Labor Market

Highlights We were on the road last week, discussing our economic and market outlooks: We met with a range of Midwestern clients who focus primarily on the U.S. A majority of our meetings were with fixed-income teams. The Fed will ultimately decide the fate of the expansion, … : Nearly everyone wanted to get a read on how much longer the expansion will last. We offered the view that the Fed will induce the next recession, provided that an exogenous event doesn’t beat it to the punch. … and inflation will be the catalyst that prompts the Fed to act: Inflation was typically far from investors’ minds, and several of our meetings centered on what will drive it, and where and when we expect it will show up. Feature We traveled throughout the Midwest last week, discussing our outlook for financial markets and the economy with a range of investors. We got the sense that our clients are constructive about the economy and are generally open to tilting portfolios in a risk-friendly direction, albeit somewhat grudgingly. They recognized the challenge that worsening U.S.-China trade relations would pose to a constructive call, but were content to wait for more information before adjusting their views or their portfolios. Our views continue to follow the outline we’ve laid out in our written reports. In the absence of economic or financial market excesses, or an exogenous shock that induces a material slowdown, we expect the expansion to roll on until the Fed begins to fear that it’s gone too far and imposes restrictive monetary policy settings to rein it in. Until it does, we expect that the equity bull market will continue and spread product will deliver positive excess returns over Treasuries. The investment strategy takeaway is that it is too early to de-risk portfolios. De-risking will become the order of the day once the Fed resumes tightening monetary conditions via rate hikes. There is currently no sign that the Fed is contemplating a meaningfully hawkish shift, but we expect that inflation pressures will eventually force its hand. Ten years of subdued inflation have made a mockery of recurring post-crisis inflation warnings, and clients have developed a robust immunity to them. What, they wanted to know, has changed enough to resuscitate inflation? Steroid-Fueled Demand Aggregate demand crashed during the crisis and was far short of the economy’s capacity when it bottomed in mid-2009. In economics lingo, that meant that the U.S. economy faced a sizable negative output gap when it embarked on the recovery/expansion. Although the economy grew at a tepid 2% rate over the ensuing decade, capacity grew even more slowly, held back by consistently weak capital expenditures, and the output gap finally closed around the beginning of 2018 (Chart 1), removing a stout inflation-absorbing buffer. Chart 1The Excess Capacity Cushion Is Gone The United States then poured fuel on the fire by injecting a significant quantity of stimulus into an economy that was already operating at capacity. Corporations and other businesses that viewed the pickup in aggregate demand as a one-off event refrained from expanding capacity to meet that demand, as it appeared as if it would be a poor use of capital. Imported goods from economies that still have excess capacity can relieve some of the pressure of inadequate domestic supply, but they’re unlikely to absorb all of the pressure from excess demand, even in the absence of new tariff barriers. The aggregate 2018-19 stimulus shapes up as a catalyst for higher prices. Capacity vastly exceeded demand when the economy began to turn around ten years ago, but the stimulus package has made it look a little thin. The trouble is that no one can pinpoint exactly when upward price pressures will reveal themselves. Inflation is the mother of all lagging indicators, peaking and bottoming well after business cycle transitions suggest it should (Chart 2). All we can say is that the steroid injection from the stimulus planted the seeds of inflation. Just when they’ll begin to sprout is uncertain, but we believe the Fed’s pause will give them a chance to take root. Wage Inflation The labor market is so tight that it squeaks. The unemployment rate has fallen to a 49-year low; baby boomer retirements will cap the labor force participation rate around its current level (Chart 3, top panel); and discouraged workers (Chart 3, middle panel) and involuntary part-time workers are few and far between (Chart 3, bottom panel). Now that it has been absorbed, the glut of idled workers will no longer serve as a buffer neutralizing upward wage pressures. The labor market is tight as a drum. The pool of discouraged workers and involuntary part-timers is smaller than it was at the last two cyclical peaks, while employer demand is more robust. Employees are starting to gain bargaining power. The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) indicates that demand for new workers is intense. As a share of total filled positions, job openings are at an all-time high in the 18-year history of the series (Chart 4, middle panel). No one quits a job unless s/he has another one lined up, and it almost always requires higher pay to induce an employee to jump from Employer A to Employer B. The elevated quit rate thus reveals that employers are poaching workers from each other to meet that demand (Chart 4, bottom panel). After Employer B lures an employee away from Employer A, Employer A hires a worker from Employer C or Employer D, which now has an opening it needs to fill. The employment merry-go-round creates a self-reinforcing cycle pushing wages higher and endowing employees with newfound bargaining power. Chart 3With Fewer Workers On The Sidelines … Chart 4… Employers Have Turned To Poaching Self-sustaining wage gains could produce price-level increases via a demand-pull or a cost-push mechanism. In a demand-pull framework, businesses observing steady payroll expansions and increased household income may well attempt to push through selling price increases. Under cost-push, corporations raise prices in an attempt to offset increased labor costs. Then again, the pass-through from wage inflation to price inflation might not occur at all, as the dynamics of inflation are not fully understood. What The Fed Believes Investors may be frustrated by the lack of a clear connection between wages and prices, but they should not be put off by a little ambiguity – there would be no alpha without uncertainty. An absence of realized inflation does not eliminate the prospect of rate hikes. Our Inflation → Rate Hikes → Restrictive Monetary Policy → Recession → Bear Market roadmap may still come to pass. The first step in the chain would simply have to be perceived inflation as opposed to realized inflation, and it’s the Fed’s perception that drives monetary policy, not the public’s. As we stressed in our Special Report on the Phillips curve,1 there is no alternative explanation in mainstream economics connecting the dots between the elements of the Fed’s dual mandate. Every mainstream economic model posits an inverse relationship between inflation and the unemployment rate. Every economist learned about the expectations-augmented Phillips curve multiple times in the course of his or her undergraduate and graduate studies. Until the profession settles on an alternative narrative, the Fed and other major central banks will be beholden to the Phillips curve. The connection between wages and prices is a mystery, but the Phillips curve’s place in mainstream economics remains secure. It’s easy to talk of patience when inflation has been hibernating for ten years, even with the unemployment rate at 49-year lows, but once wage gains begin to exceed 3.5% and 4%, we expect the Fed will change its tune. Wages do not respond to changes in the unemployment rate when there’s ample slack in the labor market, but they do once it becomes difficult to find employees. The varying sensitivity of changes in wages at different levels of unemployment explains the kink in the Phillips curve, but we found the NAIRU-based unemployment gap2 to be a reliable proxy for identifying the point at which the labor market meaningfully tightens (Chart 5). Chart 5NAIRU, … The natural rate of unemployment is only a concept, however, and the CBO series we use to calculate the unemployment gap is subject to retroactive adjustments intended to better match the CBO’s estimates with real-world observations. We therefore incorporated two alternative measures of labor market slack to test the robustness of the unemployment-gap framework. The first is the Jobs Plentiful/Jobs Hard To Get responses from the Conference Board’s consumer confidence survey. The top panel of Chart 6 calculates the difference between Jobs Hard To Get and Jobs Plentiful; when it’s positive (negative), survey respondents are indicating that the labor market is soft (tight). The disparity in wage growth between the soft and the tight states, as estimated by the hoi polloi, is a little larger than under the CBO’s revised NAIRU estimates, suggesting Main Street may be better positioned to evaluate labor-market dynamics than D Street (the CBO’s address). Chart 6… The Consumer Confidence Survey, … To get away from the arbitrariness of the unemployment rate and the uncertainty of NAIRU estimates, we considered the employment gap from the perspective of the prime-age (non-)employment-to-population ratio (Chart 7). It also supports the conclusion that wage gains are a function of the degree of labor market slack, but the outlier results from the crisis render the mean non-employment ratio since 1985 a less-than-perfect boundary between tightness and slack. The prime-age (non-)employment-to-population ratio better fits the standard Phillips curve framework, producing a solidly linear relationship (Chart 8). It points to further wage gains as prime-age employment increases. Chart 7… And Prime-Age (Non-)Employment All Point To Faster Wage Gains If productivity continues to grow by leaps and bounds – the fourth-quarter gain was impressive, the first-quarter’s was eye-popping – the Fed won’t feel much pressure to hike rates. Productivity is a function of capital expenditures; workers are able to increase output when they’re provided with more and better tools. Capex has been extremely weak ever since the crisis in the U.S. and the rest of the world, however, and we do not think that investors should count on productivity remaining much above its low 1%-plus trend level of the last several years. Investment Implications The ultimate effect of the Fed’s pause will be to extend the duration of the expansion, assuming that an exogenous shock does not pull the plug on it. Extending the expansion will have the effect of extending the equity bull market, and the period in which spread product generates positive excess returns over Treasuries. There is no free lunch, and dovishness now will be offset by hawkishness later. Larger bull-market gains will ultimately be countered by larger bear-market losses. That is a concern for another day, however, and we continue to recommend that investors remain at least equal weight equities and spread product in balanced portfolios. We do not see a recession until the second half of 2020 at the earliest. Our best guess is that it will begin around the middle of 2021, so it is too early to de-risk portfolios or shift to a more defensive asset allocation profile.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see the U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report,  “The Phillips Curve: Science Or Superstition?”, published February 26, 2019. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The unemployment gap in the top panel of Chart 5 is calculated by subtracting the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of NAIRU from the official unemployment rate. NAIRU, or the natural rate of unemployment (u*), is the minimum unemployment rate that would exist even in a full-employment economy. It results from structural factors like skill and geographic mismatches. The CBO currently estimates that NAIRU is 4.7%; the Fed’s dots suggest that it estimates u* is around 4.6%.  

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights An aging population, a banking sector in poor health, and a private sector focused on building up savings are the key factors undermining euro area growth on a structural basis. A large manufacturing sector makes the euro area vulnerable to EM competition. Unlike the U.S., the region’s tech sector is held back by regulatory burdens, taxes and heavy dependence on bank funding. The euro area growth faces decades of low growth and inflation. Euro area rates will stay depressed, but paradoxically, the euro can still experience structural appreciation. Euro area equities are cheap for a good reason, and banks will continue to weigh on performance. Feature Over the past 10 years, the euro area has gone through a sovereign debt crisis, a double-dip recession, persistent below-target inflation, and most recently, yet another major growth slowdown. Moreover, this economic malaise materialized despite highly stimulative monetary policy, including negative interest rates. The ongoing economic weakness has raised the specter that the euro area is the new Japan. Nearly three decades after the bursting of the Nikkei bubble, the Land of the Rising Sun remains mired in low growth and mild but persistent deflation. Consequently, charts showing that European policy rates or bond yields are tracking Japanese developments with a 17-year lag (Chart II-1) have not only become commonplace, they elicit fears that European growth, interest rates and asset valuations will lag the rest of the world for decades to come. Chart II-1Europe Is Following The Japanese Example In this piece, we discuss the various forces that explain why the euro area economy has been so weak this decade, and why such low interest rates have had so little impact on growth. We also study what sets the U.S. and euro area apart, and whether or not Europe will follow the trail blazed by Japan nearly 30 years ago. The Three Headwinds Three ills have kept European growth particularly depressed this cycle and are likely to remain significant headwinds into the foreseeable future: demographics, the banking sector’s poor health, and nonfinancial private sector balance sheet cleansing. 1)   Demographics This is the most well understood and acknowledged problem impacting Europe today. Since 2008, the European population has grown by 2%, or only 0.2% a year, with the working age population having peaked around that year. Going forward, the picture will only deteriorate: The UN expects Europe’s population to contract by 12% over the next 27 years, and the working age population to fall by 15%. This also means that the dependency ratio – the number of individuals aged less than 15 and above 65 per 100 working-age people – will approximately double over the coming 40 years. This is a clear parallel with Japan. As Chart II-2 illustrates, Europe’s population, the number of working-age individuals and the dependency ratio are all tracking Japan with a 17-year lag. Like Japan, Europe’s trend growth will thus only deteriorate further. Not only will Europe not be able to add as many workers as the U.S. to its total, but it will need to build even fewer schools, malls, office buildings or units of housing. Consequently, both the supply and demand sides of the economy will lag due to this factor alone. 2)   Banking Sector Health The poor health of the euro area banking sector is well known. BCA’s Global Asset Allocation service published an in-depth analysis of the European banking sector last December.4 The piece demonstrated that European banks have been much slower to recognize non-performing loans, curtail credit and rebuild capital than their U.S. counterparts. U.S. bank loans to the private sector fell by 13% in the two years during the crisis, while in Europe, these same loans have only fallen by 2% since 2008. Euro area banks generally remain burdened with significant non-performing loans as a percentage of regulatory capital. Moreover, net interest margins are also dismal, implying that the income cushion against bad loans is thin. Consequently, outside of France, Finland and Germany, European banks have either not grown their loan books to the private sector or, as is the case with Spain, Portugal, and Ireland, these books are continuously shrinking (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Same Demography In Europe Now Than In Japan Then Chart II-3Peripheral Banks Continue To Curtail Credit   The poor health of the European banking system is now constraining the supply of new credit to the rest of the economy. This is a much bigger problem than is the case in the U.S. given that in Europe, 72% of corporate funding comes from the banking system while 88% of household liabilities are also funded this way. In the U.S., the share of bank funding for these sectors is 32% and 29%, respectively (Chart II-4). A weak euro area banking system prevents the nonfinancial private sector from growing as robustly as it could. 3)   Nonfinancial Private Sector Balance Sheet Cleanse Another major drag on European growth has been the continued efforts of the European private sector to rebuild its balance sheet. To use the terminology developed by our upcoming conference speaker Richard Koo, the euro area has been in the thralls of a powerful balance sheet recession. Households in the euro area, Japan and the U.S. are all accumulating more financial assets than liabilities. However, only in the U.S. is the nonfinancial corporate sector building more liabilities than it is accumulating assets (Chart II-5). In Japan and Europe, the nonfinancial corporate sector is also a source of savings for the economy. Moreover, in Europe, the government runs a much smaller financial deficit. The current account balance tells this story vividly. A country’s current account is equal to the private sector’s savings minus investment and minus government deficits. As Italy, Spain, and other peripheral economies increased their aggregate savings after 2008, their large current account deficits vanished. Meanwhile, the governments of countries like Germany or the Netherlands, which sported healthy public finances, did not increase their spending in a commensurate way. This adjustment transformed an overall euro area current account deficit of 1.5% in 2008 into a surplus of 3.0% of GDP today, sending some of Europe’s excess savings abroad. This mimics the post-1990 Japanese experience. In the U.S., where the private sector savings did not rise as durably as in Europe, the current account stopped improving meaningfully in 2010 (Chart II-6). Chart II-5European Businesses Are Savers, Like In Japan Chart II-6The Current Account Dynamics Epitomise The Savings Dynamics   A private sector squarely focused on rebuilding its balance sheet liquidity can lead to a liquidity trap. In this state, monetary policy can become ineffective as spending does not respond to lower interest rates. This is where Europe is currently stuck, explaining why the European Central Bank is finding that inflation and growth are not experiencing much lift, despite seemingly incredibly accommodative monetary conditions. Why Such An Urge To Save? The fact that the household sector is a net saver is not surprising, as this is a normal state of affairs across most economies. But why is the European nonfinancial corporate sector still trying to improve its balance sheet liquidity by accumulating more assets than liabilities? Like Japanese businesses 30 years ago, European firms have large debt loads. Another problem is the lack of capex opportunities in Europe. Why do we make this assertion? The return on assets in Europe has been at rock-bottom levels ever since the introduction of the euro (Chart II-7). In the decade from 1998 to 2008, this was a non-issue. Strong global growth flattered European sales, and easy access to credit meant that via rising leverage euro area-listed nonfinancial corporations were able to generate returns on equity comparable to U.S. firms (Chart II-8, top panel). Once European banks got cold feet and European nonfinancial businesses began focusing on deleveraging, the low level of return on assets became more apparent. Part of the problem is that European profit margins are much closer to Japanese than U.S. levels (Chart II-8, middle panel). Even more damning, asset turnover – how much sales are generated by a unit of assets – has been structurally lower in Europe than in both Japan and the U.S. for multiple decades (Chart II-8, bottom panel). Chart II-7Europe Suffers From A Lower RoA Chart II-8DuPont's Decomposition Shows Why The Euro Area RoA Is Poor   The first factor weighing on the level of asset utilization and returns in Europe is the elevated level of capital stock. As Chart II-9 illustrates, the capital stock as a share of output in Italy, Spain and France dwarfs that of Japan, China or the U.S. Even Germany’s capital stock, which stands well below that of other large euro area economies, is nearly 100 percentage points of GDP larger than the U.S’s. Europe has too large a pool of assets to make any additional investments profitable, especially in light of its poor demographic profile. The second factor weighing on European asset utilization and returns is the poorer level of labor productivity. From the 1950s to the early 1980s, European GDP per worker rose relative to the U.S., albeit peaking at 92% of the levels across the Atlantic. Due to falling working hours in Europe relative to the U.S. since the 1980s, relative output per hour continued to rise until the mid-1990s, peaking at 105% of the U.S. level. However, since their respective zeniths, both relative productivity measures have collapsed (Chart II-10, top panel). Chart II-10Another Symptom Of Europe's Misallocation Of Capital In The 2000s These collapses are in fact worse than Japan’s performance since its lost decades began. As the second panel of the chart shows, since the early 1990s, Japan’s relative output per hour and per worker have flattened – not declined – at around 65% and 72%, respectively, of U.S. levels. Instead, relative European productivity levels are currently converging toward Japanese levels (Chart II-10, third and fourth panels). The particularly poor level of European asset utilization and productivity principally reflects the duality between the peripheral as well as French economies on one side, and Germany as well as the Netherlands on the other side. The exceptionally large capital stock outside of Germany is a legacy of the years directly after the euro’s introduction. Back then, the ECB kept rates low to help Germany, the then-sick man of Europe. These rates were too low for the rest of Europe, encouraging large capital stock build-ups. Moreover, this capital was misallocated, as demonstrated by the tepid growth of output per hour and output per capita in Europe post 2000. Since funds were poorly allocated, the output-to-capital ratio in the periphery collapsed. In other words, the peripheral capital-stock-to-GDP ratios continued rising because the denominator, GDP, lagged. An additional problem for Europe’s asset utilization has been its large manufacturing sector. Even after declining, 20% of Europe’s GDP still comes from the secondary sector versus less than 12% in the U.S. (Chart II-11). This has two consequences for Europe’s asset utilization relative to the U.S. First, a large manufacturing sector requires a much larger asset base than a large service or tech sector. Second, the manufacturing sector is more exposed to competition from emerging markets than the tech sector, or than the domestically-focused service sector. Chart II-11Europe Is Left Exposed To EM Competition In other words, not only has the U.S. experienced less capital misallocation than a large swath of the European economy, it has also re-aligned its economy to make it more robust in the face of competition from emerging economies, while Europe mostly has not. Consequently, hurt by foreign competition and unable or unwilling to re-invent itself, Europe has been left with dwindling relative productivity levels and poor degrees of asset utilization and returns. Why Did The U.S. Economy Transition Better than Europe To A Globalized World? There are many reasons why the U.S. has maintained higher RoAs and has been more successful at transitioning away from a manufacturing-led economy than the euro area. First, the level of product and service market regulation in Europe is highly punitive. As Chart II-12 illustrates, like Japan, most euro area countries fare poorly in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business survey. In fact, Italy scores even lower than China! Meanwhile, the U.S. ranks near the top, not far from Singapore. This means that starting new businesses, competing, and so on is easier in the U.S. than in Europe, helping foster a greater level of entrepreneurialism. Consequently, established businesses have been able to maintain the status quo longer in Europe than in the U.S., preventing creative destruction from purging the system of bad assets. Second, most large euro area economies are burdened by heavy taxes. As Chart II-13 shows, while the U.S. public sector extracts taxes equal to 27.1% of GDP, German, Italian and French taxes equal 37.5%, 42.4% and 46.2% of GDP, respectively, well above the OECD average of 34.2%. Such high levels of taxation disincentivize risk-taking. Lower levels of risk taking by individuals further prevented the degree of creative destruction necessary for Europe to better use its capital stock. Third, and linked to the previous point, government spending equals 34.9% of GDP in the U.S., compared to 48.2% and 56.0% in Italy or France, respectively. A large government has historically stifled innovation and favored the status quo. By no means does this implies that the U.S. system is free of imbalances, but it highlights that compared to two of the three largest European economies, the U.S. public sector has had a less deleterious impact on growth conditions and entrepreneurialism. Moreover, Italy and France have been in deep need of structural reforms that have been lacking. On this front, while the outlook is improving in France under Macron’s presidency, Italy remains mired in immobilism. Europe has too large a pool of assets to make any additional investments profitable, especially in light of its poor demographic profile. Fourth, the financing structure in the U.S. favors investing in new businesses and industries, especially when compared to the euro area. Equities represent 78% of the capital structure of nonfinancial corporations in the U.S. while they represent only 61% in the euro area. Moreover, within debt-financing, capital markets account for 68% of sourced funds in the U.S. compared to 28% in the euro area. In fact, junk bond market capitalization only accounts for 2.2% of GDP in Europe compared to 6.0% in the U.S. This suggests that financing risky ventures – and entrepreneurialism is inherently risky – is tougher in Europe than in the U.S. In fact, as a share of GDP, the European venture capital business is less than a sixth the size of the U.S.’s (Chart II-14), a gap that has existed for more than 30 years. Chart II-14U.S. Financing Allows For Greater Risk Taking With all these hurdles, it is unsurprising that Europe has taken more time to make its economy more dynamic in the globalized economy of the 21st century. It also explains why Europe might be suffering more from EM competition than the U.S. Interestingly, this last point may be changing as U.S. voters seem to want to move back toward a larger manufacturing sector. This transition is unlikely to happen without more protectionism. This is a topic for another report. Is Europe Doomed To Japanification… Or Worse? It is easy to see why Europe cannot hope to grow as fast as the U.S., and therefore why the ECB will not be able to lift rates as high as the Fed and why bund yields are likely to lag Treasurys for years to come. Europe has a much more dire demographic profile than the U.S. It needs to purge its capital stock and invigorate its economy through reforms, a smaller public sector, and more diversified financing channels. But can the euro area fare better than Japan has over the past 30 years? On three fronts, the euro area looks better than Japan. First, as Chart II-15 shows, the overall European nonfinancial private sector entered its crisis in 2008 with lower leverage than Japan’s in the early 1990s. Additionally, European stocks were much cheaper in 2007 than the Nikkei was in 1989 (Chart II-16, top panel). Even Spanish real estate was more reasonably valued in 2007 than Japanese real estate in the early 1990s (Chart II-16, bottom panel). This combination means that now that the acute part of the crisis is over, the hole in the European private sector’s balance sheet is much smaller than the one Japan needed to plug 30 years ago. Thus, from a balance-sheet perspective, the need to rebuild savings is lower in Europe than Japan, and we could expect the current period of elevated savings to be shorter in the euro area than it has been in Japan. Chart II-16...And European Assets Were Not As Expensive As Japanese Ones At The Onset Of The Crisis   Second, despite former ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet’s policy mistake of raising interest rates in 2011, the ECB was much quicker to implement extreme easing policy measures than the Bank of Japan was in its day. It took 10 years for the BoJ to cut rates to zero after the Nikkei peaked in December 1989. It took one year for the ECB to do so after stock prices peaked in 2007. It took nine years for the BoJ to expand its balance sheet aggressively, but it took less than two years for the ECB to do so. One of the key benefits of this greater European proactivity has been to keep European inflation expectations much higher than in Japan, curtailing real interest rates in the process. Third, Europe purged economic excesses much more quickly than Japan. The Japanese unemployment rate increased from 2% to 6% between 1990 and 2010. In peripheral Europe, where the worst pre-crisis excesses existed, unemployment rose from 7.5% in 2008 to 18% in 2013 (Chart II-17, top panel). Meanwhile, real wages never adjusted in Japan, but fell 27.0% at their worst in Spain and 32.5% in Greece (Chart II-17, bottom panel). Moreover, the Rajoy reforms in Spain and the Macron reforms in France show that outside of Italy, European governments have been reforming their economies faster than Japan did after the bubble burst in 1990. Chart II-17Bigger Labor Market Purge In Europe Than Japan However, on three fronts Europe is faring worse than Japan. First, up until the last 10 years, Japan benefited from a robust global economy where trade grew strongly. Europe is entering its second decade of low growth in an environment where global economic activity is much weaker, as potential U.S. GDP growth has slowed and China is not growing at a double-digit pace anymore. Moreover, budding protectionism in the U.S. is creating another hurdle for European economic output. Second, the excess capital stock in the European periphery is in fact greater than was the case in Japan in 1990. This suggests that the periphery needs to curtail investments by a greater margin than Japan did. Consequently, peripheral growth will continue to exert downward pressure on aggregate European activity for an extended period. Third, the European fiscal response will not match Japan’s. Investors often decry Japan’s large government debt of 238.2% of GDP as a sign of profligacy. It is not. It is mainly a mirror image of the private sector’s savings surplus. The Japanese government’s ability to run large deficits has prevented a larger fall in output – one that would have equaled the annual savings of the private sector. Without the government’s dissaving, the Japanese private sector would have found its debt load even more onerous to service, and the need to curtail spending would have been even greater as economy-wide cash flows would have been even smaller. Europe does not have a unified fiscal authority that can run such large-scale deficits. Instead, each nation’s government has a limited capacity to accumulate debt as investors worry that overly-indebted governments may very well redenominate what they have borrowed in much weaker currencies than the euro. This risk is made even greater by the fact that there is no euro-area wide deposit insurance scheme. Since Italian and Spanish banks hold large amounts of BTPs and Bonos, respectively, a so-called doom-loop exists that links the health of banks in those countries to the health of their governments, further limiting the public sector’s ability to act as a spender of last resort. This makes the efforts of the private sector in Italy, France, and Spain to increase its savings and bring down its excess capital stock more difficult, and thus, likely to last longer. Even if 10 years after the crisis first emerged, Europe has done more to purge its economy from its pre-crisis excesses than Japan had after its first lost decade, a lack of unified fiscal lever in Europe nullifies this positive. Thus, so long as the European integration efforts remain on the backburner, euro area growth, inflation, and interest rates will continue to look more like Japan’s have over the past 30 years than the U.S. This is likely to cause a big problem once the next recession emerges. Europe will enter that slowdown without any ammunition to reflate growth. Therefore, the next recession is likely to prove very deflationary and test the recent improvement in support for the euro seen across all euro area nations (Chart II-18). If the euro area survives this crisis, and we suspect it will, the probability of a fiscal union will only grow.2 After all, it has been through various crises that Europe has moved closer together, and the rise of a multipolar geopolitical environment dominated by large countries makes this imperative ever more vital. Chart II-18Support For The Euro Is Resilient Bottom Line: We expect European growth and inflation to continue to lag well behind the U.S. for years to come if not a full decade. Ultimately, bringing down the expensive capital stock in the European periphery will be a slow process, especially if governments remain tight fisted. Investment Implications First, core euro area interest rates are likely to remain well below U.S. levels. As long as the European private sector pares back investments in order to normalize its capital stock-to-GDP ratio - a phenomenon that will be most pronounced in the periphery and France - European growth and inflation will lag behind the U.S. This also means that as long as European governments remain shy spenders and do not compensate for the lack of spending from the private sector, in the euro area periphery, European banks will suffer from depressed net interest margins and be structural underperformers. Second, the euro is likely to experience a structural upward drift. The euro is trading at a 10.5% discount to its purchasing power parity. Moreover, high private sector savings not only weigh on inflation, they will also push Europe’s net international investment position higher via an accumulated current account surplus. Both these factors are long-term bullish for the euro. Moreover, the fact that the euro area will soon become a net creditor nation, along with a lack of room to stimulate growth via monetary easing in times of recessions, means that the euro could increasingly become a counter-cyclical currency like the yen. So long as the European integration efforts remain on the backburner, euro area growth, inflation, and interest rates will continue to look more like Japan’s have over the past 30 years than the U.S. Third, European equities are trading at a discount to U.S. equities, but we do not think this guarantees long-term outperformance. European equities are cheap because European growth prospects are poor. If Japan is any guide, European stocks may be set to continue underperforming. This is especially true as financials are over-represented in European equity benchmarks, and banks stand at the epicenter of the European economic malaise. Fourth, European stocks will remain slaves to the global business cycle. Since the crisis, European growth has become hypersensitive to global growth, making European equities very responsive to the global business cycle. The same phenomenon happened in post-1990 Japan. In other words, the beta of European stocks is likely to continue to rise. This phenomenon could be exacerbated if the euro indeed does become a counter-cyclical currency, in which case the euro and European equities would become negatively correlated, like the yen and the Nikkei. Finally, the period from 1999 to 2005 showed how ECB policy targeted at supporting Germany resulted in imbalances that boosted real estate and equity returns in the periphery – in Spain and Ireland in particular. Today, the periphery is the worst offender when it comes to poor bank health and private sector balance sheet rebuilding. This means that the ECB is likely to keep monetary conditions too accommodative for Germany, where balance sheets are more robust and where the capital stock is not as excessive. As a result, financial market plays linked to German real estate are likely to continue outperforming other European domestic plays. They therefore warrant an overweight within European portfolios. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report "Euro Area Banks: Value Play Or Value Trap?" dated December 14, 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2 The European Commission Eurobarometer Surveys show that Europeans overwhelmingly see Europe as a peace project and as a way to maintain a voice in a world dominated by huge players like the U.S., China, or Russia, a world where France, Germany, or Italy individually are marginal players. In 2016, the U.K. population did not share this opinion. Moreover, even after what amounts to a depression, the support for the euro continues to rise in Greece, showing the growing commitment of Europeans to the euro, and the resilience of this commitment to economic shocks.

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The recent dovish shift in tone from central banks around the world is here to stay this year, providing support for global growth. As a result, stock prices will benefit from a combination of easy policy and rebounding activity, while safe-haven yields will grind higher. The recent deterioration in profit margins is not due to rising costs but reflects weaknesses in pricing power. Pricing power is pro-cyclical: If global growth improves and the dollar weakens, margins should recover. Overweight financials and energy. We are upgrading European equities to neutral, and placing them on a further upgrade watch. Feature Easy Does It The global monetary environment has eased over the past four months. Some major central banks like the Federal Reserve and the Bank of Canada have backed away from tightening. Others, like the Bank of Japan, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and the Swedish Riksbank have provided very dovish forward guidance. And one major policy setting institution – the European Central Bank – has even eased policy outright by announcing a large-scale injection of liquidity in the banking sector through its TLTRO-III operation that will begin in September. This phenomenon is not limited to advanced economies. Important EM central banks are also targeting easier liquidity conditions. The Reserve Bank of India has cut interest rates by 50 basis points; the Monetary Authority of Singapore is now targeting a flat exchange rate; and the Bank of Korea has issued a somewhat dovish forward guidance. Most importantly, Chinese policymakers are once again forcing debt through the system, with total social financing flows amounting to RMB 2.9 trillion last quarter, more than the RMB 2.4 trillion pumped through the economy in the first quarter of 2016. These reflationary efforts will bear fruit. Policy easing, especially when it relies as largely on forward guidance as the current wave does, should result in lower forward interest rates. And as Chart I-1 illustrates, when a large proportion of global forward rates are falling, a rebound in global economic activity typically follows. This time will not be different. Chart I-1Monetary Guardians Are Coming To The Rescue The S&P 500 and global equities have already rebounded by 18.9% and 17.2%, respectively since late December. Have markets already fully discounted the growth improvement that lies ahead, leaving them vulnerable to disappointments? Or do global stocks have more upside? While a rest may prove necessary, BCA anticipates that global equity prices have more upside over the coming 12 months. Are Central Banks About To Abandon Their Newfound Dovish Bias? We sincerely doubt it. Reversing the recent tone change soon would only hurt the battered credibility that central banks are fighting so hard to maintain. In the case of the U.S., the most recent FOMC minutes were clear: The Fed does not intend to tighten policy soon, even if growth remains decent. The minutes confirmed the idea we espoused last month, that FOMC members are focused on avoiding a Japan-like outcome for the U.S. where low expected inflation begets low realized inflation. Such an outcome would greatly increase the probability that an entrenched deflationary mindset develops in the U.S. in the next recession. As a result, we anticipate that the Fed will refrain from tightening policy until inflation expectations move back up toward their historical range (Chart I-2). Further justifying the Fed’s new stance, a small rebound in productivity is keeping unit labor costs at bay, despite a pick-up in wages. This is likely to put a lid on core inflation for now (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Inflation Expectations: Too Low For The FOMC's Comfort Chart I-3A Whiff Of Disinflation There is little reason for the ECB to adopt a more hawkish stance either. The euro area PMIs have stabilized but are still flirting with the boom/bust line. Realized core inflation is a paltry 0.8% and the ECB’s own forecast is inconsistent with its definition of price stability, which dictates that the inflation rate should be “below but close to 2% over the medium term.” Our ECB Monitor captures these dynamics, remaining in the neutral zone (Chart I-4).   In China, the case for quickly removing credit accommodation is weak. Property developer stocks have rebounded 41% from their October lows, but sales of residential floor space remain soft, keeping real estate speculation in check. Meanwhile, our proxy for the marginal propensity to consume of Chinese households – based on the ratio of demand deposits to time deposits – continues to deteriorate (Chart I-5). The recent pick up in credit growth should put a floor under those trends, but it will take some time before these variables overheat enough to call for policy tightening. Chart I-4Our ECB Monitor Supports An ECB Standing Still Chart I-5Key Domestic Variables Argue Against Tightening Policy In China   Bottom Line: The three most important policymakers in the world are not set to suddenly slam on the brake pedal. As a result, the global policy backdrop will remain accommodative for at least two to three quarters. The few economic green shoots observed around the world should therefore blossom into a full-fledge global growth pick-up. From Green Shoots To Green Gardens If central banks adopt an easier bias but global growth is slowing sharply without any end in sight, stock prices are unlikely to find a floor. After all, stock prices represent the discounted value of future cash flows. If those cash flows are expected to decline at a faster pace than the risk-free rate, then stock prices can fall – even if policy is becoming more accommodative. However, if economic activity is stabilizing, easier policy should generate substantial equity gains. Stimulative financial conditions will result in an improvement in global activity indicators, including emerging economies (Chart I-6, top panel). This is very important as emerging markets were at the epicenter of the slowdown in global trade, and because they historically lead global industrial activity (Chart I-6, bottom panel). The few economic green shoots observed around the world should therefore blossom into a full-fledge global growth pick-up. Policy easing in China is of particular significance. Our Chinese activity indicator is still slowing, but BCA’s Li-Keqiang Leading Indicator, which mostly tracks developments in the credit sector, has stabilized (Chart I-7, top panel). The rebound in the credit impulse also points to an acceleration in Chinese nominal manufacturing output (Chart I-7, bottom panel). This should lift Chinese imports, resulting in a positive growth impulse for the rest of the world. Chart I-6The Dance Of FCI And Activity Chart I-7Chinese Industrial Activity Will Rebound Soon   At the moment, the euro area remains weak, but it will become a key beneficiary of improving growth. As the top panel of Chart I-8 illustrates, the Eurozone’s exports to China tend to follow the trend in the Chinese Adjusted Total Social Financing impulse. Moreover, European exports to the rest of the world are set to enjoy a recovery, as highlighted by the upturn in the diffusion index of our Global Leading Economic Indicator (Chart I-8, bottom panel). This external-sector improvement is happening as the euro area domestic credit impulse is rebounding, and as the region’s fiscal thrust increases from roughly zero to 0.4% of GDP. In the U.S., it is unlikely that 2019 growth will top that of 2018, but activity should nonetheless rebound from a lukewarm first quarter. Importantly, the fed funds rate is holding below its equilibrium (Chart I-9). Additionally, household fundamentals remain solid. A tight labor market means that wages have upside and household debt levels and debt servicing costs are all well behaved relative to disposable income (Chart I-10). Moreover, housing dynamics are generally stronger than reported by the press, as mortgage applications for purchases are making cyclical highs and the NAHB Homebuilder confidence index is rebounding (Chart I-11). Offsetting some of these positives, capex intentions – a robust forecaster of actual corporate investments – have rolled over from their heady mid-2018 levels. Even so, they remain consistent with positive capex growth. Also, U.S. fiscal policy is becoming increasingly less growth-friendly starting in mid-2019. Netting it all out, U.S. growth should remain above-trend, at about 2.5%. Chart I-8Europe Will Benefit From Stabilizing Growth Elsewhere Chart I-9U.S. Policy Remains Accommodative   Chart I-10U.S. Households Are Doing Alright Chart I-11Forward-Looking Housing Indicators Point To A Pick-Up Bottom Line: While U.S. growth may be weaker than in 2018, it should not fall below trend. Meanwhile, Chinese credit trends suggest that growth there should clearly pick up in the coming months, which should also lead to stronger activity in Europe. In other words, exactly as central banks have removed policy constraints, global growth is set to re-accelerate. This is a positive backdrop for risk assets over the coming 12 months.   What Does It Mean For Asset Prices? Simply put, a dovish shift in policy along with a tentative stabilization in growth should result in both higher stock prices and rising safe-haven bond yields. First, a rebound in global economic activity means that depressed profit growth expectations could easily be bested (Chart I-12, top panel). Bottom-up estimates point to EPS growth of 3.4% in the U.S. and 5.3% in the rest of the world in 2019, using MSCI data. However, profits are extremely pro-cyclical, and a combination of easy financial conditions and improving growth conditions in the second half of the year should result in better-than-expected earnings. Chart I-12Profit Expectations Are Low Second, the Fed is extending its pause, as other global central banks are also adopting more accommodative policies. This implies that global real interest rates, both at the short- and long-end of the curve, will remain below equilibrium for longer than would have been the case if policy had remained on its previous path. Consequently, not only do lower real rates decrease the discount factor for stocks, they also imply a longer business cycle expansion. This should result in narrower risk premia for stocks and higher multiples. Since they offer cheaper valuations than those in the U.S., international equities may stand to benefit more from policy-led multiple expansion (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Third, the global duration indicator developed by BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy service is forming a bottom.1 This gauge – levered to global growth variables like the Global ZEW growth expectations survey, our Global Leading Economic Indicator and the Global LEI’s diffusion index – has perked up in response to green shoots around the globe. An upturn in global safe-haven yields is imminent (Chart I-13). Additionally, the global Policy Uncertainty Index is currently recording very high readings, congruent with depressed yields (Chart I-14). A benign resolution to the Sino-U.S. trade tensions along with the low likelihood of the implementation of a No-Deal Brexit should push this indicator down, lifting yields in the process. Chart I-13Global Dynamics Argue For Fading The Bond Rally Chart I-14Policy Uncertanity Is At An Apex: Look The Other Way   Fourth, while we expect the Fed to stay on pause for the remainder of 2019 and probably through the lion’s share of 2020 as well, this is a more hawkish forecast than what the market is currently pricing in (Chart I-15). As we argued last month, a fed funds rate that turns out to be higher over the next year than what is currently discounted often results in the underperformance of Treasurys relative to cash. Finally, a rebound in global growth, even if the Fed proves more hawkish than the market anticipates, generally pushes the dollar lower (Chart I-16). Since speculators currently hold large net short bets on the euro, the AUD, the CAD, and so on, the probability is high that this historical pattern will assert itself. The recent period of dollar strength is unlikely to last more than a couple of weeks. A weak dollar, easy policy and rebounding growth should boost commodity prices, especially metals and oil. The latter should benefit most from this set up as the end of the waivers of U.S. sanctions on Iran will constrain the availability of crude in international markets. Chart I-16The Dollar Last Hurrah Will End Very Soon   Rebounding global growth should also allow equity prices to be resilient in the face of rising bond yields, up to a point. When yields and inflation expectations are low, multiples and equity prices tend to move in tandem. This is because in an environment where central banks are frightened by deflationary risks, monetary authorities do not lift rates as quickly as nominal activity would warrant. Thus, improving nominal growth lifts the growth component of equity multiples more than it raises yields. In other words, we expect yields and stocks to rise together because low but rising inflation expectations, but not surging real rates, will drive the upside in bond yields. Obviously, this cannot last forever. Once the Fed starts suggesting that rates will rise again, and the entire yield curve moves closer to neutral, higher yields will curtail equity advances. This is a constructive cyclical setup; but the tactical environment is murkier. The problem is that equity prices have already moved up significantly over the past four months. With volatility across asset classes having once again plunged toward historical lows, risk assets display a high degree of vulnerability to disappointing economic data. This means that unless growth rebounds strongly and quickly, stocks could experience a short-term correction in the coming months. While staying overweight equities, it is nonetheless prudent to buy some protection. Investors should also wait on the sidelines to deploy any excess cash. Rebounding global growth should also allow equity prices to be resilient in the face of rising bond yields, up to a point. Bottom Line: The current environment is favorable for risk assets on a cyclical basis. Low real rates will not only continue to nurture the nascent improvement in the global economy. They also imply lower discount rates. Meanwhile, improving economic activity and a decline in policy uncertainty will push safe-haven yields higher. Consequently, it remains sensible to be long stocks and underweight bonds for the remainder of the year, even if the risk of a short-term stock correction has risen. Within fixed-income portfolios, a below-benchmark duration makes sense, especially as oil prices are rising, Sino-U.S. trade negotiations should end in a benign outcome, and a No-Deal Brexit remains unlikely. Margins Are The Greatest Risk At the current juncture, the biggest risk for stocks is that profits fall short of depressed analysts’ estimates for 2019 – not because revenue growth disappoints, but because profit margins contract. Our U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service has recently highlighted that the S&P 500 operating earnings margin stands at 10.1% after having peaked at 12% in Q3 2018 (Chart I-17).2 Despite this decline, margins remain both elevated by historical standards and above their long-term upward-sloping trend. As Chart I-18 illustrates, the decline in margins is not an S&P 500-only phenomenon: It is an economy wide one as well, as the pattern is repeated using national accounts data. Chart I-17Will This Margin Deterioration Continue? Chart I-18Margins: All About Labor Costs Versus Selling Prices   At first glance, the Fed’s current pause may undermine profit margins. As Chart I-19 shows, when the unemployment rate stands below NAIRU, on average, wages grow faster than when the labor market is not at full employment. Since the unemployment gap stands as -0.8% today, we are likely to see continued wage pressures in the U.S. economy. Chart I-19Wages Have Upside The problem with this story is that productivity has been accelerating – from a -0.3% annual rate in the second quarter of 2016 to 1.8% in the fourth quarter of 2018. Because wage inflation did not experience as large a change, unit labor cost inflation is still growing at 1% annually, as they did in Q2 2016. In fact, real unit labor costs are currently contracting at a 0.4% pace. The pick-up in capex over the past three years suggests that productivity can continue to improve over the coming quarters. Consequently, as has been the case over the past two years, rising wages will only have a limited negative impact on margins. The key source of variance in profit margins has been, and will likely remain over the next year or so, corporate pricing power, which today stands at its lowest level since the deflationary episode of 2015-2016 (Chart I-20). As was the case back then, the slowdown in global growth has played a role, since it has resulted in falling global export prices. Not only do they affect foreign revenues for U.S. businesses, they also impact the price of goods sold at home, and thus have a broad impact on aggregate pricing power. Chart I-20Pricing Power Follows The Global Business Cycle Last year’s dollar strength amplified those headwinds. A strengthening dollar affects profitability through four channels. First, it negatively impacts global growth by tightening financial conditions for foreign borrowers who fund themselves in USD. They are thus more financially constrained when the dollar appreciates. Second, a strong dollar hurts commodity prices and industrial goods prices. Third, a strong dollar negatively impacts the competitiveness of U.S. firms, forcing them to cut their prices to stay competitive. Finally, a strong dollar hurts the translation of overseas earnings back into USDs. As a result, a strong dollar weighs on earnings estimates (Chart I-21).   Chart I-21The Dollar Amplified Margins Problems Since we anticipate global growth to improve and the greenback to buckle, the current pricing power problem faced by corporate America should fade and profit margins should rebound in the second half of 2019. This suggests that for now, declining profit margins remain a risk that needs to be monitored – not a base case to embrace. Our U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service has highlighted that the tech sector has the poorest earnings outlook within the S&P 500. An economic upswing could counteract some of the recent declines in tech margins, but the much more pronounced rise in labor costs in Silicon Valley than in other sectors suggests that tech profits could lag behind other heavyweights like financials and energy. Consequently, BCA recommends a neutral allocation to tech stocks. We instead recommend overweighting financials and the energy sector. Financials will benefit from an easy monetary policy setting that should help credit growth. Moreover, net interest margins are at cycle highs of 3.5%, as banks have prevented interest costs on deposits from rising in line with short rates. Finally, buybacks by financial services firms are rising and will likely battle the tech sector’s buybacks for the pole position this year (Chart I-22).3 Chart I-22Why Are We Neutral On Tech? Our positive stance on energy stems from undue pessimism surrounding the sector. Bottom-up analysts currently pencil in such a large contraction in earnings for this group that, according to their forecasts, energy will curtail 2019 S&P 500 earnings by 18%. With WTI prices back above $65/bbl, rising per-well productivity and easing financing costs, the hurdle to beat is already low. Moreover, the end of U.S. waivers on Iranian sanctions further supports oil prices. In this context, if global growth rebounds and the dollar depreciates, energy stocks could catch fire. Bottom Line: The biggest risk to our positive stance on equities is that earnings are dragged down by declining margins. While the recent softness in margins is concerning, it does not reflect an increase in labor costs. Instead, it is a consequence of eroding pricing power. Falling pricing power is itself a symptom of the slowdown in global growth and a stronger dollar. As both these ills pass, margins should recover in the second half of 2019. Within equities, we prefer financials and energy, as their earnings prospects outshine tech stocks. Upgrading European Equities To Neutral, And Looking For More For equity investors competing against a global benchmark, there is a simple way to express the view that global growth will rebound, safe-haven yields have upside, the dollar will weaken, and that profit margins are a risk to monitor. It is to abandon underweight allocations to European equities and overweight positions to U.S. stocks. This month, we are upgrading European equities to neutral and downgrading U.S. stocks to neutral. Even after this upgrade, we are putting European equities on a further upgrade watch. First, the euro area is much more sensitive than the U.S. to Chinese growth. This also has implication for equities. As Chart I-23 shows, when the ratio of M1 to M2 money supply in China perks up, as it is currently doing, European stocks end up outperforming their U.S. counterparts. This is because the M1-to-M2 ratio ultimately reflects the growth of demand deposits relative to savings deposits in the Chinese banking sector. It therefore informs how spending is likely to evolve. Currently, China’s reflationary efforts point toward a pickup in spending that should lift European exports, and European profits as well. Chart I-23Monetary Dynamics In China Favor Fading Euro Area Bearishness Second, European exports have upside, and unsurprisingly, the bottoming in the BCA Boom/Bust indicator – which captures global growth dynamics beyond just China – is also flagging the end of European equity underperformance (Chart I-24, top panel). Moreover, if the global reflationary period is sustained, the decline in forward interest rates will reverse. This too is consistent with a period of outperformance for European equities (Chart I-24, bottom panel). Third, our overweight stance on financials relative to tech equates to European equities beating their U.S. counterparts. This simply reflects the fact that financials constitute 17.9% of the MSCI euro area index, while tech stocks account for 9.2%. The same sectors represent 12.9% and 26.8% of the U.S. market, respectively. Not only are European banks trading at 0.6-times book value compared to 1.2-times for U.S. lenders, but European banks stand to benefit more than U.S. banks from rising bond yields as they garner a larger share of their income from lending activity. Fourth, European profit margins are toward the bottom third of their distribution relative to U.S. profit margins. As Chart I-25 shows, European profit margins tend to rise when euro area unit labor costs lag U.S. ones. Since the euro area output gap is not as positive as that of the U.S., it is unlikely that European wages will outpace U.S. wages this year. Also, since European stocks are more heavily weighted toward industrials, materials and energy, the sectors that suffered the greatest loss of pricing power during the global economic slowdown, pricing power in Europe could rebound more strongly than in the U.S. This too should flatter European profit margins relative to the U.S. Chart I-24European Equities To Benefit From Rebounding Global Growth Chart I-25European Profit Margins Can Experience A Further Cyclical Lift   Finally, even after adjusting for sectoral composition, European equities trade at a discount to U.S. stocks. On an equal-sector basis, the 12-month forward P/E ratio is 14.2, and the price-to-book ratio is 2.0. For the U.S., the same multiples stand at 20.7 and 4.0, respectively. This means that European stocks are not yet pricing in an improving outlook. Be warned: The positive outlook for European equities relative to the U.S. is a cyclical story. As Section II of this report argues, poor demographics and an excessively large capital stock suggest that European rates of return will continue to lag the U.S. As a result, the return from investing in European stocks is unlikely to beat that of the U.S. beyond 12 to 18 months. Bottom Line: Within a global equity portfolio, we are upgrading the euro area from underweight to neutral at the expense of the U.S., which moves to neutral. We are also putting European equities on a further upgrade watch. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst April 25, 2019 Next Report: May 30, 2019 II. Europe: Here I Am, Stuck In A Liquidity Trap An aging population, a banking sector in poor health, and a private sector focused on building up savings are the key factors undermining euro area growth on a structural basis. A large manufacturing sector makes the euro area vulnerable to EM competition. Unlike the U.S., the region’s tech sector is held back by regulatory burdens, taxes and heavy dependence on bank funding. The euro area growth faces decades of low growth and inflation. Euro area rates will stay depressed, but paradoxically, the euro can still experience structural appreciation. Euro area equities are cheap for a good reason, and banks will continue to weigh on performance. Over the past 10 years, the euro area has gone through a sovereign debt crisis, a double-dip recession, persistent below-target inflation, and most recently, yet another major growth slowdown. Moreover, this economic malaise materialized despite highly stimulative monetary policy, including negative interest rates. The ongoing economic weakness has raised the specter that the euro area is the new Japan. Nearly three decades after the bursting of the Nikkei bubble, the Land of the Rising Sun remains mired in low growth and mild but persistent deflation. Consequently, charts showing that European policy rates or bond yields are tracking Japanese developments with a 17-year lag (Chart II-1) have not only become commonplace, they elicit fears that European growth, interest rates and asset valuations will lag the rest of the world for decades to come. Chart II-1Europe Is Following The Japanese Example In this piece, we discuss the various forces that explain why the euro area economy has been so weak this decade, and why such low interest rates have had so little impact on growth. We also study what sets the U.S. and euro area apart, and whether or not Europe will follow the trail blazed by Japan nearly 30 years ago. The Three Headwinds Three ills have kept European growth particularly depressed this cycle and are likely to remain significant headwinds into the foreseeable future: demographics, the banking sector’s poor health, and nonfinancial private sector balance sheet cleansing. 1)   Demographics This is the most well understood and acknowledged problem impacting Europe today. Since 2008, the European population has grown by 2%, or only 0.2% a year, with the working age population having peaked around that year. Going forward, the picture will only deteriorate: The UN expects Europe’s population to contract by 12% over the next 27 years, and the working age population to fall by 15%. This also means that the dependency ratio – the number of individuals aged less than 15 and above 65 per 100 working-age people – will approximately double over the coming 40 years. This is a clear parallel with Japan. As Chart II-2 illustrates, Europe’s population, the number of working-age individuals and the dependency ratio are all tracking Japan with a 17-year lag. Like Japan, Europe’s trend growth will thus only deteriorate further. Not only will Europe not be able to add as many workers as the U.S. to its total, but it will need to build even fewer schools, malls, office buildings or units of housing. Consequently, both the supply and demand sides of the economy will lag due to this factor alone. 2)   Banking Sector Health The poor health of the euro area banking sector is well known. BCA’s Global Asset Allocation service published an in-depth analysis of the European banking sector last December.4 The piece demonstrated that European banks have been much slower to recognize non-performing loans, curtail credit and rebuild capital than their U.S. counterparts. U.S. bank loans to the private sector fell by 13% in the two years during the crisis, while in Europe, these same loans have only fallen by 2% since 2008. Euro area banks generally remain burdened with significant non-performing loans as a percentage of regulatory capital. Moreover, net interest margins are also dismal, implying that the income cushion against bad loans is thin. Consequently, outside of France, Finland and Germany, European banks have either not grown their loan books to the private sector or, as is the case with Spain, Portugal, and Ireland, these books are continuously shrinking (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Same Demography In Europe Now Than In Japan Then Chart II-3Peripheral Banks Continue To Curtail Credit   The poor health of the European banking system is now constraining the supply of new credit to the rest of the economy. This is a much bigger problem than is the case in the U.S. given that in Europe, 72% of corporate funding comes from the banking system while 88% of household liabilities are also funded this way. In the U.S., the share of bank funding for these sectors is 32% and 29%, respectively (Chart II-4). A weak euro area banking system prevents the nonfinancial private sector from growing as robustly as it could. 3)   Nonfinancial Private Sector Balance Sheet Cleanse Another major drag on European growth has been the continued efforts of the European private sector to rebuild its balance sheet. To use the terminology developed by our upcoming conference speaker Richard Koo, the euro area has been in the thralls of a powerful balance sheet recession. Households in the euro area, Japan and the U.S. are all accumulating more financial assets than liabilities. However, only in the U.S. is the nonfinancial corporate sector building more liabilities than it is accumulating assets (Chart II-5). In Japan and Europe, the nonfinancial corporate sector is also a source of savings for the economy. Moreover, in Europe, the government runs a much smaller financial deficit. The current account balance tells this story vividly. A country’s current account is equal to the private sector’s savings minus investment and minus government deficits. As Italy, Spain, and other peripheral economies increased their aggregate savings after 2008, their large current account deficits vanished. Meanwhile, the governments of countries like Germany or the Netherlands, which sported healthy public finances, did not increase their spending in a commensurate way. This adjustment transformed an overall euro area current account deficit of 1.5% in 2008 into a surplus of 3.0% of GDP today, sending some of Europe’s excess savings abroad. This mimics the post-1990 Japanese experience. In the U.S., where the private sector savings did not rise as durably as in Europe, the current account stopped improving meaningfully in 2010 (Chart II-6). Chart II-5European Businesses Are Savers, Like In Japan Chart II-6The Current Account Dynamics Epitomise The Savings Dynamics   A private sector squarely focused on rebuilding its balance sheet liquidity can lead to a liquidity trap. In this state, monetary policy can become ineffective as spending does not respond to lower interest rates. This is where Europe is currently stuck, explaining why the European Central Bank is finding that inflation and growth are not experiencing much lift, despite seemingly incredibly accommodative monetary conditions. Why Such An Urge To Save? The fact that the household sector is a net saver is not surprising, as this is a normal state of affairs across most economies. But why is the European nonfinancial corporate sector still trying to improve its balance sheet liquidity by accumulating more assets than liabilities? Like Japanese businesses 30 years ago, European firms have large debt loads. Another problem is the lack of capex opportunities in Europe. Why do we make this assertion? The return on assets in Europe has been at rock-bottom levels ever since the introduction of the euro (Chart II-7). In the decade from 1998 to 2008, this was a non-issue. Strong global growth flattered European sales, and easy access to credit meant that via rising leverage euro area-listed nonfinancial corporations were able to generate returns on equity comparable to U.S. firms (Chart II-8, top panel). Once European banks got cold feet and European nonfinancial businesses began focusing on deleveraging, the low level of return on assets became more apparent. Part of the problem is that European profit margins are much closer to Japanese than U.S. levels (Chart II-8, middle panel). Even more damning, asset turnover – how much sales are generated by a unit of assets – has been structurally lower in Europe than in both Japan and the U.S. for multiple decades (Chart II-8, bottom panel). Chart II-7Europe Suffers From A Lower RoA Chart II-8DuPont's Decomposition Shows Why The Euro Area RoA Is Poor   The first factor weighing on the level of asset utilization and returns in Europe is the elevated level of capital stock. As Chart II-9 illustrates, the capital stock as a share of output in Italy, Spain and France dwarfs that of Japan, China or the U.S. Even Germany’s capital stock, which stands well below that of other large euro area economies, is nearly 100 percentage points of GDP larger than the U.S’s. Europe has too large a pool of assets to make any additional investments profitable, especially in light of its poor demographic profile. The second factor weighing on European asset utilization and returns is the poorer level of labor productivity. From the 1950s to the early 1980s, European GDP per worker rose relative to the U.S., albeit peaking at 92% of the levels across the Atlantic. Due to falling working hours in Europe relative to the U.S. since the 1980s, relative output per hour continued to rise until the mid-1990s, peaking at 105% of the U.S. level. However, since their respective zeniths, both relative productivity measures have collapsed (Chart II-10, top panel). Chart II-10Another Symptom Of Europe's Misallocation Of Capital In The 2000s These collapses are in fact worse than Japan’s performance since its lost decades began. As the second panel of the chart shows, since the early 1990s, Japan’s relative output per hour and per worker have flattened – not declined – at around 65% and 72%, respectively, of U.S. levels. Instead, relative European productivity levels are currently converging toward Japanese levels (Chart II-10, third and fourth panels). The particularly poor level of European asset utilization and productivity principally reflects the duality between the peripheral as well as French economies on one side, and Germany as well as the Netherlands on the other side. The exceptionally large capital stock outside of Germany is a legacy of the years directly after the euro’s introduction. Back then, the ECB kept rates low to help Germany, the then-sick man of Europe. These rates were too low for the rest of Europe, encouraging large capital stock build-ups. Moreover, this capital was misallocated, as demonstrated by the tepid growth of output per hour and output per capita in Europe post 2000. Since funds were poorly allocated, the output-to-capital ratio in the periphery collapsed. In other words, the peripheral capital-stock-to-GDP ratios continued rising because the denominator, GDP, lagged. An additional problem for Europe’s asset utilization has been its large manufacturing sector. Even after declining, 20% of Europe’s GDP still comes from the secondary sector versus less than 12% in the U.S. (Chart II-11). This has two consequences for Europe’s asset utilization relative to the U.S. First, a large manufacturing sector requires a much larger asset base than a large service or tech sector. Second, the manufacturing sector is more exposed to competition from emerging markets than the tech sector, or than the domestically-focused service sector. Chart II-11Europe Is Left Exposed To EM Competition In other words, not only has the U.S. experienced less capital misallocation than a large swath of the European economy, it has also re-aligned its economy to make it more robust in the face of competition from emerging economies, while Europe mostly has not. Consequently, hurt by foreign competition and unable or unwilling to re-invent itself, Europe has been left with dwindling relative productivity levels and poor degrees of asset utilization and returns. Why Did The U.S. Economy Transition Better than Europe To A Globalized World? There are many reasons why the U.S. has maintained higher RoAs and has been more successful at transitioning away from a manufacturing-led economy than the euro area. Europe has too large a pool of assets to make any additional investments profitable, especially in light of its poor demographic profile. First, the level of product and service market regulation in Europe is highly punitive. As Chart II-12 illustrates, like Japan, most euro area countries fare poorly in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business survey. In fact, Italy scores even lower than China! Meanwhile, the U.S. ranks near the top, not far from Singapore. This means that starting new businesses, competing, and so on is easier in the U.S. than in Europe, helping foster a greater level of entrepreneurialism. Consequently, established businesses have been able to maintain the status quo longer in Europe than in the U.S., preventing creative destruction from purging the system of bad assets. Second, most large euro area economies are burdened by heavy taxes. As Chart II-13 shows, while the U.S. public sector extracts taxes equal to 27.1% of GDP, German, Italian and French taxes equal 37.5%, 42.4% and 46.2% of GDP, respectively, well above the OECD average of 34.2%. Such high levels of taxation disincentivize risk-taking. Lower levels of risk taking by individuals further prevented the degree of creative destruction necessary for Europe to better use its capital stock. Third, and linked to the previous point, government spending equals 34.9% of GDP in the U.S., compared to 48.2% and 56.0% in Italy or France, respectively. A large government has historically stifled innovation and favored the status quo. By no means does this implies that the U.S. system is free of imbalances, but it highlights that compared to two of the three largest European economies, the U.S. public sector has had a less deleterious impact on growth conditions and entrepreneurialism. Moreover, Italy and France have been in deep need of structural reforms that have been lacking. On this front, while the outlook is improving in France under Macron’s presidency, Italy remains mired in immobilism. Fourth, the financing structure in the U.S. favors investing in new businesses and industries, especially when compared to the euro area. Equities represent 78% of the capital structure of nonfinancial corporations in the U.S. while they represent only 61% in the euro area. Moreover, within debt-financing, capital markets account for 68% of sourced funds in the U.S. compared to 28% in the euro area. In fact, junk bond market capitalization only accounts for 2.2% of GDP in Europe compared to 6.0% in the U.S. This suggests that financing risky ventures – and entrepreneurialism is inherently risky – is tougher in Europe than in the U.S. In fact, as a share of GDP, the European venture capital business is less than a sixth the size of the U.S.’s (Chart II-14), a gap that has existed for more than 30 years. Chart II-14U.S. Financing Allows For Greater Risk Taking With all these hurdles, it is unsurprising that Europe has taken more time to make its economy more dynamic in the globalized economy of the 21st century. It also explains why Europe might be suffering more from EM competition than the U.S. Interestingly, this last point may be changing as U.S. voters seem to want to move back toward a larger manufacturing sector. This transition is unlikely to happen without more protectionism. This is a topic for another report. Is Europe Doomed To Japanification… Or Worse? It is easy to see why Europe cannot hope to grow as fast as the U.S., and therefore why the ECB will not be able to lift rates as high as the Fed and why bund yields are likely to lag Treasurys for years to come. Europe has a much more dire demographic profile than the U.S. It needs to purge its capital stock and invigorate its economy through reforms, a smaller public sector, and more diversified financing channels. But can the euro area fare better than Japan has over the past 30 years? On three fronts, the euro area looks better than Japan. First, as Chart II-15 shows, the overall European nonfinancial private sector entered its crisis in 2008 with lower leverage than Japan’s in the early 1990s. Additionally, European stocks were much cheaper in 2007 than the Nikkei was in 1989 (Chart II-16, top panel). Even Spanish real estate was more reasonably valued in 2007 than Japanese real estate in the early 1990s (Chart II-16, bottom panel). This combination means that now that the acute part of the crisis is over, the hole in the European private sector’s balance sheet is much smaller than the one Japan needed to plug 30 years ago. Thus, from a balance-sheet perspective, the need to rebuild savings is lower in Europe than Japan, and we could expect the current period of elevated savings to be shorter in the euro area than it has been in Japan. Chart II-16...And European Assets Were Not As Expensive As Japanese Ones At The Onset Of The Crisis   Second, despite former ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet’s policy mistake of raising interest rates in 2011, the ECB was much quicker to implement extreme easing policy measures than the Bank of Japan was in its day. It took 10 years for the BoJ to cut rates to zero after the Nikkei peaked in December 1989. It took one year for the ECB to do so after stock prices peaked in 2007. It took nine years for the BoJ to expand its balance sheet aggressively, but it took less than two years for the ECB to do so. One of the key benefits of this greater European proactivity has been to keep European inflation expectations much higher than in Japan, curtailing real interest rates in the process. Third, Europe purged economic excesses much more quickly than Japan. The Japanese unemployment rate increased from 2% to 6% between 1990 and 2010. In peripheral Europe, where the worst pre-crisis excesses existed, unemployment rose from 7.5% in 2008 to 18% in 2013 (Chart II-17, top panel). Meanwhile, real wages never adjusted in Japan, but fell 27.0% at their worst in Spain and 32.5% in Greece (Chart II-17, bottom panel). Moreover, the Rajoy reforms in Spain and the Macron reforms in France show that outside of Italy, European governments have been reforming their economies faster than Japan did after the bubble burst in 1990. Chart II-17Bigger Labor Market Purge In Europe Than Japan However, on three fronts Europe is faring worse than Japan. First, up until the last 10 years, Japan benefited from a robust global economy where trade grew strongly. Europe is entering its second decade of low growth in an environment where global economic activity is much weaker, as potential U.S. GDP growth has slowed and China is not growing at a double-digit pace anymore. Moreover, budding protectionism in the U.S. is creating another hurdle for European economic output. Second, the excess capital stock in the European periphery is in fact greater than was the case in Japan in 1990. This suggests that the periphery needs to curtail investments by a greater margin than Japan did. Consequently, peripheral growth will continue to exert downward pressure on aggregate European activity for an extended period. Third, the European fiscal response will not match Japan’s. Investors often decry Japan’s large government debt of 238.2% of GDP as a sign of profligacy. It is not. It is mainly a mirror image of the private sector’s savings surplus. The Japanese government’s ability to run large deficits has prevented a larger fall in output – one that would have equaled the annual savings of the private sector. Without the government’s dissaving, the Japanese private sector would have found its debt load even more onerous to service, and the need to curtail spending would have been even greater as economy-wide cash flows would have been even smaller. Europe does not have a unified fiscal authority that can run such large-scale deficits. Instead, each nation’s government has a limited capacity to accumulate debt as investors worry that overly-indebted governments may very well redenominate what they have borrowed in much weaker currencies than the euro. This risk is made even greater by the fact that there is no euro-area wide deposit insurance scheme. Since Italian and Spanish banks hold large amounts of BTPs and Bonos, respectively, a so-called doom-loop exists that links the health of banks in those countries to the health of their governments, further limiting the public sector’s ability to act as a spender of last resort. This makes the efforts of the private sector in Italy, France, and Spain to increase its savings and bring down its excess capital stock more difficult, and thus, likely to last longer. Even if 10 years after the crisis first emerged, Europe has done more to purge its economy from its pre-crisis excesses than Japan had after its first lost decade, a lack of unified fiscal lever in Europe nullifies this positive. Thus, so long as the European integration efforts remain on the backburner, euro area growth, inflation, and interest rates will continue to look more like Japan’s have over the past 30 years than the U.S. This is likely to cause a big problem once the next recession emerges. Europe will enter that slowdown without any ammunition to reflate growth. Therefore, the next recession is likely to prove very deflationary and test the recent improvement in support for the euro seen across all euro area nations (Chart II-18). If the euro area survives this crisis, and we suspect it will, the probability of a fiscal union will only grow.2 After all, it has been through various crises that Europe has moved closer together, and the rise of a multipolar geopolitical environment dominated by large countries makes this imperative ever more vital. Chart II-18Support For The Euro Is Resilient Bottom Line: We expect European growth and inflation to continue to lag well behind the U.S. for years to come if not a full decade. Ultimately, bringing down the expensive capital stock in the European periphery will be a slow process, especially if governments remain tight fisted. Investment Implications First, core euro area interest rates are likely to remain well below U.S. levels. As long as the European private sector pares back investments in order to normalize its capital stock-to-GDP ratio - a phenomenon that will be most pronounced in the periphery and France - European growth and inflation will lag behind the U.S. This also means that as long as European governments remain shy spenders and do not compensate for the lack of spending from the private sector, in the euro area periphery, European banks will suffer from depressed net interest margins and be structural underperformers. Second, the euro is likely to experience a structural upward drift. The euro is trading at a 10.5% discount to its purchasing power parity. Moreover, high private sector savings not only weigh on inflation, they will also push Europe’s net international investment position higher via an accumulated current account surplus. Both these factors are long-term bullish for the euro. Moreover, the fact that the euro area will soon become a net creditor nation, along with a lack of room to stimulate growth via monetary easing in times of recessions, means that the euro could increasingly become a counter-cyclical currency like the yen. So long as the European integration efforts remain on the backburner, euro area growth, inflation, and interest rates will continue to look more like Japan’s have over the past 30 years than the U.S. Third, European equities are trading at a discount to U.S. equities, but we do not think this guarantees long-term outperformance. European equities are cheap because European growth prospects are poor. If Japan is any guide, European stocks may be set to continue underperforming. This is especially true as financials are over-represented in European equity benchmarks, and banks stand at the epicenter of the European economic malaise. Fourth, European stocks will remain slaves to the global business cycle. Since the crisis, European growth has become hypersensitive to global growth, making European equities very responsive to the global business cycle. The same phenomenon happened in post-1990 Japan. In other words, the beta of European stocks is likely to continue to rise. This phenomenon could be exacerbated if the euro indeed does become a counter-cyclical currency, in which case the euro and European equities would become negatively correlated, like the yen and the Nikkei. Finally, the period from 1999 to 2005 showed how ECB policy targeted at supporting Germany resulted in imbalances that boosted real estate and equity returns in the periphery – in Spain and Ireland in particular. Today, the periphery is the worst offender when it comes to poor bank health and private sector balance sheet rebuilding. This means that the ECB is likely to keep monetary conditions too accommodative for Germany, where balance sheets are more robust and where the capital stock is not as excessive. As a result, financial market plays linked to German real estate are likely to continue outperforming other European domestic plays. They therefore warrant an overweight within European portfolios. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 is retesting its all-time high made last fall. While our indicators suggest that U.S. equity have additional upside, the violence of the rally since December argues that a period of digestion may first be needed. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. and Japan continues to improve, while for the euro area, it is flat-lining after a tentative rebound. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The current readings in major advanced economies thus suggest that investors are still inclined to add to their stock holdings. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) is not echoing this message. 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. The pick-up in global growth remains too feeble for the RPI to validate the advance in stocks. This is why we worry that a correction is likely until economic activity around the globe confirms the rally in stocks. According to BCA’s composite valuation indicator, an amalgamation of 11 measures, the U.S. stock market remains slightly overvalued from a long-term perspective. Nonetheless, the S&P 500 is not at nosebleed valuation levels anymore. Hence, we are betting that once global growth picks up, stocks will be able to move even higher and any correction will prove temporary. Moreover, our Monetary Indicator remains into stimulative territory. The Fed has reiterated its dovish message and global central banks have all engaged in dovish talks, thus monetary conditions should stay supportive. As a result, our speculation indicator has also now fully moved out of the “speculative activity” zone. Our Composite Technical indicator for stocks had broken down in December, but it has now moved back above its 9-month moving average. This positive cyclical signal reinforces our confidence that any correction in stocks should prove tactical in nature, and that on a nine- to twelve-month basis equities have upside. According to our model, 10-year Treasurys are slightly expensive. However, we should not read too much into this. Essentially, yields are currently within their neutral range. Moreover, our technical indicator flags a similar picture. That being said, since BCA expects that over the next 24 months, the Fed will lift rates more than the OIS curve anticipates, and since the term premium is incredibly low, once green shoots for global growth fully bloom, bonds could suffer a violent selloff. Since our duration indicator has begun to deteriorate, it is probably a good time to begin moving out of safe-haven bonds. On a PPP basis, the U.S. dollar has only gotten more expensive. Additionally, our Composite Technical Indicator is becoming increasingly overbought. This combination suggests that the greenback could experience further downside this year. However, this downside will only materialize once global growth shows greater signs of strength. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1       Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Sustainable Bottom In Global Bond Yields,” dated April 9, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2       Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Have SPX Margins Peaked?” dated March 25, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3       Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Mixed Signals,” dated April 22, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 4       Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report "Euro Area Banks: Value Play Or Value Trap?" dated December 14, 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 5       The European Commission Eurobarometer Surveys show that Europeans overwhelmingly see Europe as a peace project and as a way to maintain a voice in a world dominated by huge players like the U.S., China, or Russia, a world where France, Germany, or Italy individually are marginal players. In 2016, the U.K. population did not share this opinion. Moreover, even after what amounts to a depression, the support for the euro continues to rise in Greece, showing the growing commitment of Europeans to the euro, and the resilience of this commitment to economic shocks. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Special Report

Dear Client, This Special Report is the full transcript and slides of a keynote presentation I recently gave to the Sovereign Investor Institute in London titled: 'The Biggest Risks To The Global Economy Are…' The short presentation pulls together several concepts and observations which identify the ‘weak links’ in the global economy. Therefore, the presentation should serve as a useful summary of the global economy’s current vulnerabilities. The report then explains how each of the risks translates into a European investment context. I hope you find it insightful. Best regards, Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist Feature Full Transcript And Slides Good morning Thank you for inviting me to give today’s keynote presentation under the title: ‘The Biggest Risks To The Global Economy Are…’ (Slide 1). I will not discuss all the risks out there, but the four risks that I will present are the ones that I think are the most significant. And the biggest of these four risks I will leave to the end. So let’s begin. Risk 1 is China’s Credit Cycle (Slide 2). You can see this very clearly in this slide (Slide 3) which shows the short-term accelerations and decelerations in credit within the world’s three largest economies – Europe, the United States, and China. In essence, it is showing how much new credit was created in the last six months compared with the preceding six months. Was it more credit creation or was it less, and how much more or less? Everything is in dollars to allow a fair comparison. Now look at the red line. The red line is China. Just ten years ago, China’s credit cycle was irrelevant. It simply didn’t matter. But after the GFC, China’s short-term credit expansions and contractions suddenly became as large as those in Europe and the U.S. More recently, China’s cycle is dwarfing the others, so now it is the European and the U.S. credit cycles that are irrelevant! This means that whenever China’s short-term credit cycle turns down, as it did in late 2015, early 2017, and 2018, the global economy feels a chill. The point is that this short-term cycle is a near-perfect oscillator. Down-oscillations will occur every eighteen months or so, and any of them has the potential to turn nasty. Though we are currently in an up-oscillation, the next down-oscillation is due later this year. And I predict that it will pose a big risk to the global economy. Risk 2 is Trade Imbalances (Slide 4). This slide (Slide 5) has a mischievous title ‘Where President Trump Is Right About Europe’. The red line shows where the president is absolutely right: Europe is running a massive – a record-high – trade surplus with the United States. It is an undeniable fact. But the president is wrong about the underlying cause. The underlying cause is not unfair trade practices or tariffs, the underlying cause is the other line, the blue line, which shows the divergent monetary policies of the ECB and the Fed. The trade imbalance and monetary policy divergence are moving together tick for tick, and the transmission mechanism is of course the exchange rate. The divergent monetary policies have depressed the euro, and a depressed euro obviously makes German cars cheaper for American consumers. That is the reason that the president is seeing so many BMWs driving down Fifth Avenue! My point is that these record-high imbalances are being used to justify economic nationalism – retaliatory tariffs, restricted trade, and potentially all-out trade wars. Alternatively, this chart suggests that the imbalances would correct with large-scale movements of exchange rates. But to me, either of these options poses a big risk to the global economy. Risk 3 Is Technological Disruption (Slide 6). To understand why, I want to introduce you to a concept known as Moravec’s Paradox (Slide 7). A professor of robotics, Hans Moravec, noticed something odd. He realized that things that we find very hard are actually very easy for AI. Things like complex mathematics, speaking multiple languages, or advance pattern recognition. Typically, as few people have these skills, they are well-paid skills. Whereas things that we find very easy are incredibly difficult for AI. Things like human movement and recognizing, and responding to, emotional signals. Typically, as everybody has these skills, they are low-paid skills.  Moravec’s Paradox means that the current wave of technological progress is much more disruptive than previous waves. The steam engine destroyed low-paid jobs, forcing workers up the income ladder. But the current wave of technology, led by AI, is destroying well-paid jobs forcing workers down the income ladder. You can see it in the data. While job creation in most major economies is on the face of it very strong, just look at what type of jobs are being created (Slide 8). Food delivery, bar work, care work and social work. Now you’ll agree that this is not highly paid work with career prospects!  In essence, the current wave of technology is revealing a huge misallocation of capital. You might have invested huge amounts of time and money in say, becoming a linguist. Only to find that AI can translate languages much better than you – and your employment opportunities are limited to lower-income work. Well that misallocation of capital is very disruptive.  In my opinion, it’s one of the main reasons why even though economies are growing and unemployment is very low, people don’t feel good. Making them susceptible to simplistic fixes such as ‘take back control’ and economic nationalism. My point is that the current wave of AI-led job disruption has much further to run, and the populist backlash will remain a big risk to the global economy. But now I want to turn to what I believe is the biggest risk of all. Risk 4 Is Higher Bond Yields (Slide 9). Most people believe that economic downturns cause financial market downturns. But the truth is the complete opposite: the causality almost always runs the other way! In the vast majority of cases, it is financial market imbalances and mispricing that cause economic downturns and crises. Take the last three economic downturns – in 2001, in 2008 and in 2011. They all had their roots in financial mispricing – the dot com bubble, the U.S. mortgage market, and euro area sovereign debt. Likewise for the Great Depression in the 30s, Japan’s recession in the early 90s. I could go on. You get the point… What is the financial vulnerability today that could cause an economic downturn? (Slide 10) The answer is that the very rich valuation of equities and other risk-assets is highly sensitive to bond yields. Which means that substantially higher bond yields pose a very big risk to the global economy. You see, at very low bond yields, the bond price can no longer go up much but it can go down massively (Slide 11). The latest advances in financial theory now conclusively show that this unattractive ‘negative’ asymmetry is what defines ‘risk’ for investors. The crucial point is that at low bond yields, bonds become as risky, or more risky, than equities (Slide 12). And this necessarily means that equities no longer need to deliver a superior return, a risk-premium, over the low bond yield (Slide 13). As bond yields decline this means equity valuations get an exponential boost because both components of the equity’s required return – the risk-free component and the risk-premium component – are collapsing simultaneously (Slide 14). But if bond yields rise substantially, the process would go into vicious reverse and equity valuations would fall off a cliff. Other risk-assets too, and bear in mind that if we include real estate – as we should – global risk-assets are worth $400 trillion, five times the size of the global economy!   Our research shows that the point of vulnerability is if the global 10-year bond yield approaches 2 percent, which is about 50 basis points above where it stands right now. And that, to me, is by far the biggest risk to the global economy. So to summarise, the biggest risks to the global economy are: China’s credit cycle; trade imbalances and technological disruption and their associated populist backlash; and the biggest risk is higher bond yields (Slide 15). In the near future I think alarm bells should start to ring if China’s credit cycle has tipped into a down-oscillation and/or the global 10-year bond yield is 50 bps higher. Don’t worry, the alarm bells are not ringing right now but they might be later this year. Finally, given the title you gave me, this presentation has necessarily focussed on the key risks. But I don’t want you to get too negative. I also have another presentation called ‘The Biggest Positives For The Global Economy Are…’ And for balance, I hope you invite me to present that next time! Thank you. How Do The Risks Translate Into A European Investment Context? Risk 1: China’s Credit Cycle, is highly relevant to European investors, for two reasons. First, the European economy is very open, meaning that exports make a substantial contribution to GDP growth. This is especially true in Europe’s engine economy, Germany, but it is also important for other major economies like Sweden. And it is evidenced in large trade surpluses as, for example, illustrated in Slide 5. Therefore, whenever China’s credit cycle enters a down-oscillation, as it did last year, Germany cannot escape the nasty chill coming through its all-important net export channel. Second, the European equity market is over-exposed to global growth sensitive sectors and companies – specifically, Industrials, Materials, and Financials. These sectors tend to have a very high operational gearing to global growth. Meaning that a small change in global growth has a disproportionate effect on these companies’ profits and share price performance. The upshot is that in a credit cycle up-oscillation, Europe’s global-growth sensitive stock markets and sectors benefit from a sharp burst of outperformance. The opposite applies in a credit cycle down-oscillation. It follows that if China’s credit cycle is due to tip into a down-oscillation later this year, it would be time to close our successful relative overweighting to European equities and to the global growth sensitive cyclical sectors. Risk 2: Trade Imbalances, is also highly relevant to European investors, for the obvious reason that European economies – especially Germany – are running huge trade surpluses. This puts these economies squarely in the cross-hairs of a retaliatory salvo involving tariffs, trade barriers, or worse, an all-out trade war. Clearly, Europe’s ‘exporting champions’ are the most vulnerable to this risk. The issue is important for the exchange rate too. We showed conclusively that Europe’s trade imbalance is the consequence of the depressed euro. It follows that another way to correct this imbalance is via a stronger euro. In this sense, the fundamentals imply euro upside from here. Risk 3: Technological Disruption, manifests through disruption in the jobs market, the lack of feel good, and the ensuing backlash leading to populism and nationalism. This is particularly relevant to Europe because its collection of nations, each with its own political processes, provides more scope for a political tail-event. A lull in the major political-event cycle is a good thing for Europe. In this regard, the upcoming EU parliamentary elections is not a big risk given the EU parliament’s inability, by itself, to drive policy. The risk increases approaching a meaningful political event, and this includes the date of Brexit. Therefore, this risk is likely to rise somewhat towards the end of the year. Risk 4: Higher Bond Yields, is clearly very relevant to Europe because many of the core euro area bond yields are at their lower bound. This means that the negative asymmetry of returns has its maximum impact on, for example, German bunds. It follows that German bunds are a sell in the near-term. Nevertheless, the upside to yields is ultimately limited given the aforementioned vulnerability of risk-asset valuations to higher bond yields. Therefore, the better long-term strategy is to short German bunds relative to U.S. T-bonds. Finally, a 50 basis points rise in 10-year yields from current levels would be a trigger to flip to underweight European equities.  Fractal Trading System* Crude oil is at a technical reversal level. The best way to play this is on a hedged basis versus metals: short WTI, long LMEX. Set the profit target at 5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, we are pleased to report long AUD/CNY achieved its profit target at which it was closed. This leaves five open positions. 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. 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 Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart I-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights 10-Year Yield: In this week’s report we run through different macro factors that could be used to create a macroeconomic model of the 10-year Treasury yield, and describe the current outlook for each one. On balance, the indicators suggest that the 10-year Treasury yield is near its floor. Global Growth: Leading indicators have hooked up recently, suggesting that the Global Manufacturing PMI – a key driver of the 10-year Treasury yield – may rise in the coming months. Wages: Average hourly earnings softened in March, but survey measures suggest that wage growth remains in an uptrend. We show that rising wages have put considerable upward pressure on the 10-year yield in recent years, and should continue to do so going forward. Sentiment: The depressed Economic Surprise Index suggests that investor economic sentiment is downbeat. This means that the bar for positive data surprises (and higher bond yields) is relatively low. Feature Chart 1CRB/Gold Ratio On The Rise Treasury yields stabilized during the past week, and investors are trying to figure out whether the next big move will be higher or lower. We’re on the record as predicting that yields will eventually head higher, and have flagged the CRB Raw Industrials / Gold ratio as an important indicator to watch to time the next big move.1  Encouragingly, this indicator has risen during the past few weeks (Chart 1). Though the message from the CRB/Gold index is promising, the outlook for the 10-year Treasury yield remains uncertain. To shed some light on this important investment question, in this week’s report we run through different macroeconomic indicators that could be used to create a model of the 10-year Treasury yield. By performing this exercise out in the open, our goal is to present readers with a good way to think about the linkages between the economy and the 10-year Treasury yield. Recipe For A 10-Year Treasury Yield Model Ingredient #1: Growth Factors The first logical factor to include in any model of the 10-year Treasury yield is some measure of economic growth. We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI is often highly correlated with the 10-year yield (Chart 2). Interestingly, the manufacturing PMI correlates more strongly with the 10-year yield than do the services or composite (manufacturing + services) PMIs. The Global PMI also correlates more strongly with the U.S. 10-year yield than does the U.S. PMI. It only takes a quick glance at the Global Manufacturing PMI to see why the 10-year Treasury yield fell this year. The Global PMI has been in a sharp downtrend for some time, driven mostly by the Euro Area and China. U.S. PMIs have also weakened in recent months, though they remain above levels seen in Europe and China. Another global growth indicator that correlates tightly with the 10-year Treasury yield is investor sentiment toward the U.S. dollar (Chart 3). Since the dollar is a countercyclical currency that appreciates when global growth slows and depreciates when it quickens, we observe that the 10-year Treasury yield tends to be lower when investors are extremely bullish on the U.S. dollar and higher when they are more bearish on the dollar. Chart 2Growth Factor Ingredient 1: Global Manufacturing PMI Chart 3Growth Factor Ingredient 2: Dollar Bullish Sentiment     Notice in Charts 2 and 3 that the Global Manufacturing PMI and dollar bullish sentiment are both close to levels seen near the 10-year yield’s mid-2016 trough. At 50.6, the PMI is only slightly above its 2016 low of 49.9. Meanwhile, dollar bullish sentiment is currently 79%. It maxed out at 82% in 2016. Interestingly, despite the fact that our economic growth indicators paint a similar growth back-drop as 2016, the 10-year yield remains well above its mid-2016 low of 1.37%. Logically, we must conclude that some other “non-growth” factor is propping yields up (more on this below). The 10-year Treasury yield tends to be lower when investors are extremely bullish on the U.S. dollar and higher when they are more bearish on the dollar.  Looking ahead, we remain optimistic that the most important global growth indicators (Global Manufacturing PMI and dollar bullish sentiment) will soon reverse course, as some leading global growth indicators have recently turned a corner. We already saw that the CRB Raw Industrials index has broken out (Chart 1). Additionally: Chart 4The Worst Is Behind Us? The Global ZEW Economic Sentiment index has risen in two consecutive months (Chart 4, top panel). Our Global LEI Diffusion Index shows that more than half of the countries in our sample now have improving leading economic indicators (Chart 4, panel 2). Our BCA Boom/Bust Indicator – an indicator based on the CRB index, Global Metals equities and U.S. unemployment claims – has also jumped (Chart 4, bottom panel). Ingredient #2: Output Gap As noted above, the 10-year Treasury yield looks too high relative to our preferred economic growth indicators. This could be because yields haven’t yet caught up to the deteriorating global economy, but more likely it is because our bond model is still missing some key ingredients. The next most obvious factor to incorporate into our model is some measure of the output gap. If an economy is operating at very close to its peak capacity, with a small output gap, then it doesn’t take much additional growth to spark inflation. Conversely, even rapid economic growth will not be inflationary if the output gap is large. As long as the central bank is expected to lean against rising inflation with higher interest rates, then some measure of the output gap should be included in our bond model. Unfortunately, appropriate output gap measures are difficult to find. We could rely on the CBO or IMF’s output gap estimates, but those are often subject to large ex-post revisions – not ideal if we want to create a bond model that is useful in real time. Since the Fed tends to lift rates when the output gap closes, another option would be to include the fed funds rate as an independent variable in our model. However, this is also not ideal since we would expect the macroeconomic data and the 10-year yield to lead changes in the policy rate. Some measure of inflation might be the best factor to include. However, we find that the correlation between different price inflation measures and the 10-year Treasury yield is incredibly unstable over time. This is likely because the Fed targets price inflation explicitly, making its correlation with bond yields less empirically apparent. Wage growth is the best “output gap” measure to include in a 10-year Treasury yield model.  In fact, our analysis reveals that wage growth is the best “output gap” measure to include in a 10-year Treasury yield model. Specifically, average hourly earnings from the monthly employment report. Not only does the fed funds rate respond – with a lag – to changes in average hourly earnings, but average hourly earnings also line up reasonably well with the 10-year yield over time (Chart 5). Looking at Chart 5, we can now clearly see why the 10-year yield is above its mid-2016 low, despite the poor readings from our growth indicators. Wages have risen sharply since mid-2016, indicating that the output gap has closed, and the Fed has hiked rates 8 times as a result. The obvious conclusion is that in the present situation, with a much smaller output gap than in 2016, it would require a Global Manufacturing PMI well below 50 to produce a 10-year yield near 2% or below. Going forward, we see the uptrend in wage growth continuing for some time. The proportion of workers quitting their jobs each month, a signal of worker bargaining power, remains very high relative to history. Meanwhile, many more households continue to describe jobs as “plentiful” as opposed to “hard to get” (Chart 6). Chart 5Output Gap Ingredient: Average Hourly Earnings Chart 6More Room For Wages To Grow Ingredient #3: Policy Uncertainty The third ingredient we’ll add to our 10-year Treasury yield model is a measure of policy uncertainty. Specifically, the index of Global Economic Policy Uncertainty created by Baker, Bloom and Davis.2  Investors often flock to the safety of U.S. Treasuries in times of economic distress. But Treasuries can also benefit from flight-to-quality flows during periods of stable economic growth but heightened political turmoil. In other words, elevated political uncertainty can make investors fear a downturn in the future, and drive a flight into the safety of U.S. Treasuries. The Global Economic Policy Uncertainty index also shows a relatively strong correlation with the 10-year Treasury yield over time (Chart 7). Chart 7Policy Uncertainty Ingredient: Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index Looking more closely at Chart 7, we see that global policy uncertainty is currently as high as it was in mid-2016, when the 10-year Treasury yield hit its cycle low. This lines up pretty well with intuition, since investors are understandably quite nervous about the state of Brexit negotiations and U.S./China trade relations. In that context, it is reasonable to expect that some geopolitical risk premium is currently priced into the 10-year Treasury yield, though a smaller output gap than in 2016 is preventing the 10-year yield from reaching mid-2016 levels. Going forward, though political uncertainty will probably stay elevated compared to history. It seems increasingly likely that a “hard Brexit” will be avoided and that President Trump will seek some sort of agreement with China in advance of the 2020 U.S. election.3 The political risk premium in 10-year notes could unwind somewhat in the coming months. Ingredient #4: Sentiment The fourth and final ingredient we’ll add to our 10-year Treasury yield model is a component related to investor sentiment. Our favorite being the U.S. Economic Surprise Index. Chart 8Sentiment Ingredient: Economic Surprise Index Investors don’t often think of the Surprise index as a sentiment indicator, but in fact that’s exactly what it is. It measures whether the economic data exceeded or fell short of expectations during the past 30 days, a measurement that is heavily influenced by whether investor expectations are optimistic or pessimistic. When economic expectations are extremely downbeat it doesn’t take much good news to generate a positive surprise, and vice-versa. Also, investor expectations are influenced in one direction or the other by whether the recent economic data are positive or negative. This behavioral dynamic causes the Economic Surprise Index to be a mean-reverting series, one that we can even describe with a simple auto-regressive model, as shown in Chart 8. More importantly, we have found that the Economic Surprise Index is tightly correlated with the change in the 10-year Treasury yield. A given month that ends with the Surprise index above zero is usually a month when the 10-year Treasury yield increased, and vice-versa (Chart 9). This correlation also holds relatively well over 3-month and 6-month horizons (Charts 10 & 11), but breaks down beyond that.4   The U.S. data surprise index is deeply negative at present, and has been for several weeks. But the longer the data continue to disappoint, the more downbeat investor expectations become and the more likely it is that the surprise index will rise in the future. Right now, our simple auto-regressive model projects that the surprise index will be slightly higher in one month’s time, though still deeply negative. Nevertheless, the Surprise index suggests we are approaching a turning point in investor sentiment. Mix Well, Cover, Stir Occasionally We’ve now presented what, in our view, is a fairly complete list of factors that should be included in a macroeconomic model of the 10-year Treasury yield. Importantly, each factor complements the other ones in the sense that they each capture a different element of the economic landscape. At this stage, it would be nice to weight all of the factors together and arrive at a fair value estimate for the 10-year yield. Unfortunately, we won’t be performing that exercise in this report (we may do so in the future). The key challenge in combining all of the indicators together is that the sensitivity of the 10-year yield to each of the above factors changes over time. For example, there are periods when policy uncertainty appears to be a very significant driver of the 10-year yield, and other times when it appears to not matter much at all. The macro indicators listed in this report generally signal that the 10-year yield is near its trough. While it is often useful to boil all of the important drivers down into a point estimate of the 10-year yield, such an exercise can also create problems if it causes us to zero-in on the model’s output and avoid thinking critically about what the different macro inputs are telling us. As of today, we think the macro indicators listed above generally signal that the 10-year yield is near its trough. Leading global growth indicators have hooked up, suggesting that the Global Manufacturing PMI will improve during the next few months and that bullish dollar sentiment could soften. Survey indicators suggest that the labor market remains tight, and that wage growth will stay in an uptrend. Policy uncertainty will probably continue to apply some downward pressure to yields, but a long Brexit extension and/or trade agreement between the U.S. and China could cause that impact to wane in the next few months. Economic sentiment is likely quite depressed, meaning that the bar for positive surprises is low. All in all, our investment strategy is unchanged. We recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios, while focusing short positions on the 5-year and 7-year maturities.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The rationale for tracking the CRB/Gold ratio can be found in U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 www.policyuncertainty.com 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Quarterly Outlook, “From Dead Zone To End Zone”, dated March 29, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Much Higher For Yields?”, dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights We remain constructive on the U.S. economy, …: It was another uneven week, but conditions remain broadly favorable for the U.S., and the expansion is intact. … and things seem to be perking up in the rest of the world, in line with BCA’s house view, …: China’s PMI data gave global markets a boost and European PMIs hinted at the potential for green shoots on the continent. … but money managers get paid to worry for their clients, and we get paid to worry for the managers, …: We would be remiss if we didn’t explore alternative scenarios, especially around an unobservable variable like the equilibrium fed funds rate. … so we’re always looking for the ways that we could be getting it wrong: This week’s report explores how the landscape would look from the perspective of consumption, investment, and government spending if a recession were at hand. Feature Chart 1Selloff, What Selloff?   Last week’s data were mixed, but there is no doubt, as we’ve acknowledged throughout 2019, that the U.S. economy is decelerating. The deceleration has fanned recession fears, and the yield curve’s fleeting inversion two weeks ago added fuel to the fire.1 The sell-off in financial markets in the fourth quarter seemed largely to have been animated by concerns that the Fed was pushing the fed funds rate into restrictive territory. The sharp decline in equities, and the sharp rise in corporate bond yields, amounted to a material tightening in financial conditions that threatened to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. What a difference a quarter makes. The potent first-quarter rally has reversed much of the fourth quarter’s tightening of financial conditions (Chart 1), while the FOMC’s March meeting indicated that the Fed has pivoted from defending against inflation overshoots to trying to correct its extended post-crisis undershoot. The threat that the Fed would follow the typical path of tightening into a recession has now receded, at least for the rest of 2019. As long as inflation doesn’t suddenly flare up, the expansion should remain intact, provided that the Fed hasn’t already lifted short rates into restrictive territory. We have contended that it hasn’t, as the fed funds rate is comfortably below our current estimate of the equilibrium rate, and is even further below our year-end equilibrium projection. We are well aware that the equilibrium rate cannot be directly observed, and that our estimate may be off the mark. We therefore devote this week’s report to considering what the building blocks of GDP might look like if a recession were about to begin. We particularly focus on consumption, which accounts for the lion’s share of U.S. activity, and indirectly affects both investment and government spending.2 Is Consumption On A Recession Path? Retail sales contracted month-over-month in February, though upward revisions to the January data made the release something of a wash. Year to date, though, retail sales growth has not been strong enough to erase the disappointment from December’s lousy print. From a longer-term perspective, real retail sales don’t suggest anything definitive about the business cycle: although they’re in a mini downtrend, previous pre-recession slides have been steeper and/or longer (Chart 2, top panel). Growth in real personal consumption expenditures (PCE), the consumption input to GDP, has been trendless for the last three years, but is not in the extended slide that preceded other recessions, nor has it yet become stretched in this cycle (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2Neither Here Nor There   Chart 3Steady As She Goes We find that consumption fundamentals are sending a clearer message than the retail sales or PCE series themselves. We segment the fundamentals into three components: ongoing demand for workers, the prospects for wage increases, and households’ capacity to borrow to support spending. The labor market is currently quite strong and net payroll growth has been remarkably steady for the last four years (Chart 3). Our payrolls model, which incorporates initial unemployment claims, temporary workers and NFIB small business hiring plans, projects no more than modest slowing (Chart 4). Chart 4No More Than Mild Deceleration Ahead     Prices rise when demand outpaces supply, and the excess of job openings over unemployed workers (Chart 5) bodes well for wage growth. The elevated rate of employees quitting their jobs is also a positive sign (Chart 6). A worker doesn’t quit one job unless s/he has a higher-paying one lined up. We therefore read the elevated quits rate as an indication that the competition to attract employees is fierce, and that workers have regained some measure of bargaining power. Chart 5More Jobs Than Candidates ... Chart 6... Makes For A Johnny Paycheck Labor Market ...   The combination of rising household income and a light debt-servicing burden augurs well for consumption. A negative unemployment gap (an unemployment rate below the estimated natural rate of unemployment) also tends to be good for compensation growth. Over the last 30 years, annualized average hourly earnings (AHE) have grown one-and-a-half times faster when the unemployment gap is negative than when it is positive, and the earnings growth rates have been remarkably consistent (Chart 7). Household income will have a solid tailwind behind it if AHE gains can catch up to the nearly 4% level consistent with negative gaps in the late ‘80s, late ‘90s and mid-aughts. Chart 7... Where Employers Have To Keep Employees Happy Employment and wage gains suggest that rising household incomes will support spending, but the support would be undermined if households chose to use the income gains to pay down debt. Households have been shoring up their balance sheets ever since the crisis, more than tripling the savings rate from its summer 2005 low (Chart 8, top panel), and have now unwound nearly all of the debt (as a share of GDP) they took on in the ’01-’07 expansion (Chart 8, second panel). They may not yet be done, but the pace at which they’ve been deleveraging has slowed considerably over the last few years. With today’s still-low interest rates, servicing households’ debt burden is easier than it has been at any time in the last 40 years (Chart 8, bottom panel). Households are positioned to take on more debt if they so choose. Chart 8Low Rates Make For A Light Burden Bottom Line: Prospects for continued payroll expansion and wage gains are good, and households have the capacity to borrow to augment spending. We therefore expect that consumption is not on a recessionary path. The fundamentals underlying the U.S. economy’s largest pillar are solid. Could Investment Tip The Economy Into A Recession? Consumption is clearly the 800-pound gorilla of the U.S. economy. It accounted for close to 70% of GDP in the fourth quarter, and when it sneezes, the overall economy catches a cold. It has been a relatively stable series over time, however, and its infrequent contractions tend to be pretty modest. The story is quite different for private domestic investment, which routinely makes wild swings, and tends to seize up during recessions (Chart 9). Even though investment and government spending each account for just a quarter of consumption’s weight, it’s statistically easiest for investment to negate 2% growth in the rest of the economy (Table 1). Chart 9Consumption May Be Larger, But Investment Punches Harder Table 1The Road To Recession We have previously demonstrated that consumption leads capex. It turns out that fixed investment is the opposite of the if-you-build-it-they-will-come “Field of Dreams” mantra; corporations will only build if the customers have already come (Chart 10). Consumption is gently slowing right now, which suggests that corporate investment is not about to boom. To induce a recession, though, fixed private investment would have to crater, and nothing in consumption’s current trend, the employment outlook, the compensation outlook, or households’ borrowing capacity suggests that consumption is at risk of plunging. Chart 10Consumption Drives Capex Surveys asking corporations about their investment plans have been decent coincident indicators of corporate fixed investment. The dip in capital spending plans from the NFIB survey suggests that demand for non-defense capital goods is headed lower (Chart 11, top panel), as does the decline in capex plans in the regional Fed surveys (Chart 11, bottom panel). Neither implies the sharp decline that would be required to offset trend growth in the rest of the economy, however. The corporate tax cut does not appear to have inflated 2018 capex, so 2019 investment should not be at risk of suddenly unwinding. Chart 11Capex May Soften, But It's Not About To Melt Residential investment accounts for around a fifth of private domestic investment. We have written about housing at length over the last several months and will not rehash the discussion here, other than to note that permits and starts remain in a broad uptrend (Chart 12, top panel), as do new and existing home sales (Chart 12, middle panel). Affordability has revived with the decline in mortgage rates, and is once again above its pre-crisis peaks. The inventory of homes for sale is also at multi-year lows (Chart 12, bottom panel). With the Fed sidelined for an extended period, housing demand appears as if it will hold up, and there’s nothing to worry about from a supply perspective. Chart 12The Housing Market Is Fine Bottom Line: The investment component of GDP does not appear as if it is about to contract in a significant way. It is unlikely to be the source of a cyclical inflection. Government Spending By virtue of its modest size and muted volatility relative to consumption and investment, government spending is the least likely component of GDP to extinguish the expansion. The prospects for a negative-two-standard-deviation event that could trigger a recession look especially slim. With employment and household incomes rising, and home values still appreciating, state and local tax receipts should be well supported. Pro-cyclical federal fiscal policy is an anomaly (Chart 13), but we see no signs that the current administration will reverse course with a presidential election on the horizon. Although defense has accounted for a shrinking share of federal spending ever since the end of the Cold War, it still accounts for 60% of federal spending (Chart 14, bottom panel), and a quarter of aggregate government spending. Consistent with CBO projections, we expect defense spending will continue to expand through 2020, as it remains a Republican priority. Federal entitlements were a sacred cow in the 2016 Trump campaign and will remain so in the 2020 campaign, given their importance to the administration’s aging rural base. Chart 13Fiscal Policy Has Turned Pro-Cyclical   State and local spending account for the majority of aggregate government spending (Chart 14, top panel). Healthcare and education are the biggest line items in state budgets, and healthcare reforms have the potential to alter budget composition, but aggregate spending moves in lockstep with aggregate revenues, as many states are constitutionally mandated to maintain balanced budgets. The main sources of state revenues are income taxes and sales taxes. Municipalities rely heavily on property taxes. Chart 14State Spending Matters ... State income tax receipts are clearly a function of employment, though the link has come and gone this cycle as the expansion has matured (Chart 15, top panel). Sales tax receipts move with employment as well, because consumption is tied to income (Chart 15, second panel). Property taxes are a function of appraised property values, for which home prices are a solid proxy (Chart 15, third panel). If demand for labor remains robust, wages face upward pressure, and home prices don’t contract, state and local government spending is unlikely to dry up anytime soon. Chart 15... And It's Tied To Income, Consumption, And Property Prices   As long as the expansion remains intact (and valuations don’t get silly), risk-friendly positioning remains appropriate. Bottom Line: Nothing points to a sudden decline in government expenditures on the order of the negative-two-standard-deviation move which would be required to induce a recession. Weakness in employment and wage growth would hurt state tax revenues, reinforcing a slowdown in consumption, but that is not our base-case scenario for 2019. Investment Implications Investors should stay the course and remain overweight equities, given that a recession is not imminent. Although we think the Fed’s largesse will ultimately be reversed in potentially heavy-handed fashion, its implicit pledge to remain on the sidelines into the second half of this year extends the runway for risk asset outperformance. We are not in love with the S&P 500 at current levels, and will be surprised if it continues to appreciate at its current pace, but the policy climate – monetary and fiscal – is conducive to outperforming cash and high-quality fixed income. We would hold some capital in reserve to deploy in the event of a pullback, but continue to advocate a risk-friendly portfolio tilt.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Jennifer Lacombe Senior Analyst, Global ETF Strategy jenniferl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 With the yield curve clawing its way back to positive territory by March 29’s close, it actually has yet to invert on a monthly basis. We have heard its downbeat growth message loud and clear, however, and are on alert for further potential weakness. 2 We leave net exports out of our analysis, as they’re not consequential to the comparatively closed U.S. economy.

Highlights Dovish Central Banks: Central bankers have successfully talked down bond yields, in an effort to prevent an even deeper pullback in global growth. Government bonds now look overvalued relative to likely outcomes on growth and inflation over the next year. A moderate below-benchmark medium-term duration exposure is warranted on a risk/reward basis, as the next large yield move from current levels is more likely up than down. U.S. Treasuries: The Fed is now signaling no more rate hikes for the rest of 2019, but this newly dovish language merely brings their own interest rate forecasts closer to current market pricing. Lower bond yields and easier financial conditions will help underwrite a recovery in U.S. growth, just as a stabilization of the global economy is starting to materialize. The current downturn in Treasury yields, which is looking technically stretched, should soon begin to bottom out. Feature Another Panic Hits Global Bond Markets The message from central banks to the financial markets is now very loud and clear – global monetary policy is firmly on hold for at least the rest of 2019. Fears over slowing global growth, persistent geopolitical uncertainty and underwhelming inflation have put policymakers on a more cautious footing. The messaging from central banks has become highly synchronized, with even the same buzz words (“patience”, “uncertainty”, “data dependent”) being bandied about in speeches and policy statements. Bond yields have responded to the dovish forward guidance in recent weeks from the Fed, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and others. Our “Major Countries” measure of 10-year government bond yields in the largest developed economies has fallen to 1.3%, the lowest level since May 2017. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield now sits at 2.40%, below the fed funds rate and triggering investor angst over the traditionally negative economic message of an inverted yield curve. Global equity markets, however, seem less concerned. The MSCI World Equity Index is only 5% from the 2018 highs after rallying 16% so far from the late 2018 low. This gap between robust equity prices and depressed bond yields is unusual, but not unprecedented. Similar divergences have occurred as recently as 2016 and 2017 (Chart of the Week). During those episodes, central banks responded to uncertainty (the July 2016 Brexit vote followed by currency volatility in China) or sluggish inflation readings (the unexpected 2017 dip in U.S. core inflation) by shifting to an easier monetary stance. This was largely done through delayed interest rate hikes or more dovish forward guidance, with the result being lower bond yields, diminished market volatility and easier financial conditions. Better global growth and more stable inflation expectations soon followed. Chart of the WeekWill Bonds Lose This Battle Once Again? With tentative signs emerging that global growth momentum is bottoming out, the next major move in global bond yields is likely up. Those prior gaps between low bond yields and high stock prices were eventually resolved through higher yields – an outcome that we think will be repeated in the current episode. Already, bond markets have aggressively repriced expectations of future monetary policy with even some rate cuts now discounted in the U.S., Canada and Australia. With tentative signs emerging that global growth momentum will soon bottom out and recover in the latter half of 2019 (Chart 2), the next major move in global bond yields is likely up, not down. Chart 2Global Bond Yields Are Too Pessimistically Priced The decline in yields over the past few months has obviously challenged our recommended strategic below-benchmark global duration stance. The two primary factors that drive our medium-term duration calls on any country can be summed up by the following questions: Do we expect greater or fewer rate hikes than are discounted in money market curves? Do we expect bond yields to rise above or below the current pricing in forward yield curves? In aggregate, we do not expect the major central banks to deliver more monetary easing than is currently priced according to our 12-month discounters, although we think that is most likely in the U.S. where the market is pricing in -21bps of cuts over the next year. Also, the 12-month-ahead forwards for 10-year bond yields in the U.S. (2.51%), Canada (1.69%), Germany (0.13%), Japan (0.02%), U.K. (1.16%) and Australia (1.82%) are not particularly high. Although, once again, we have the greatest confidence that those yield levels will be surpassed in the U.S. The timetable to generate a positive payoff by positioning for higher yields has been stretched out by the renewed dovishness of central banks. By switching their focus from tight labor markets and accelerating wage growth to slowing economies and softening inflation expectations, policymakers are creating a backdrop of lower volatility and more market-friendly stock/bond correlations (Chart 3). Chart 3Stock/Bond Yield Correlation Negative Once Again The goal is to underwrite additional rallies in risk assets to ease financial conditions and stimulate economic activity. This will eventually sow the seeds for a return to a more hawkish bias, but the timing of that switch is uncertain and will most likely coincide with some evidence of faster Chinese economic growth and an end to the downturn in global trade activity – an outcome that is unlikely to occur until the latter half of 2019. Bottom Line: Central bankers have successfully talked down bond yields, in an effort to prevent an even deeper pullback in global growth. Government bonds now look overvalued relative to likely outcomes on growth and inflation over the next year. A moderate below-benchmark medium-term duration exposure is warranted on a risk/reward basis, as the next large yield move from current levels is more likely up than down. The Fed’s more dovish forward guidance only brought the Fed’s rate forecasts down closer to current market pricing. U.S. Treasury Yields Should Soon Bottom Out U.S. Treasury yields moved sharply lower following last week’s Fed meeting, as the FOMC delivered a dovish surprise with its new set of interest rate projections. As of last December, 11 out of 17 Fed members expected to lift rates at least twice in 2019. Now, 11 out of 17 expect to keep rates flat. This was enough to lower the median “dot” by 50bps for 2019, essentially forecasting an unchanged funds rate this year with only one hike expected in 2020. While these are significant dovish changes to the Fed’s forward guidance, it only brought the Fed’s forecasts down to current market pricing on interest rate expectations (Chart 4). Yet bond yields fell sharply in response, tipping the Treasury curve into inversion. The cautious language from Fed Chairman Powell in the post-meeting press conference, which included a reference to Japan-style deflation risks as a threat if the Fed ignored the message from below-target U.S. inflation expectations, likely helped fuel the bullishness of Treasury market participants. Chart 4Fed Is Just Catching Up To Market Pricing It seems clear that the arguments of the more dovish members of the FOMC (John Williams, Richard Clarida, James Bullard, Neil Kashkari) have won over the more pragmatic members of the committee, including Jay Powell. Yet our own Fed Monitor is still not suggesting that rate cuts are necessary (Chart 5), although the growth component of the Monitor is tracking the last downturn seen in 2014/15. More importantly, the inflation elements of the Monitor are not pointing to a need for easier policy, while financial conditions are still in the “tighter money required” zone. Chart 5Markets Pricing In Fed Easing That Is Not Required The Fed is likely to ignore the risks to financial stability stemming from the new dovish slant to its monetary policy, as financial conditions have not yet fully unwound the tightening seen in the risk asset selloff in late 2018. Does that mean that the Fed wants to see U.S. equities hit new highs and U.S. corporate credit spreads return to previous lows? If that means a deeper U.S. economic slowdown can be avoided, the answer is most likely “yes”. They can always return to targeting overvalued asset markets if and when the U.S. and global economy is on more stable footing. In terms of the U.S. economic outlook, we think the current concerns over the recession risks stemming from an inverted Treasury curve are overstated. In a Special Report we published last July, we looked at the relationship between monetary policy, yield curves and economic growth and came to the following conclusions:1 Curve inversion, on a sustained basis, occurs when the Fed lifts the real (inflation-adjusted) funds rate above the neutral rate of interest, “r-star” (Chart 6); Chart 6Too Soon For Sustained U.S. Treasury Curve Inversion Once the Treasury yield curve does invert on a sustained basis, a recession starts seventeen months later, on average; Curve inversion, on a sustained basis, occurs when the Fed lifts the real funds rate above the neutral rate of interest, “r-star” At the moment, the Fed has paused its rate hiking cycle with a real funds rate that is just shy of the Williams-Laubach estimate of r-star, which is 0.5%. Considering that the “Williams” in “Williams-Laubach” is the current president of the New York Fed and Number Two on the FOMC, we should not be surprised that the Fed chose to pause now! The more important point is that it seems too early to look for a classic late-cycle Treasury curve inversion with the Fed on hold – unless, of course, U.S. inflation falls and pushes the real fed funds rate above r-star. That would require a much sharper slowing of U.S. growth to a below-potential pace that is not indicated by current data. Reliable cyclical indicators like the ISM Manufacturing index have fallen from the heady 2018 peaks, but remain at levels consistent at least trend U.S. economic growth (Chart 7). Additionally, the Conference Board’s leading economic indicator, as well as our own models for U.S. employment and capital spending growth, are suggesting that only some cooling of U.S. growth should be expected in the next few quarters (Chart 8), but not to a below-potential pace (i.e. significantly less than 2%). Chart 7UST Yields Should Soon Stabilize Chart 8A Big U.S. Slowdown In 2019 Is Unlikely So how much lower can Treasury yields go in this current rally? Looking at the individual valuation components of yields, the answer is “not much”. The real component of Treasury yields has already fallen sharply since the 2018 peak, and is now approaching 2017 resistance levels. At the same time, 10-year inflation expectations are drifting higher and are now around 25bps below the highs seen in 2018 (Chart 9). At best, we can see real yields and inflation expectations fully offsetting each other and keeping yields unchanged. The more likely outcome, however, is that inflation expectations continue to move higher while real yields stabilize as the U.S. economy moves away from the Q1 growth slowdown, meaning that we are close to the floor in yields now. Chart 9Inflation Expectations Will Lead UST Yields Higher How much lower can Treasury yields go in this current rally? Looking at the individual valuation components of yields, the answer is “not much”. The current downturn in Treasury yields is already looking stretched from a technical perspective (Chart 10). The 26-week total return of the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Treasury index is now approaching the highs seen during all previous Treasury rallies since the Fed ended its QE program in 2014. The same signal comes from the size of the deviation of the 10-year Treasury yield below its 200-day moving average. Duration positioning is quite long, as well, according to the J.P. Morgan client survey. Chart 10UST Rally Looking Stretched In The Near-Term Not all the technical indicators are as stretched, as the Market Vane Treasury sentiment survey remains depressed and net speculative positioning on 10-year Treasury futures is only neutral (after a very large short position was covered). On balance, however, the indicators suggest that the current Treasury rally is looking over-extended. One other factor to consider is global growth. Much of the current decline in Treasury yields is a result of the prolonged weakness in non-U.S. growth that has pulled down all global bond yields. Yet according to the latest readings from cyclical indicators like the ZEW survey, expectations of future economic growth are now bottoming out, even as current growth continues to slow (Chart 11). This bodes well for a potential bottoming of global growth momentum that could put a floor underneath bond yields. Chart 11Early Signs Of Growth Stabilization? One final note – any signs of stabilization of European growth could also help global bond yields find a floor. Not only are the ZEW surveys in Europe starting to bottom out, the widely-followed German IFO survey is also starting to show modest improvement. If these trends continue, that would help end the drag on global yields from weakening European growth which has pulled German Bunds back to the 0% level (Chart 12). Chart 12Bunds & JGBs Have Been A Drag On Global Yields Any signs of stabilization in European growth could also help global bond yields find a floor. Bottom Line: The Fed is now signaling no more rate hikes for the rest of 2019, but this newly dovish language merely brings their own interest rate forecasts closer to current market pricing. Lower bond yields and easier financial conditions will help underwrite a recovery in U.S. growth, just as a stabilization of the global economy is starting to materialize. The current downturn in Treasury yields, which is looking technically stretched, should soon begin to bottom out. Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy/U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Three Frequently Asked Questions About Global Yield Curves”, dated July 31st, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com and usbs.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns