steel and consumed in end consumption. Tianjin province - a city very close to Beijing - accounted for more than 100% of the reduction of steel product output, as 40% of the province's operating capacity was shut down due to the city's "de-capacity" policy and increasingly stringent environmental regulations. In addition, Chinese steel products production had already experienced huge cut last year by nearly 100 million due to the government's "Ditiaogang" de-capacity policy.2 As a result, strong crude steel output growth this year has not been able to lift steel product production from contraction, creating a shortage in Chinese steel product supply. To put it in perspective, total steel products production for the first eight months of this year is at a five-year low. Chart 2Falling Steel Product Output Amid Strong Crude Steel Production Growth Chart 3Steel Demand Has Been Robust As Well Meanwhile, massive pledged supplementary lending (PSL) injections - the People's Bank of China's direct lending to the real estate market - had extended property sales and starts beyond what appeared to be a sustainable trajectory, thereby lifting steel demand to some extent3 (Chart 3). Hence, weaker-than-expected steel products supply combined with slightly better demand than we anticipated have tightened the Chinese domestic steel market further, and underpinned high steel prices. Coal Similarly, the rebound in coal prices has also been due to declining output and strong demand growth. Chinese coal output turned out to be much weaker than we expected due to extremely stringent and frequent environmental and safety inspections on coal output (Chart 4). Back in mid-2017, in order to curb pollution, China demanded that coal mines plant trees, boost efficiency, cut down noise and seal off facilities from the outside world as part of a new "green mining" plan. This year's inspection have been even more stringent. Operations among coal mines, coal-washing plants and coal storage facilities were halted immediately if inspection teams found they failed to meet the related standards. As a result, Chinese coal production contracted 1% for the first eight months of this year. Chart 4Weaker-Than-Expected Coal Output Chart 5Resilient Thermal Coal Demand On the demand side, electricity generation from thermal power has remained quite robust at 7% (Chart 5). Again, coal prices have rebounded as the domestic coal supply-demand balance has tightened. Will Steel And Coal Prices Continue To Rise? The short answer is no. Many of the drivers underpinning the recent rally in steel and coal prices are set to fade over the next 12-15 months: Steel Steel prices will likely weaken in 2019 on rising steel product output and faltering steel demand growth. First, production of both crude steel and steel products will rise considerably next year, as the steel sector's de-capacity target is almost reached and new advanced capacity will come on stream faster to replace old or inefficient capacity that has already exited the market. Table 1 showed the 82% of this year's steel de-capacity target was already achieved by the end of July, leaving not much in the way of additional de-capacity cuts needed through the remainder of 2018. If this year's de-capacity cut target of 30 million tons is fulfilled over the next two months, there will be no need for any more capacity cuts in 2019, as the high end of the 2016-2020 de-capacity target (150 million tons) will be fully met this year. Table 1Supply-Side Reform - Capacity Reduction Target And Actual Achievement Record-high profit margins that Chinese steel producers are currently enjoying will also help boost steel production (Chart 6). This was the main driver behind this year's strong growth in crude steel output, despite more stringent environmental policies and ongoing de-capacity efforts. In addition, falling graphite electrode prices and increasing graphite electrode production will facilitate the expansion of cleaner electric furnace (EF) steel capacity and production in China (Chart 7). Chart 6Steel Producers' Profit Margin: At A Record High Chart 7Rising Graphite Electrode Supply Will Facilitate EF Steel Output EF technology uses scrap steel as raw materials, graphite electrodes and electricity to produce crude steel. The availability of graphite electrode has been one major bottleneck for the development of EF capacity. As of late 2017, there were about 524,000 tons of new graphite electrode capacity under construction, most of which will be completed within the next two years. This will nearly double the current capacity of 590,000 tons. As this capacity gradually enters into the market, graphite electrode prices will drop further, encouraging more EF steel projects. In 2017, newly added EF steel capacity was about 30 million tons, and EF steel production increased by about 24 million tons (47% year-on-year). With rising graphite electrode supply, EF capacity this year is expected to add 40 million tons, resulting in about a 25-30 million ton increase in EF steel output. In 2019, based on the government's goal of 15% of total steel production being EF steel by 2020, we expect another 25-30 million tons new EF capacity to come online. This alone would translate into 3-4% rise in steel product production in 2019. Second, while steel supply is rising, the demand outlook seems more pessimistic. Our September 13 Special Report titled, "China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?" concluded that the Chinese property market is facing increasing downside risks. Diminishing PSL direct financing from the central bank and shrinking funding sources for Chinese real estate developers point to a considerable slowdown in property starts and construction, which will eventually lead to faltering demand for steel. Chinese auto output growth is weak, with the three-month moving average growth registering a 6% contraction this September. The government has boosted infrastructure projects. This will support steel demand to some extent, but it is unlikely to offset demand weakness from the down-trending property market. The property market is the biggest steel-consuming sector, accounting for 38% of total Chinese steel consumption - much higher than the 23% share from the infrastructure sector. Bottom Line: Steel prices may stay high over the next two or three months due to low inventories and heating-season production controls within the steel industry. Nonetheless, steel prices are vulnerable to the downside over the next 12-15 months on rising steel product output and faltering steel demand growth. Coal Coal prices will likely decline over the next 12-15 months, but the price downside may be less than that of steel. First, on the supply side, coal output will rise only moderately (i.e., 2-3%) in 2019. There are three drivers pushing up Chinese coal output. The government in May asked domestic coal producers to ramp up coal output, as current coal market supply has been tight this year. Particularly, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) demanded that the top three coal produce provinces (Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Inner Mongolia) increase their aggregated coal output by at least 300,000 tons per day as soon as possible. However, the June-July environmental inspections within the major producing province of Mongolia resulted in a 14 million ton year-on-year drop in the province's coal output. If the 300,000 ton per day increase is realized in 2019, it will be equivalent to nearly 100 million tons of new coal supply next year, which is about 2.8% growth from 2017's output of 3.52 billion tons. Based on government data, 660 million tons of capacity is currently under construction, which includes new technologically advanced capacity that has already been built and ready to use but has not yet received government approval. If 30% of the under-construction capacity comes to market in 2019 and runs at a capacity utilization rate of 70%, it will translate into about 140 million tons of new coal supply next year, which is about 4% growth from last year. Due to too-strict production policies during the winter heating season, there was a coal supply crisis last winter. This year, the government is likely to implement a less stringent production policy for coal. In this case, coal producers will likely produce more to take advantage of seven-year-high profit margins (Chart 8). Chart 8Coal Producers' Profit Margin: At A Multi-Year High However, at the same time there are also two drivers dragging down coal output. Table 1 above shows that at the end of July, only 53% of this year's coal de-capacity target and 65% of the government's 2016-2020 coal capacity reduction target had been achieved. This implies that Chinese coal producers still need to cut 70 million tons of old coal capacity through the remainder of 2018 and another 210 million tons of inefficient capacity in the coming two years (2019 and 2020) - possibly 105 million tons of cuts in each year. Similar to steel, coal de-capacity reforms are also diminishing (e.g. a 150-million ton reduction target in 2018 versus a 105 million-ton reduction target in 2019). However, different from steel, the remaining de-capacity target for coal is still quite significant. With continuing the implementation of its de-capacity plan, excluding the three major producing provinces, the remaining provinces that in general have smaller-scale coal mines may face further cuts in their coal production. For the first eight months of this year, 13 out of the 22 non-top-three coal-producing provinces registered a contraction in coal output. Environmental policies will likely remain strict, given the country seems determined to improve its air quality. More frequent inspection and/or stricter policies will further curb coal production. On balance, we still expect overall coal output to increase moderately (i.e., 2-3%) next year. Second, on the demand side, coal demand growth will weaken only slightly due to robust thermal coal consumption for thermal power generation (Chart 5 above). We expect Chinese electricity consumption to grow at 5-6% next year - a touch lower than this year - on strong demand from both the residential and service sectors. Most of the growth will likely be supplied by thermal power, as some 72% of total electricity generation is currently thermal power. In addition, the government has limited hydropower and nuclear power projects coming onstream next year. In the meantime, coal consumption for heating will likely be replaced by natural gas or electricity, and coking coal demand may fall due to EF steel expansion and more use of scrap steel in blast furnaces. Bottom Line: Coal prices are likely to head south on rising supply and weakening demand growth next year. In addition, we expect coal prices to fall less than steel prices over the next 12-15 months on a tighter supply-demand balance for the former than the latter. What About The Iron Ore Market? The outlook for iron ore prices is becoming less downbeat. Iron ore prices may have limited downside and could outperform steel prices over the next 12-15 months - due to increasing shutdowns of mainland iron ore mines. Government data show that Chinese domestic iron ore output contracted 40% year-on-year in the first eight months of this year (Chart 9). About 60% of the decline was from Hebei - the province that has probably imposed the strictest environmental policies among all the provinces targeting ferrous- and coal- related industries - due to its proximity to the capital, Beijing. Chart 9Significant Drop In Domestic Iron Ore Output Profit margins for iron ore miners has tanked to a 15-year low due to rising production costs on environmental protections. The number of loss-making enterprises as a share of the total number of iron ore companies has reached a record high (Chart 10). Although EF steel capacity additions will contribute to most of the growth in crude steel output next year, non-EF crude steel capacity, which uses iron ore as its main input, will also increase to some extent. This will also lift iron ore demand, which will lead to further declines in port inventories and rising imports (Chart 11). Chart 10Iron Ore Producers' Profit Margin: At A 15-Year Low Chart 11Chinese Iron Ore Imports Are Likely To Go Up Bottom Line: We are less bearish on iron ore prices and expect them to outperform steel prices. Chinese iron ore imports will likely grow again. Investment Implications Three main investment implications can be drawn from our analysis. Price ratios of thermal coal/steel rebar and iron ore/steel rebar have fallen to record low levels (Chart 12). As we expect thermal coal and iron ore prices to outperform steel, we recommend going long September 2019 thermal coal futures/short September 2019 steel rebar futures and going long September 2019 iron ore futures/short September 2019 steel rebar futures on Chinese exchanges in RMB. Chinese coal imports including both thermal coal and coking coal could remain strong, which would at a margin be positive news for Chinese major coal importers Australia, Indonesia, Russia and Mongolia. In the meantime, Chinese iron ore imports are likely to rebound in 2019 as well. This will be positive news for producers in Australia, Brazil and South Africa. Chart 12Both Thermal Coal And Iron Ore Will Likely Outperform Steel Chart 13Coal Producers' Shares May Outperform Steel Producers' Stocks Despite stubbornly high coal and steel prices, Chinese share prices of coal producers and steel producers have still plunged (Chart 13, top and middle panel). From a top-down standpoint, it is hard to explain such poor share price performance among Chinese steel and coal companies when their profits have been booming. Our hunch is that these companies have been forced by the government to shoulder the debt of their peer companies that were shut down. This is an example of how the government can force shareholders of profitable companies to bear losses from restructuring by merging zombie companies into profitable ones. Based on our analysis, Chinese steel producers' share prices are still at risk of falling steel prices, while coal-producing companies may benefit from rising production and limited downside in coal prices. Hence, Chinese coal producers' shares may continue to outperform steel producers' shares with the price ratio of the former versus the latter just rebounding from three-year lows (Chart 13, bottom panel). Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy EllenJ@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed", dated November 22, 2017, and "Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms", dated April 26, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Ditiaogang" is low-quality steel made by melting scrap metal in cheap and easy-to-install induction furnaces. These steel products are of poor quality and also lead to environmental degradation. As "Ditiaogang" is illegal in China, it is not recorded in official crude steel production data. However, after it is converted into steel products, official steel products production data do include it. Consequently, last year's significant removal of "Ditiaogang" and statistical issues have caused the big divergence between crude steel production expansion and steel products output contraction since then. 3 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?", dated September 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations