Europe
Highlights Macro Outlook: Global growth is decelerating and the composition of that growth is shifting back towards the United States. Policy backdrop: The specter of trade wars represents a real and immediate threat to risk assets. Meanwhile, many of the "policy puts" that investors have relied on have been marked down to a lower strike price. Global equities: We downgraded global equities from overweight to neutral on June 19th. Investors should favor developed market equities over their EM counterparts. Defensive stocks will outperform deep cyclicals, at least until the dollar peaks early next year. Government bonds: Treasury yields may dip in the near term, but will rise over a 12-month horizon. Overweight Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. relative to the U.S., Canada, and the euro area. Credit: The current level of spreads points to subpar returns over the next 12 months. We have a modest preference for U.S. over European corporate bonds. Currencies: EUR/USD will fall into the $1.10-to-1.15 range during the next few months. The downside risks for the pound and the yen are limited. Avoid EM and commodity currencies. The risk of a large depreciation in the Chinese yuan is rising. Commodities: Favor oil over metals. Gold will do well over the long haul. Feature I. Macro Outlook Back To The USA The global economy experienced a synchronized expansion in 2017. Global real GDP growth accelerated to 3.8% from 3.2% in 2016. The euro area, Japan, and most emerging markets moved from laggards to leaders in the global growth horse race. The opposite pattern has prevailed in 2018. Global growth has slowed, a trend that is likely to continue over the next few quarters judging by a variety of leading economic indicators (LEIs) (Chart 1). The U.S. has once again jumped ahead of its peers: It is the only major economy where the LEI is still rising (Chart 2). The latest tracking data suggest that U.S. real GDP growth could reach 4% in the second quarter, more than double most estimates of trend growth. Chart 1Global Growth Is Slowing Again Chart 2U.S. Is Outshining Its Peers Such a lofty pace of growth cannot be sustained. For the first time in over a decade, the U.S. economy has reached full employment. The unemployment rate stands at a 48-year low of 3.75%. The number of people outside the labor force who want a job, as a percentage of the total working-age population, is back to pre-recession lows (Chart 3). For the first time in the history of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), there are more job vacancies than unemployed workers (Chart 4). Chart 3U.S. Is Back To Full Employment Chart 4There Are Now More Vacancies Than Jobseekers Mainstream economic theory states that governments should tighten fiscal policy as the economy begins to overheat in order to accumulate a war chest for the next inevitable downturn. The Trump administration is doing the exact opposite. The budget deficit is set to widen to 4.6% of GDP next year on the back of massive tax cuts and big increases in government spending (Chart 5). Chart 5The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline The Fed In Tightening Mode As the labor market overheats, wages will accelerate further. Average hourly earnings surprised to the upside in May. The Employment Cost Index for private-sector workers - one of the cleanest and most reliable measures of wage growth - rose at a 4% annualized pace in the first quarter. The U.S. labor market has finally moved onto the 'steep' side of the Phillips curve (Chart 6). Rising wages will put more income into workers' pockets who will then spend it. As aggregate demand increases beyond the economy's productive capacity, inflation will rise. The New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge, which leads core CPI inflation by 18 months, has already leaped to over 3% (Chart 7). The prices paid components of the ISM and regional Fed purchasing manager surveys have also surged (Chart 8). Chart 6Wage Inflation Will Accelerate Chart 7U.S. Inflation: Upside Risks (Part I) Chart 8U.S. Inflation: Upside Risks (Part II) The Fed has a symmetric inflation target. Hence, a temporary increase in core PCE inflation to around 2.2%-to-2.3% would not worry the FOMC very much. However, a sustained move above 2.5% would likely prompt an aggressive response. The fact that the unemployment rate has fallen 0.7 percentage points below the Fed's estimate of full employment may seem like a cause for celebration, but this development has a dark side. There has never been a case in the post-war era where the unemployment rate has risen by more than one-third of a percentage point without this coinciding with a recession (Chart 9). The Fed wants to avoid a situation where the unemployment rate has fallen so much that it has nowhere to go but up. Chart 9Even A Small Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Is Bad News For The Business Cycle As such, we think that the bar for the Fed to abandon its once-per-quarter pace of rate hikes is quite high. If anything, the risk is that the Fed expedites monetary tightening in order to keep real rates on an upward trajectory. Jay Powell's announcement that he will hold a press conference at the conclusion of every FOMC meeting opens the door for the Fed to move back to its historic pattern of hiking rates once every six weeks. Housing And The Monetary Transmission Mechanism Economists often talk about the "monetary transmission mechanism." As Ed Leamer pointed out in his 2007 Jackson Hole symposium paper succinctly entitled, "Housing Is The Business Cycle," housing has historically been the main conduit through which changes in monetary policy affect the real economy.1 A house will last a long time, and the land on which it sits - which in many cases is worth more than the house itself - will last forever. Thus, changes in real interest rates tend to have a large impact on the capitalized value of one's home. Today, the U.S. housing market is in pretty good shape (Chart 10). Construction activity was slow to increase in the aftermath of the Great Recession. As a result, the vacancy rate stands at ultra-low levels. Home prices have been rising briskly, but are still 13% below their 2005 peak once adjusted for inflation. On both a price-to-rent and price-to-income basis, home prices do not appear overly stretched. Mortgage-servicing costs, expressed as a share of disposable income, are near all-time lows. The homeownership rate has also been trending higher, thanks to faster household formation and an improving labor market. Lenders remain circumspect (Chart 11). The ratio of mortgage debt-to-disposable income has barely increased during the recovery, and is still 31 percentage points below 2007 levels. The average FICO score for new mortgages stands at a healthy 761, well above pre-recession standards. Chart 10U.S. Housing Is In Pretty Good Shape Chart 11Mortgage Lenders Remain Circumspect The Urban Institute Housing Credit Availability Index, which measures the percentage of home purchase loans that are likely to default over the next 90 days, is nowhere close to dangerous levels. This is particularly the case for private-label mortgages, whose default risk has hovered at just over 2% during the past few years, down from a peak of 22% in 2006. If Not Housing, Then What? Since the U.S. housing sector is in reasonably good shape, the Fed may need to slow the economy through other means. Here's the rub though: Other sectors of the economy are not particularly sensitive to changes in interest rates. Decades of empirical data have clearly shown that business investment is only weakly correlated with the cost of capital. Unlike a house, most business investment is fairly short-lived. A computer might be ready for the recycling heap in just a few years. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that the depreciation rate for nonresidential assets is nearly four times higher than for residential property (Chart 12). During the early 1980s, when the effective fed funds rate reached 19%, residential investment collapsed but business investment was barely affected (Chart 13). Chart 12U.S.: Depreciation Rate For Business ##br##Investment Is Much Larger Than For Residential Property Chart 13Residential Investment Collapsed In ##br##Response To Higher Interest Rates In The Early 80s... While Business Investment Was Barely Affected Rising rates could make it difficult for corporate borrowers to pay back loans, which could indirectly lead to lower business investment. That said, a fairly pronounced increase in rates may be necessary to generate significant distress in the corporate sector, given that interest payments are close to record-lows as a share of cash flows (Chart 14). In addition, corporate bonds now represent 60% of total corporate liabilities. Bonds tend to have much longer maturities than bank loans, which provides a buffer against default risk. A stronger dollar would cool the economy by diverting some spending towards imports. However, imports account for only 16% of GDP. Thus, even large swings in the dollar's value tend to have only modest effects on the economy. Likewise, higher interest rates could hurt equity prices, but the wealthiest ten percent of households own 93% of all stocks. Hence, it would take a sizable drop in the stock market to significantly slow GDP growth. The conventional wisdom is that the Fed will need to hit the pause button at some point next year. The market is pricing in only 85 basis points in rate hikes between now and the end of 2020 (Chart 15). That assumption may be faulty, considering that housing is in good shape and other sectors of the economy are not especially sensitive to changes in interest rates. Rates may need to go quite a bit higher before the U.S. economy slows materially. Chart 14U.S. Corporate Sector Interest Payments ##br##At Near Record-Low Levels As A Share Of Cash Flows Chart 15Market Expectations Versus The Fed Dots Global Contagion Investors and policymakers talk a lot about the neutral rate of interest. Unfortunately, the discussion is usually very parochial in nature, inasmuch as it focuses on the interest rate that is consistent with full employment and stable inflation in the United States. But the U.S. is not an island unto itself. Even if a bit outdated, the old adage that says that when the U.S. sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold still rings true. What if there is a lower "shadow" neutral rate which, if breached, causes pain outside the U.S. before it causes pain within the U.S. itself? Eighty per cent of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in U.S. dollars. Outside of China, EM dollar debt is now back to late-1990s levels both as a share of GDP and exports (Chart 16). Just like in that era, a vicious cycle could erupt where a stronger dollar makes it difficult for EM borrowers to pay back their loans, leading to capital outflows from emerging markets, and an even stronger dollar. The wave of EM local-currency debt issued in recent years only complicates matters (Chart 17). If EM central banks raise rates, this could help prevent their currencies from plunging. However, higher domestic rates will make it difficult for local-currency borrowers to pay back their loans. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Chart 16EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart 17EM Borrowers Like Local Credit Too China To The Rescue? Don't Count On It When emerging markets last succumbed to pressure in 2015, China saved the day by stepping in with massive new stimulus. Fiscal spending and credit growth accelerated to over 15% year-over-year. The government's actions boosted demand for all sorts of industrial commodities. Today, Chinese growth is slowing again. May data on industrial production, retail sales, and fixed asset investment all disappointed. Our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index, a widely followed measure of economic activity, is in a clear downtrend (Chart 18). Property prices in tier one cities are down year-over-year. Construction tends to follow prices. So far, the policy response has been muted. Reserve requirements have been cut and some administrative controls loosened, but the combined credit and fiscal impulse has plunged (Chart 19). Onshore and offshore corporate bond yields have increased to multi-year highs. Bank lending rates are rising, while loan approval rates are dropping (Chart 20). Chart 18Chinese Growth Is Slowing Anew Chart 19China: Policy Response To Slowdown ##br##Has Been Muted So Far Chart 20China: Credit Tightening There is no doubt that China will stimulate again if the economy appears to be heading for a deep slowdown. However, the bar for a fresh round of stimulus is higher today than it was in the past. Elevated debt levels, excess capacity in some parts of the industrial sector, and worries about pollution all limit the extent to which the authorities will be willing to respond with the usual barrage of infrastructure spending and increased bank lending. The economy needs to feel more pain before policymakers come to its aid. Rising Risk Of Another RMB Devaluation Chart 21China: Currency Wars Are Good And ##br##Easy To Win Even if China does stimulate the economy, it may try to do so by weakening the currency rather than loosening fiscal and credit policies. Chart 21 shows that the yuan has fallen much more over the past week than one would have expected based on the broad dollar's trend. The timing of the CNY's recent descent coincides with President Trump's announcement of additional tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods. Global financial markets went into a tizzy the last time China devalued the yuan in August 2015. The devaluation triggered significant capital outflows, arguably only compounding China's problems. This has led commentators to conclude that the authorities would not make the same mistake again. But what if the real mistake was not that China devalued its currency, but that it did not devalue it by enough? Standard economic theory says that a country should always devalue its currency by a sufficient amount to flush out expectations of a further decline. China was too timid, and paid the price. Capital controls are tighter in China today than they were in 2015. This gives the authorities more room for maneuver. China is also waging a geopolitical war with the United States. The U.S. exported only $188 billion of goods and services to China, a small fraction of the $524 billion in goods and services that China exported to the United States. China simply cannot win a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States. In contrast, a currency war from China's perspective may be, to quote Donald Trump, "good and easy to win." The Chinese simply need to step up their purchases of U.S. Treasurys, which would drive up the value of the dollar. Trump And Trade Needless to say, any effort by the Chinese to devalue their currency would invite a backlash from the Trump administration. However, since China is already on the receiving end of punitive U.S. trade actions, it is not clear that the marginal cost to China would outweigh the benefits of having a more competitive currency. The truth is that there may be little that China can do to fend off a trade war. Protectionism is popular among American voters, especially among Trump's base (Chart 22). Donald Trump ran on a protectionist platform, and he is now trying to deliver on his promise of a smaller trade deficit. Whether he succeeds is another story. Trump's macroeconomic policies are completely at odds with his trade agenda. Fiscal stimulus will boost aggregate demand, which will suck in more imports. An overheated economy will prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. All of this will result in a wider trade deficit. What will Trump tell voters two years from now when he is campaigning in Michigan and Ohio about why the trade deficit has widened under his watch? Will he blame himself or America's trading partners? No trophy for getting that answer right. Trump seems to equate countries with companies: Exports are revenues and imports are costs. If a country is exporting less than it is importing, it must be losing money. This is deeply flawed reasoning. I run a current account deficit with the place where I eat lunch and they run a capital account deficit with me - they give me food and I give them cash - but I don't go around complaining that they are ripping me off. A trade war would be much more damaging to Wall Street than Main Street. While trade is a fairly small part of the U.S. economy, it represents a large share of the activities of the multinational companies that comprise the S&P 500. Trade these days is dominated by intermediate goods (Chart 23). The exchange of goods and services takes place within the context of a massive global supply chain, where such phrases as "outsourcing," "vertical integration" and "just-in-time inventory management" have entered the popular vernacular. Chart 22Free Trade Is Not In Vogue In The U.S. Chart 23Trade In Intermediate Goods Dominates This arrangement has many advantages, but it also harbors numerous fragilities. A small fire at a factory in Japan that manufactured 60 per cent of the epoxy resin used in chip casings led to a major spike in RAM prices in 1993. Flooding in Thailand in 2011 wreaked havoc on the global auto industry. The global supply chain is highly vulnerable to even small shocks. Now scale that up by a factor of 100. That is what a global trade war would look like. The Euro Area: Back In The Slow Lane Euro area growth peaked late last year. Real final demand grew by 0.8% in Q4 of 2017 but only 0.2% in Q1 of 2018. The weakening trend was partly a function of slower growth in China and other emerging markets - net exports contributed 0.41 percentage points to euro area growth in Q4 but subtracted 0.14 points in Q1. Domestic factors also played a role. Most notably, the euro area credit impulse rolled over late last year, taking GDP growth down with it (Chart 24).2 It is too early to expect euro area growth to reaccelerate. German exports contracted in April. Export expectations in the Ifo survey sank in June to the lowest level since January 2017, while the export component of the PMI swooned to a two-year low. We also have yet to see the full effect of the Italian imbroglio on euro area growth. Italian bond yields have come down since spiking in April, but the 10-year yield is still more than 100 basis points higher than before the selloff (Chart 25). This amounts to a fairly substantial tightening in financial conditions in the euro area's third largest economy. And this does not even take into account the deleterious effect on Italian business confidence. Chart 24Peak In Euro Area Credit Impulse Last Year##br## Means Slower Growth This Year Chart 25Uh Oh Spaghetti-O If You Are Gonna Do The Time, You Might As Well Do The Crime At this point, investors are basically punishing Italy for a crime - defaulting and possibly jettisoning the euro - that it has not committed. If you are going to get reprimanded for something you have not done, you are more likely to do it. Such a predicament can easily create a vicious circle where rising yields make default more likely, leading to falling demand for Italian debt and even higher yields (Chart 26). The fact that Italian real GDP per capita is no higher now than when the country adopted the euro in 1999, and Italian public support for euro area membership is lower than elsewhere, has only added fuel to investor concerns (Chart 27). Chart 26When A Lender Of Last Resort Is Absent, Multiple Equilibria Are Possible Chart 27Italy: Neither Divine Nor A Comedy The ECB could short-circuit this vicious circle by promising to backstop Italian debt no matter what. But it can't make such unconditional promises. Recall that prior to delivering his "whatever it takes" speech in 2012, Mario Draghi and his predecessor Jean-Claude Trichet penned a letter to Silvio Berlusconi outlining a series of reforms they wanted to see enacted as a condition of ongoing ECB support. The contents of the letter were so explosive that they precipitated Berlusconi's resignation after they were leaked to the public. One of the reforms that Draghi and Trichet demanded - and the subsequent government led by Mario Monti ultimately undertook - was the extension of the retirement age. Italy's current leaders promised to reverse that decision during the election campaign. While they have softened their stance since then, they will still try to deliver on much of their populist agenda over the coming months, much to the consternation of the ECB and the European Commission. It was one thing for Mario Draghi to promise to do "whatever it takes" to protect Italy when the country was the victim of contagion from the Greek crisis. But now that Italy is the source of the disease, the rationale for intervention has weakened. Italy's Macro Constraints Much has been written about what Italy should be doing, but the fact is that there are no simple solutions. Italy suffers from an aging population that is trying to save more for retirement. Italian companies do not want to invest in new capacity because the working-age population is shrinking, which limits future domestic demand growth. Thus, the private sector is a chronic net saver, constantly wanting to spend less than it earns (Chart 28). Italy is not unique in facing an excess of private-sector savings. However, Italy is unique in that the solutions available to most other countries to deal with this predicament are not available to it. Broadly speaking, there are two ways you can deal with excess private-sector savings. Call it the Japanese solution and the German solution. The Japanese solution is to have the government absorb excess private-sector savings with its own dissavings. This is tantamount to running large, sustained fiscal deficits. Italy's populist coalition Five Star-Lega government tried to pursue this strategy, only to have the bond vigilantes shoot it down. The German solution is to ship excess savings out of the country through a large current account surplus (in Germany's case, 8% of GDP). However, for Italy to avail itself of this solution, it would need to have a hypercompetitive economy, which it does not. Unlike Spain, Italy's unit labor costs have barely declined over the past six years relative to the rest of the euro area, leaving it with an export base that is struggling to compete abroad (Chart 29). Chart 28The Italian Private Sector Wants To Save Chart 29Italy: More Work Needs To Be Done On The Labor Competitiveness Front Since there is little that can be done in the near term that would improve Italy's competitiveness vis-à-vis the rest of the euro area, the only thing the ECB can do is try to improve Italy's competitiveness vis-à-vis the rest of the world. This means keeping monetary policy very loose and hoping that this translates into a weak euro. II. Financial Markets Downgrade Global Risk Assets From Overweight To Neutral Investors are accustomed to thinking that there is a "Fed put" out there - that the Fed will stop raising rates if growth slows and equity prices fall. This was a sensible assumption a few years ago: The Fed hiked rates in December 2015 and then stood pat for 12 months as the global economic backdrop darkened. These days, however, the Fed wants slower growth. And if weaker asset prices are the ticket to slower growth, so be it. The "Fed put" may still be around, but the strike price has been marked down to a lower level. Likewise, worries about growing financial and economic imbalances will limit the efficacy of the "China stimulus put" - the tendency for the Chinese government to ease fiscal and credit policy at the first hint of slower growth. The same goes for the "Draghi put." The ECB is hoping, perhaps unrealistically so, to wind down its asset purchase program later this year. This means that a key buyer of Italian debt is stepping back just when it may be needed the most. The loss of these three policy puts, along with additional risks such as rising protectionism, means that the outlook for global risk assets is likely to be more challenging over the coming months. With that in mind, we downgraded our 12-month recommendation on global risk assets from overweight to neutral last week. Fixed-Income: Stay Underweight Chart 30U.S. Corporate Bonds: Leverage-Adjusted Value A less constructive stance towards equities would normally imply a more constructive stance towards bonds. Global bond yields could certainly fall in the near term, as EM stress triggers capital flows into safe-haven government bond markets. However, if we are really in an environment where an overheated U.S. economy and rising inflation force the Fed to raise rates more than the market expects, long-term bond yields are likely to rise over a 12-month horizon. As such, asset allocators should move the proceeds from equity sales into cash. The U.S. yield curve might still flatten in this environment, but it would be a bear flattening - one where long-term yields rise less than short-term rates. Bond yields are strongly correlated across the world. Thus, an increase in U.S. Treasury yields over the next 12 months would likely put upward pressure on bond yields abroad, even if inflation remains contained outside the United States. BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service favors Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. over the U.S., Canada, and euro area bond markets. Investors should also pare back their exposure to spread product. Our increasing caution towards equities extends to the corporate bond space. BCA's U.S. Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) remains in deteriorating territory. With profits still high and bank lending standards continuing to ease, a recession-inducing corporate credit crunch is unlikely over the next 12 months. Nevertheless, our models suggest that both investment grade and high yield credit are overvalued (Chart 30). In relative terms, our fixed-income specialists have a modest preference for U.S. over European credit. The near-term growth outlook is more challenging in Europe. The ECB is also about to wind down its bond buying program, having purchased nearly 20% of all corporate bonds in the euro area over the course of only three years. Currencies: King Dollar Is Back The U.S. dollar is a counter-cyclical currency, meaning that it tends to do well when the global economy is decelerating (Chart 31). If the Chinese economy continues to weaken, global growth will remain under pressure. Emerging market currencies will suffer in this environment especially if, as discussed above, the Chinese authorities engineer a devaluation of the yuan. Momentum is moving back in the dollar's favor. Chart 32 shows that a simple trading rule - which goes long the dollar whenever it is above its moving average and shorts it when it is below - has performed very well over time. The dollar is now trading above most key trend lines. Chart 31Decelerating Global Growth Tends To Be##br## Bullish For The Dollar Chart 32The Dollar Trades On Momentum Some commentators have argued that a larger U.S. budget deficit will put downward pressure on the dollar. However, this would only happen if the Fed let inflation expectations rise more quickly than nominal rates, an outcome which would produce lower real rates. So far, that has not happened: U.S. real rates have risen across the entire yield curve since Treasury yields bottomed last September (Chart 33). As a result, real rate differentials between the U.S. and its peers have increased (Chart 34). Chart 33U.S. Real Rates Have Risen Across ##br##The Entire Yield Curve Chart 34Real Rate Differentials Have Widened ##br##Between The U.S. And Its DM Peers Historically, the dollar has moved in line with changes in real rate differentials (Chart 35). The past few months have been no exception. If the Fed finds itself in a position where it can raise rates more than the market anticipates, the greenback should continue to strengthen. Chart 35Historically, The Dollar Has Moved In Line With Interest Rate Differentials True, the dollar is no longer a cheap currency. However, if long-term interest rate differentials stay anywhere close to where they are today, the greenback can appreciate quite a bit from current levels. For example, consider the dollar's value versus the euro. Thirty-year U.S. Treasurys currently yield 2.98% while 30-year German bunds yield 1.04%, a difference of 194 basis points. Even if one allows for the fact that investors expect euro area inflation to be lower than in the U.S. over the next 30 years, EUR/USD would need to trade at a measly 84 cents today in order to compensate German bund holders for the inferior yield they will receive.3 We do not expect EUR/USD to get down to that level, but a descent into the $1.10-to-$1.15 range over the next few months certainly seems achievable. Brexit worries will continue to weigh on the British pound. Nevertheless, we are reluctant to get too bearish on the pound. The currency is extremely cheap (Chart 36). Inflation has come down from a 5-year high of 3.1% in November, but still clocked in at 2.4% in April. Real wages are picking up, consumer confidence has strengthened, and the CBI retail survey has improved. In a surprise decision, Andy Haldane, the Bank of England's Chief Economist, joined two other Monetary Policy Committee members in voting for an immediate 25 basis-point increase in the Bank Rate in June. Perhaps most importantly, Brexit remains far from a sure thing. Most polls suggest that if a referendum were held again, the "Bremain" side would prevail (Chart 37). Rules are made to be broken. It is the will of the people, rather than legal mumbo-jumbo, that ultimately matters. In the end, the U.K. will stay in the EU. The yen is likely to weaken somewhat against the dollar over the next 12 months as interest rate differentials continue to move in the dollar's favor. That said, as with the pound, we think the downside for the yen is limited (Chart 38). The yen real exchange rate remains at multi-year lows. Japan's current account surplus has grown to nearly 4% of GDP and its net international investment position - the difference between its foreign assets and liabilities - stands at an impressive 60% of GDP. If financial market volatility rises, as we expect, some of those overseas assets will be repatriated back home, potentially boosting the value of the yen in the process. Chart 36The Pound Is Cheap Chart 37When Bremorse Sets In Chart 38The Yen's Long-Term Outlook Is Bullish Commodities: Better Outlook For Oil Than Metals The combination of slower global growth and a resurgent dollar is likely to hurt commodity prices. Industrial metals are more vulnerable than oil. China consumes around half of all the copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, and iron ore produced around the world (Chart 39). In contrast, China represents less than 15% of global oil demand. The supply backdrop for oil is also more favorable than for metals. While Saudi Arabia is likely to increase production over the remainder of the year, this may not be enough to fully offset lower crude output from Venezuela, Iran, Libya, and Nigeria, as well as potential constraints to U.S. production growth due to pipeline bottlenecks. Additionally, a recent power outage has knocked about 350,000 b/d of Syncrude's Canadian oil sands production offline at least through July. The superior outlook for oil over metals means we prefer the Canadian dollar relative to the Aussie dollar. Chart 40 shows that the AUD is expensive compared to the CAD based on a Purchasing Power Parity calculation. Although the Canadian dollar deserves some penalty due to NAFTA risks, the current discount seems excessive to us. Accordingly, as of today, we are going tactically short AUD/CAD. Chart 39China Is A More Dominant Consumer ##br##Of Metals Than Oil Chart 40The Canadian Dollar Is Undervalued ##br##Relative To The Aussie Dollar The prospect of higher inflation down the road is good news for gold. However, with real rates still rising and the dollar strengthening, it is too early to pile into bullion and other precious metals. Wait until early 2020, by which time the Fed is likely to stop raising rates. Equities: Prefer DM Over EM One can believe that emerging market stocks will go up; one can also believe that the Fed will do its job and tighten financial conditions in order to prevent the U.S. economy from overheating. But one cannot believe that both of these things will happen at the same time. As Chart 41 clearly shows, EM equities almost always fall when U.S. financial conditions are tightening. Chart 41Tightening U.S. Financial Conditions Do Not Bode Well For EM Stocks Our overriding view is that U.S. financial conditions will tighten over the coming months. As discussed above, the adverse effects of rising U.S. rates and a strengthening dollar are likely to be felt first and foremost in emerging markets. Our EM strategists believe that Turkey, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Malaysia, and Indonesia are most vulnerable. We no longer have a strong 12-month view on regional equity allocation within the G3 economies, at least not in local-currency terms. The sector composition of the euro area and Japanese bourses is more heavily tilted towards deep cyclicals than the United States. However, a weaker euro, and to a lesser extent, a weaker yen will cushion the blow from a softening global economy. In dollar terms, the U.S. stock market should outperform its peers. Getting Ready For The Next Equity Bear Market A neutral stance does not imply that we expect markets to move sideways. On the contrary, volatility is likely to increase again over the balance of the year. We predicted last week that the next "big move" in stocks will be to the downside. We would consider moving our 12-month recommendation temporarily back to overweight if global equities were to sell off by more than 15% during the next few months or if the policy environment becomes more market-friendly. Similar to what happened in 1998, when the S&P 500 fell by 22% between the late summer and early fall, a significant correction today could set the scene for a blow-off rally. In such a rally, EM stocks would probably rebound and cyclicals would outperform defensives. However, absent such fireworks, we will probably downgrade global equities in early 2019 in anticipation of a global recession in 2020. The U.S. fiscal impulse is set to fall sharply in 2020, as the full effects of the tax cuts and spending hikes make their way through the system (Chart 42).4 Real GDP will probably be growing at a trend-like pace of 1.7%-to-1.8% by the end of next year because the U.S. will have run out of surplus labor at that point. A falling fiscal impulse could take GDP growth down to 1% in 2020, a level often associated with "stall speed." Investors should further reduce exposure to stocks before this happens. The next recession will not be especially severe in purely economic terms. However, as was the case in 2001, even a mild recession could lead to a very painful equity bear market if the starting point for valuations is high enough. Valuations today are not as extreme as they were back then, but they are still near the upper end of their historic range (Chart 43). A composite valuation measure incorporating both the trailing and forward PE ratio, price-to-book, price-to-cash flow, price-to-sales, market cap-to-GDP, dividend yield, and Tobin's Q points to real average annual total returns of 1.8% for U.S. stocks over the next decade. Global equities will fare slightly better, but returns will still be below their historic norm. Long-term equity investors looking for more upside should consider steering their portfolios towards value stocks, which have massively underperformed growth stocks over the past 11 years (Chart 44). Chart 42U.S. Fiscal Impulse Set To Drop In 2020 Chart 43U.S. Stocks Are Pricey Chart 44Value Stocks: An Attractive Proposition Appendix A depicts some key valuation indicators for global equities. Appendix B provides illustrative projections based on the discussion above of where all the major asset classes are heading over the next ten years. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Edward E. Leamer, "Housing Is The Business Cycle," Proceedings, Economic Policy Symposium, Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, (2007). 2 Recall that GDP is a flow variable (how much production takes place every period), whereas credit is a stock variable (how much debt there is outstanding). By definition, a flow is a change in a stock. Thus, credit growth affects GDP and the change in credit growth affects GDP growth. Euro area private-sector credit growth accelerated from -2.6% in May 2014 to 3.1% in March 2017, but has been broadly flat ever since. Hence, the credit impulse has dropped. 3 For this calculation, we assume that the fair value for EUR/USD is 1.32, which is close to the IMF's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimate. The annual inflation differential of 0.4% is based on 30-year CPI swaps. This implies that the fair value for EUR/USD will rise to 1.49 after 30 years. If one assumes that the euro reaches that level by then, the common currency would need to trade at 1.49/(1.0194)^30=0.84 today. 4 We are not saying that fiscal policy will be tightened in 2020. Rather, we are saying that the structural budget deficit will stop increasing as the full effects of the tax cuts make their way through the system and higher budgetary appropriations are reflected in increased government spending (there is often a lag between when spending is authorized and when it takes place). It is the change in the fiscal impulse that matters for GDP growth. Recall that Y=C+I+G+X-M. If the government permanently raises G, this will permanently raise Y but will only temporarily raise GDP growth (the change in Y). In other words, as G stops rising in 2020, GDP growth will come back down. Appendix A Appendix A Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Appendix A Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Appendix A Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Appendix A Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Appendix B Appendix B Chart 1Market Outlook: Bonds Appendix B Chart 2Market Outlook: Equities Appendix B Chart 3Market Outlook: Currencies Appendix B Chart 4Market Outlook: Commodities Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Wage inflation in the EU28 is running at exactly the same rate as in the U.S. In the euro area, it is only modestly lower. As the current business cycle completes, the euro area versus U.S. bond yield spread will narrow, one way or the other. European equities are structurally handicapped by their substantial underexposure to technology, their substantial overexposure to financials, and the structurally undervalued currency. Still, there will be phases in which financials outperform technology and therefore in which European equities outperform. We anticipate that the next such phase to overweight European equities will occur later this year. In the near term, one European stock market that could outperform is Switzerland's SMI. Feature Largely unnoticed and without great fanfare, Europe has just overtaken the U.S. on a very important labour market measure. For the first time in living memory, the percentage of the working age (15-64) population that is in the labour force is higher in Europe than it is in the U.S., for both men and women (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekMale Labour Force Participation Is Now Higher In Europe Than In The U.S. One putative explanation is that as U.S. baby boomers have aged, people older than 64 have chosen to remain in the labour force, which has indirectly weighed on the U.S. 15-64 participation rate. But the phenomenon of baby boomers staying in the workforce is common to both Europe and the U.S. and cannot explain the extent of outperformance in European labour participation - a ten percentage point catch-up since the start of this millennium (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Labour Force Participation Is Now Higher ##br##In Europe Than In The U.S. The true explanation is that the European female participation rate has been in a major structural uptrend (Chart I-3) while the U.S. male participation rate has been in a major structural downtrend (Chart I-4). Chart I-3European Female Labour Force Participation##br## Is In A Structural Uptrend Chart I-4U.S. Male Labour Force Participation##br## Is In A Structural Downtrend Misleading Comparison 1: The Unemployment Rate In Europe Vs The U.S. This week, our purpose is not to discuss the reasons behind these labour participation trends - as we covered these in our recent report How Women Are Powering The European Economy.1 Rather, we want to point out one important repercussion: when the participation rate is changing, the unemployment rate is a misleading measure of labour market slack. When labour participation is rising, a seemingly high unemployment rate overstates true slack; conversely, when labour participation is falling, a seemingly low unemployment rate understates true slack. To understand why, consider a population in which the numbers employed, unemployed, and officially inactive stand at 95:5:25. The unemployment rate is 5%. But let's assume that ten officially inactive people could, with some mild encouragement, participate in the formal labour market. This means the true slack is fifteen people, or 14%.2 Now imagine that five of the officially inactive people join the formal labour force, albeit with a slightly higher unemployment rate given their inexperience in the formal labour force. Under these circumstances, the numbers employed, unemployed, and officially inactive might reasonably change to 99:6:20. The unemployment rate has increased to 5.7%, suggesting slack has increased. But the truth is that slack has actually decreased to eleven people, or 10%.3 Clearly, the process also works the other way. If somebody leaves the formal labour force, it might depress the unemployment rate, giving the impression of a tight labour market. But the impression would be misleading. As a recent paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston pointed out:4 "Informal work arrangements, such as gig economy jobs... embodies an economically significant amount of labour market slack that is not captured in the U-3 unemployment rate and other standard estimates of slack... Informal work can be viewed as slack because most informal work participants would drop informal work for formal work, (thereby) adding potential labour supply to the formal market that could reduce pressure on measured wages" Is there any direct evidence for this thesis? Yes, the evidence is compelling. Standard measures of slack, such as the unemployment rate, suggest that the labour market has substantially more slack in Europe than in the U.S. (Chart I-5). Yet wage inflation is running at exactly the same rate in the EU28 as in the U.S. (Chart I-6). And in the euro area, it is only modestly lower (Chart I-7). Chart I-5The Unemployment Rate Suggests Much More ##br##Slack In Europe Than In The U.S. ... Chart I-6...But Wage Inflation ##br##Is Identical! Chart I-7Euro Area Wage Inflation##br## Is Not Far Behind This brings us to a glaring structural anomaly which must eventually correct. The gulf in monetary policy between the ECB and the Fed - reflected in the bond yield spread - has become unsustainably stretched relative to the economic fundamentals, specifically the difference in wage inflation which in reality is very modest (Chart I-8). As the current business cycle completes, we expect this bond yield spread to narrow, one way or the other. Chart I-8The U.S.-Euro Area Bond Yield Spread Is Stretched ##br##Relative To The Wage Inflation Differential Misleading Comparison 2: Equity Valuations In Europe Vs The U.S. Staying on the theme of Europe versus U.S. comparisons which are highly misleading, let's share one of the most common questions we get: are European equities relatively cheap, as their headline valuation suggests? The answer is an emphatic no. Compared with currencies and bonds, mainstream stock markets have little connection with the economies of their countries or regions of domicile. Mainstream stock markets are just collections of multinational companies, with each stock market defined by its own unique sector fingerprint. Sectors with vastly different structural growth prospects - say, financials and technology - must necessarily trade on vastly different valuations. So the sector with the lower headline valuation is not necessarily the cheaper sector. By extension, the stock market with the lower headline valuation because of its sector fingerprint is not necessarily the cheaper stock market. This means that a head-to-head comparison of European stock market valuations either with each other or with non-European stock markets is highly misleading. To which, a frequent follow-up question is: within the same sector, are European companies cheaper than their counterparts elsewhere in the world? The answer is, not necessarily. To understand why, consider the international cruise company Carnival which has a dual listing, one in London, one in New York. The London listing has recently traded at a substantial discount to the New York listing (Chart I-9 and Chart I-10). Does this mean that the London listing is cheap? Of course not. If it were, the markets would arbitrage away this valuation anomaly instantaneously! Chart I-9Carnival Can Trade On A Different Valuation##br## In London And New York... Chart I-10...Because Of The Currency##br## Translation Effect On the face of it, the valuations of Carnival's two listings should be the same because the underlying company is the same. However, the London and New York valuations can deviate substantially because of the so-called 'currency translation effect'. An international company like Carnival will intentionally receive its sales and profits across multiple global currencies - say, dollars and pounds, but a stock market listing is denominated in just one currency. If investors anticipate the dollar ultimately to weaken versus the pound - because they see that the pound is structurally cheap today - they might downgrade Carnival's multi-currency profit growth expectations in pound terms. Thereby, the London listing will trade at a discount to the New York listing. But the discount is a false impression. Allowing for the anticipated decline in the dollar versus the pound, the London listing is not cheap. It follows that any multinational listed in Europe will give a false impression of cheapness if investors see European currencies as structurally undervalued. European Equity Relative Performance Has Little Connection With European Economic Relative Performance Given the large distortions to stock market valuations from sector effects and currency translation effects, picking markets on the basis of relative valuation is a very dangerous way to invest. The correct and safe way to invest is to pick stock markets on the basis of the sector and currency biases you wish to express. This creates a paradox. The overall economic fundamentals in Europe, correctly measured, are not inferior to those in the United States. Yet European stock market relative performance has very little to do with Europe's relative economic performance. European equities are structurally handicapped by their substantial underexposure to technology, their substantial overexposure to financials, and the structurally undervalued currency. Unfortunately, this will necessarily weigh on their long-term relative performance prospects. Still, there will be phases in which financials outperform technology and therefore in which European equities outperform other major markets. We anticipate that the next such phase to overweight European equities will occur later this year. In the near term, one European stock market that could outperform is Switzerland's SMI. Given its overweighting to healthcare - Novartis and Roche - and healthcare's outperformance this year, the SMI should have fared well in the first half. However, this tailwind was countered by a stronger headwind - the SMI has a huge underweight to oil and gas, which is the one cyclical sector that has outperformed. But as we pointed out last week, the performance of oil and gas equities is technically stretched, and will require strong momentum in the crude price to extend further. Therefore, we like the combination of overweight healthcare, underweight oil and gas - which is precisely what Switzerland's SMI offers (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Switzerland = Long Healthcare, Short Energy Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, 'How Women Are Powering The European Economy' dated June 7, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 5/(95+5) = 5%, (5+10)/(95+5+10) = 14% 3 6/(99+6) =5.7%, (6+5)/(99+6+5) = 10% 4 The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Current Policy Perspectives No. 18-2 'Wage Inflation and Informal Work' by Anat Bracha and Mary A. Burke, October 2017. Fractal Trading Model This week we note that the outperformance of consumer services versus consumer goods is technically stretched. The 65-day fractal dimension is at a limit that has reliably signalled reversals. The recommended trade is short global consumer services versus consumer goods. Set a profit target of 2.5% with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-12 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
NOTE: We will not be publishing a report next week. The next Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report will be published on Tuesday, July 10th. Highlights Global Corporates: The clash between monetary policy and the markets that we have been expecting to unfold in 2018 is upon us. Downgrade global spread product exposure to neutral (3 of 5) from overweight, and raise government bond exposure to neutral. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration, however, as global bond yields have not yet peaked for this cycle. Country Allocation: Move to neutral on U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporates, while staying underweight (2 of 5) on euro area corporates. Downgrade emerging market hard currency sovereign and corporate debt to maximum underweight (1 of 5) - the combination of a rising dollar, Fed tightening and slower Chinese growth will remain a huge problem for emerging market assets. Feature Chart Of The Week3 Big Reasons To Downgrade Spread Product Last week, BCA as a firm moved to a less positive stance on global equities and credit, downgrading both to neutral from overweight on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon.1 Dating back to our 2018 Outlook published at the end of last December, we had anticipated that we would be shifting to a less aggressive asset allocation sometime around mid-year.2 The expected trigger would be a move by central banks to a more restrictive policy stance that would start to impact future growth expectations. That time has come, and we are now recommending moving to a less bullish stance on global credit. Many of the tailwinds that supported the stellar performance of risk assets in 2017 - most importantly, coordinated global growth, accommodative monetary policies and a weakening U.S. dollar - have transformed into headwinds over the course of 2018 and are unlikely to reverse before risk assets suffer a setback (Chart of the week). At a minimum, there is now enough uncertainty, at a time when many asset classes are richly priced, to make the risk/reward balance for being long growth-sensitive assets like equities and corporate debt less attractive. This week, we are downgrading our recommended stance on global spread product to neutral (3 out of 5) from overweight, while upgrading our recommended allocation for government bonds to neutral from underweight. This represents an unwind of a long-standing recommendation that dates back to January 31st, 2017 when we strategically downgraded U.S. Treasury exposure and upgraded U.S. corporate debt.3 We are closing that recommendation at a relative total return gain of 2.3% for U.S. investment grade and 6.7% for U.S. high-yield over Treasuries (Chart 2). Chart 2Closing A Successful Overweight Stance ##br##On U.S. Corporates We still believe that global bond yields will remain under upward pressure from both higher inflation and a less favorable supply/demand balance for fixed income (more issuance, less central bank buying). The fact that bond yields will NOT be able to fall much to reinvigorate softening global growth - because of rising inflation at a time of diminished economic slack - is a critical reason why we are turning more cautious on global credit. Thus, we are maintaining our recommended below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance, even as we upgrade our government bond allocation to neutral. We recommend placing the proceeds of a reduction of global corporate debt exposure into shorter-maturity government bonds, which we are doing in our model bond portfolio (see page 15). At the country level, we are downgrading U.S. corporate bonds, both investment grade and high-yield, to neutral from overweight. We still are of the view that U.S. corporates are better positioned to outperform non-U.S. credit, however, even in a more challenging environment for credit returns. Thus we are keeping our recommended underweight allocations to euro area corporate debt (2 out of 5 for both investment grade and high-yield). We see a much nastier backdrop brewing for emerging markets (EM), however - a stronger dollar, higher U.S. interest rates, slowing Chinese growth, diminished global capital flows - so we are downgrading both EM hard currency sovereign and corporate debt to maximum underweight (1 out of 5). In terms of other spread product categories, we are maintaining our neutral allocation to U.S. mortgage-backed securities, while downgrading U.K. and Canadian corporate debt to underweight. For those that can invest in U.S. muni debt, we are upgrading that sector to overweight (4 out of 5). The Reasons To Cut Corporate Credit Exposure Now Global credit has not performed well in the first half of 2018, with only U.S. high-yield corporates providing a positive return year-to-date among the major markets: U.S. investment grade: -3.6% total return, -1.7% excess return over duration-matched Treasuries U.S. high-yield: +0.7% total return, +1.5% excess return Euro area investment grade: -0.3% total return, -1.1% excess return Euro area high-yield: -0.5% total return, -1.0% excess return EM USD-denominated sovereign debt: -5.5% total return, -3.6% excess return EM USD-denominated corporate debt: -2.9% total return, -1.7% excess return Chart 3The Start Of Something Big? While there have been plenty of geopolitical tensions for markets to fret over this year (U.S. trade policy, North Korea), the biggest reason for the underperformance of credit is due to the most typical of reasons - tightening global monetary policy. One way to measure the stance of monetary policy is to look at the slope of government bond yield curves. According to the Bloomberg Barclays government bond index data, the "global yield curve" - the spread between the Global Treasury index yield for the 7-10 year and 1-3 year maturity buckets - is now a mere 6bps (Chart 3). That is the flattest the global curve has been since the first quarter of 2007. That is a potentially ominous sign given that the Global Financial Crisis began brewing around the same time. The global yield curve became deeply inverted in the late 1990s, as well, which preceeded the 1998 EM crisis and, later, the global telecom bust. Fundamentally, we see four main reasons to downgrade global credit now: 1. Global growth is slowing and becoming less synchronized The first half of 2018 has seen a deceleration of global economic activity from the robust pace of 2017. This has been a broad-based cooling of activity so far, with cyclical indicators like manufacturing PMIs still well above the 50 level that suggests expanding growth in all major economies. Yet there are signs that the pullback in growth may persist throughout 2018 and into 2019. The OECD's global leading economic indicator (LEI) is rolling over and our LEI diffusion index - a leading indicator of the LEI - suggests additional weakness should be expected. This is significant for credit markets, as returns on corporate bonds are highly correlated to the swings in the global LEI (Chart 4). This is true even in the U.S., which is bucking the slowing global growth trend and where confidence is booming and domestic leading indicators are accelerating (Chart 5). Chart 4Corporate Bonds Follow The Global LEI Chart 5Upside Risks For U.S. Growth That easing of non-U.S. growth is likely rooted in the slowdown underway in China. Policymakers there have been tightening monetary conditions and acting to reign in excessive debt growth. This has resulted in a slowing of overall economic growth after the stimulus-fueled boom in 2016 that helped kick-start global growth last year through robust Chinese imports and consumption of industrial commodities. Given the sheer size of Chinese demand, the global economy will look very different when Chinese imports are growing at a 30% pace rather than the current pace below 10%. Our most reliable forward-looking indicators for Chinese growth, like our Li Keqiang leading indicator, are calling for additional cooling of Chinese economic activity in the latter half of 2018 (Chart 6). This reinforces the signal given by our global LEI diffusion index, with both indicating that additional struggles in the performance of global credit markets should be expected (based off the relationship shown in Chart 4). One additional point: the ongoing trade tensions between the Trump administration and all of the major U.S. trading partners represents an additional potential downside risk to global growth. The story is still quite fluid, as it always is with this president, but the uncertainty created by the trade frictions is definitely a negative for risk assets, at a minimum. 2. Global inflation pressures are rising, most notably in the U.S. Even with the latest dip in non-U.S. growth, the global economy is still operating with the least amount of spare capacity since the mid-2000s boom. The U.S. unemployment rate is down to 3.8%, the lowest level in eighteen years. 75% of OECD countries now have unemployment rates below the OECD's estimate of the full-employment NAIRU, with capacity utilization rates also rising. The pricing backdrop is as healthy as it has been since 2011, according to the measure of world export prices from the Netherlands-based Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis which is now growing at a 10% annual rate (Chart 7). Chart 6Downside Risks For Chinese Growth Chart 7A More Inflationary Global Backdrop, Especially In The U.S. The previous two times export prices grew that rapidly in 2008 and 2011 - two very challenging years for financial markets - global CPI inflation rates expanded rapidly, especially in the U.S. Headline CPI inflation ended up reaching peaks of 6% and 4%, respectively, during those prior two episodes. Non-U.S. inflation rates also accelerated, but not to the same degree as in the U.S. A similar dynamic is playing out in 2018, with U.S. inflation rates accelerating (both headline and core), at a faster pace than in the other major developed economies. With the U.S. labor market growing tighter each month, and with U.S. growth likely to continue expanding at an above-potential pace for the next few quarters, it is unlikely that the current upturn in U.S. inflation will slow on its own. This will ensure that the Fed will continue on its planned monetary tightening path that will soon take U.S. monetary conditions into restrictive territory - eventually weighing on U.S. growth expectations and raising concerns over future downgrade and default risks, and returns, in U.S. corporate bond markets. 3. Growth and monetary policy divergences will continue to boost the value of the U.S. dollar The divergences between growth, inflation and monetary policy in the U.S. and the rest of the world are now helping raise the value of the U.S. dollar, which had declined nearly 10% on peak-to-trough basis in 2017. The dollar has been rising in 2018, which has been weighing on EM currencies and financial markets as is typically the case during periods of dollar strength. EM economies have been rapidly accumulating dollar-denominated debt in recent years, leaving EM borrowers as highly exposed to the swings in the dollar and interest rates as they have been since the late 1990s. The current backdrop is setting itself up for a repeat of the 2015/16 period when pro-U.S. growth divergences caused the dollar to soar and triggered major selloffs in EM financial assets that spilled over into U.S. and developed market equities and credit (Chart 8). Right now, the moves have been far more modest than seen in the 2015/16 period. Since the start of 2018, the U.S. trade-weighted dollar is up 4% and EM equities are down -6% (in U.S. dollar terms), while U.S. investment grade credit spreads have risen 37bps from the February lows. This is far less than the moves seen in 2015/16, where the dollar rose 16%, EM equities sold off -34% and U.S. credit spreads widened nearly 100bps. Those moves were enough to cause the Fed to delay its rate hike plans after the initial post-QE rate hike in December 2015, triggering a significant decline in U.S. bond yields (bottom panel) and the dollar that eventually stabilized global financial markets. With the U.S. economy in a much healthier position today than two years ago, and with U.S. core inflation running close to the Fed's 2% target, it will take much larger market moves than have been seen of late before the Fed would consider taking a pause on its current 25bps-per-quarter pace of rate hikes. The mechanism for that to happen will be a stronger dollar and any associated impact on U.S. financial markets. However, it must be a very large move (as it was in 2015/16) to have enough of a negative impact on the U.S. economy, U.S. corporate profits or U.S. inflation for financial markets, and the Fed, to take notice. In Chart 9, we show the U.S. trade-weighted dollar with three different scenarios for the change in the currency to the end of 2018: flat, up 5% and up 10%. We show the dollar in level terms in the top panel, while showing the year-over-year growth rate of the dollar (on an inverted scale) in the bottom three panels. In those last three panels, we also show the potential areas where a strong dollar would impact the U.S. economy the most: net exports, corporate profit growth from earnings earned outside the U.S. (using top-down profit data) and headline inflation. Chart 82015/16 Revisited? Not Yet Chart 9A Much Stronger USD Is Needed To Impact U.S. Growth & Inflation The charts show that a 10% rise in the dollar by year-end would likely take enough of a bite out of U.S. growth and inflation for U.S. equity and credit markets to sell off and for the Fed to take a pause on its rate hike plans. A more modest 5% rise in the dollar will have a more muted impact, especially with stronger underlying U.S. growth and inflation pressures than was the case in 2015/16. That latter scenario of a more moderate rise in the dollar would be our most likely scenario - one that would prove to be challenging for U.S. credit market performance. The dollar increase would be enough to keep EM financial markets on the defensive, but would not be large enough to get Fed rate hikes out of the way and allow for a big decline in Treasury yields that would help support risk assets. A slowly rising dollar is another reason to reduce credit exposure in fixed income portfolios. 4. Central bank liquidity provision through asset purchases is slowing rapidly One of our major themes for 2018 has been that the removal of the extraordinary liquidity expansion by central banks would weigh on asset returns. This would occur through the Fed allowing maturing bonds accumulated during its QE program to begin running off its balance sheet, and through a slower pace of bond buying in the case of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ). Already, the increase in developed market bond yields, and the lowering of returns in global equities and credit, have largely followed the path laid out by our indicator of central bank liquidity provision - the annual growth in the balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, BoJ and Bank of England (Chart 10). Our central bank liquidity indicator suggests that there is still more upside for global government bond yields as central banks become less directly active in bond markets. At the same time, the diminished liquidity growth means there is less investor money to be forced out of risk-free government bonds into risky assets like corporate credit, which should help erode credit market returns on the margin. This will occur through reduced inflows into credit that are just chasing yield, and a return to more fundamental drivers of credit market valuation like growth, inflation, leverage and downgrade/default risks - all of which are now on the rise in the U.S. Bottom Line: The clash between monetary policy and the markets that we have been expecting to unfold in 2018 is upon us. Tightening monetary policies, rising bond yields, slowing global growth, widening growth divergences, increasing U.S. inflation pressures, a strengthening U.S. dollar, emerging market instability, diminished central bank liquidity, reduced global capital flows, global trade tensions - all are now creating a backdrop that is more challenging for risk assets. Downgrade global spread product exposure to neutral (3 of 5) from overweight, and raise government bond exposure to neutral. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration, however, as global bond yields have not yet peaked for this cycle. Asset Allocation Decisions To Be Made So in terms of our fixed income asset allocation recommendations, but in our strategic tables on page 16 and our model bond portfolio on page 15, we are making the following changes: Downgrade U.S. Investment Grade & High-Yield Corporates To Neutral (3 out of 5) The bulk of our primary indicators for U.S. credit are at levels that are consistent with a neutral allocation (Chart 11). Our top-down Corporate Health Monitor is right at the line dividing the deteriorating health and improving health regimes (although this is only because of a cyclical improvement in some of the underlying indicators). U.S. monetary policy is close to neutral, as measured by the real fed funds rate versus the Fed's r-star estimate. The U.S. Treasury curve is very flat, although it is not yet inverted as typically precedes the end of a credit cycle. Finally, bank lending standards are only modestly in "net easing" territory according to the Fed's senior loan officer survey. Chart 10Fading Impact Of Global QE On Bond Markets Chart 11Downgrade U.S. IG & HY Corporates To Neutral With all these indicators hovering around neutral levels, a neutral allocation to U.S. corporates seems justified. Additionally, we recommend cutting across all credit tiers for both investment grade and high-yield, rather than focusing on cutting a specific tier more than another. Our preferred valuation metric - the 12-month breakeven spread relative to its history - is near the bottom quartile for all credit tiers (Charts 12 & 13) without one looking particularly more expensive than the others. Chart 12Not Much Of A Spread Cushion In U.S. Investment Grade ... Chart 13... Or U.S. High-Yield Keep Euro Area Investment Grade & High-Yield At Underweight (2 out of 5) We have maintained this strategic view based on the convergence between our top-down Corporate Health Monitors for both the U.S. and euro area. Right now, the cyclical improvement in U.S. financial metrics has come at the same time as a cyclical deterioration of euro area metrics from very healthy levels (Chart 14). The spread between the two Monitors has proven to be a good directional indicator for the relative performance between U.S. and euro area credit. That spread continues to point to additional expected outperformance by U.S. corporates, even in an overall more challenging environment for global credit markets. Throw in increased Italian political turmoil, softer euro area growth and the upcoming ECB tapering of its asset purchases - which will include corporate debt that the ECB has been buying steadily for the past three years - and the case for underweighting euro area corporates, especially versus U.S. equivalents, is a strong one. Downgrade EM Hard Currency Sovereign & Corporate Debt To Maximum Underweight (1 out of 5) We have been favoring U.S. investment grade credit over EM credit the past several months. The growth divergence between the U.S. and EM has been widening, while EM market valuations had gotten very rich. Now, EM spread widening is starting to correct that mis-valuation, although is still early in the process. The spread differential between U.S and EM credit is a good leading indicator of the relative returns between the two asset classes (Chart 15), thus last year's EM outperformance is leading to this year's underperformance. Chart 14Stay Underweight Euro Area Corporates Chart 15Move To Maximum Underweight EM Credit We wish to maintain the same "two notch" gap between our recommended level of U.S. and EM credit exposure, so by downgrading U.S. corporates to neutral (3 of 5), we must downgrade EM corporates to maximum underweight (1 of 5). All of the above changes will be reflected in our model bond portfolio on page 15. One final point - we should lay out the case for out next move from here. If the Fed tightening cycle goes as we envision it will, with U.S. growth staying strong and inflation expectations rising back to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target, then we expect the next move will be to downgrade U.S. corporates to underweight. However, if there is enough of a market setback to cause the Fed to delay its rate hike cycle, as was the case in 2016, then we may consider moving back to overweight U.S. corporates on a tactical basis. We suspect, however, that the moves today are the beginning of the end game for the current credit cycle - the negatives for corporates are now outweighing the positives, and that gap is likely to get wider in the coming months. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral", dated June 19th 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2018 Key Views: BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets", dated December 5th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Growth Upturn Has Legs: Reduce Duration, Upgrade Credit Exposure", dated January 31st 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights Short oil and gas versus financials. Stick with underweights in the classically cyclical sectors. Downgrade the FTSE100 to neutral. Overweight France, Ireland, Switzerland and Denmark. Underweight Italy, Spain, Sweden and Norway. European equities will struggle to make much headway versus the technology-dominated S&P500 and MSCI Emerging Markets. Overall market direction will be range-bound through the summer. Feature Two market oddities stood out in the first half of the year. The first oddity was the abrupt decoupling of bank equity performance from bond yields (Chart I-2). For many years, bank equity performance and bond yields have been joined at the hip (Chart I-3). The faithful relationship exists because higher bond yields tend to signal stronger economic growth, either real or nominal. Stronger growth should be good for banks as it is associated with both accelerating credit growth and lower provisions for non-performing loans. Chart of the WeekWhen Technology Outperforms, European Equities Struggle Versus Emerging Market Equities Chart I-2Oddity 1: Banks Abruptly Decoupled##br## From Bond Yields Chart I-3Banks And Bond Yields Have Been ##br##Joined At The Hip For Years The second oddity was the abrupt decoupling of crude oil from industrial metal prices (Chart I-4). It is rare for crude oil to outperform copper by 30% in the space of just six months (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Oddity 2: The Crude Oil Price Abruptly ##br##Decoupled From Metal Prices Chart I-5It Is Rare For Crude Oil To Outperform ##br##Copper By 30% In Six Months Explaining The Oddities In The 1st Half The underperformance of banks is consistent with similar underperformances in the other classically growth-sensitive sectors - industrials, and basic materials (Chart I-6). Furthermore, the underperformances of these cyclicals is closely tracking the downswing in the global 6-month credit impulse (Chart I-7). Chart I-6The Odd Man Out: ##br##Oil And Gas Chart I-7The Underperformance Of Cyclicals Is Closely ##br##Tracking The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Note also that these underperformances started well before any inkling of a trade spat. Hence, the recent escalation in the trade skirmishes is reinforcing a change of trend that was already in place. Taken together, this evidence would strongly suggest that global growth is not accelerating; it is decelerating. Oil is the odd man out because its supply dynamics, rather than demand dynamics, have been dominating its price action, lifting its year-on-year inflation rate to 60%. However, a large part of this surge in year-on-year inflation is also to do with the 'base effect', the dip in the oil price to $45 a year ago. The base effect is a statistical quirk, and shouldn't really bother markets. After all, most people do not consciously compare today's price with that exactly a year ago. Unfortunately, central banks' inflation targets are based on year-on-year comparisons, and this could explain why bond yields have decoupled from growth. If oil price inflation is running at 60% it will underpin headline CPI inflation, central bank reaction functions, and thereby bond yields. So here's the explanation for the oddities in the first half. Banks, industrials, and the other classically cyclical sectors are taking their cue from global growth and industrial activity, which does appear to be losing momentum. In contrast, bond yields are taking their cue from the oil price, given its major impact on headline inflation and on central bank reaction functions. Spotting An Opportunity In The 2nd Half Chart I-8Crude Oil's 12-Month Inflation Rate Is 60% Ultimately, an oil price spike based on supply dynamics without support from stronger demand is unsustainable - because the higher price eventually leads to demand destruction (Chart I-8). On the other hand, if global demand growth does reaccelerate, it is the beaten-down bank equity prices that have the recovery potential. Either way, this leads us to a compelling intra-cyclical trade: short oil and gas versus financials. In aggregate though, we expect cyclical sectors to continue underperforming defensives through the summer. Based on previous credit impulse mini-cycles, we can confidently say that mini-deceleration phases last at least six to eight months and that the typical release valve is a decline in bond yields. In this regard, the apparent disconnect between decelerating growth and slow-to-budge bond yields risks protracting this mini-deceleration phase. Therefore, through the summer, it is appropriate to stick with underweights in the classically cyclical sectors. The strategy has worked well since we initiated it at the start of the year, and it is too early to take profits. Likewise, the portfolio of high-quality government 30-year bonds which we bought in early May is performing well, and we expect it to continue doing so for the time being. Don't Over-Complicate The Investment Process! To reiterate, stick with an underweight to the classical cyclicals versus defensives; and within the cyclicals, short oil and gas versus financials. These sector stances then have a very strong bearing on regional and country equity allocation. This is because up to a quarter of the market capitalisation of each major stock market is in one dominant sector, and this dominant sector gives each equity index its defining fingerprint (Table I-1): for the FTSE100, it is oil and gas; for the Eurostoxx50 it is financials; for the Nikkei225 it is industrials. So all three of these regional indexes are dominated by classical cyclicals. Table I-1Each Major Stock Market Has A Defining Sector Fingerprint For the S&P500 and MSCI Emerging Markets indexes, the dominant sector is technology. Although the technology sector is not strictly speaking defensive, it is much less sensitive to growth accelerations and decelerations than the classical cyclicals. There is another important factor to consider: the currency. The FTSE100 oil and gas stock, BP, receives its revenue and incurs its costs in multiple major currencies, such as euros and dollars. In this sense, BP's global business is currency neutral. But BP's stock price is quoted in London in pounds. This means that if the pound strengthens, the company's multi-currency profits will decline relative to the stock price and weigh it down. Conversely, if the pound weakens, it will lift the BP stock price. So the currency is the channel through which the domestic economy can impact its stock market, albeit it is an inverse relationship: a strong currency hinders the stock market; a weak currency helps it. The upshot is that the defining sector fingerprints for the major indexes turn out to be: FTSE100 = global oil and gas shares expressed in pounds. Eurostoxx50 = global banks expressed in euros. Nikkei225 = global industrials expressed in yen. S&P500 = global technology expressed in dollars. MSCI Emerging Markets = global technology expressed in emerging market currencies. Professional investors might argue that this trivializes an investment process on which they spend a lot of time, resource, research, and ultimately money. But we would flip this argument around. To justify the large amounts of time and resource spent on the investment process, professional investors are often guilty of over-complicating it! We fully admit that many factors influence the financial markets, but these factors follow the Pareto Principle, also known as the 80:20 rule. A small number of causes explain the majority of effects. And the 20% that explains 80% of a stock market's relative performance is its defining sector fingerprint. The Chart of the Week and Chart I-9-Chart I-12 should dispel any lingering doubts that readers might have. Chart I-9FTSE 100 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Oil And Gas##br## In Pounds Vs. Global Tech In Dollars Chart I-10FTSE 100 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Oil And Gas ##br##In Pounds Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-11FTSE 100 Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 = Global Oil And Gas ##br##In Pounds Vs. Global Banks In Euros Chart I-12Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Banks ##br##In Euros Vs. Global Tech In Dollars So what does all of this mean for investors right now? A stance that is short oil and gas versus financials necessarily implies that the FTSE100 will struggle versus the Eurostoxx50, given the FTSE100's oil and gas fingerprint and the Eurostoxx50's banks fingerprint. Hence, today we are taking profits in our overweight to the FTSE100, and downgrading this position to neutral. This leaves us with overweight positions to France, Ireland, Switzerland and Denmark, and underweight positions to Italy, Spain, Sweden and Norway. Meanwhile, a stance that is underweight the classical cyclicals necessarily implies that European equities will struggle to make much headway versus the technology-dominated S&P500 and MSCI Emerging Markets. Finally, in terms of overall market direction, we expect the range-bound pattern established in the first half of the year to hold through the summer. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week. However, we reiterate that the outperformance of oil and gas versus financials is technically very stretched, which reinforces the fundamental arguments in the main body of this report to go short oil and gas versus financials. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-13 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights BCA's Geopolitical Power Index (GPI) confirms that we live in a multipolar world; Most of President Trump's policies are designed to strike out against this structural reality; Trade war with China is real and presents the premier geopolitical risk in 2018; President Trump's aggression towards G7 allies boils down to greater NAFTA risk; We remain bullish USD, bearish EM, maintain our short U.S. China-exposed equities and closing all our "bullish" NAFTA trades; Remain short GBP/USD, Theresa May's days appear numbered. Feature "We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning." Candidate Donald Trump, May 26, 2016 In 2013, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy introduced the concept of multipolarity into our financial lexicon.1 Multipolarity is a term in political science that denotes when the number of states powerful enough to pursue an independent and globally relevant foreign policy is greater than one (unipolarity) or two (bipolarity). At the time, the evidence that U.S. global hegemony was in retreat was plentiful, but the idea of a U.S. decline was still far from consensus. By late 2016, however, President Donald Trump was overtly campaigning on it. His campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again," promised to reverse the process by striking out at the perceived causes of the decline: globalization, unchecked illegal immigration, and the ineffective foreign policy of the D.C. establishment. How can we quantitatively prove that the world is multipolar? We recently enhanced the classic National Capability Index (NCI) with our own measure, the Geopolitical Power Index (GPI). The original index, created for the Correlates of War project in 1963, had grown outdated. Its reliance on "military personnel" and "iron and steel production" harkened back to the late nineteenth century and overstated the power of China (Chart 1). Chart 1The National Capability Index Overstates China's Power Our own index avoids these pitfalls, while retaining the parsimony of the NCI, by focusing on six key factors: Population: We adapted the original population measure by penalizing countries with large dependency ratios. Yes, having a vast population matters, but having too many dependents (the elderly and youth) can strain resources otherwise available for global power projection. Global Economic Relevance: The original index failed to capture a country's relevance for the global economy. Designed at the height of the Cold War, the NCI did not foresee today's globalized future. As such, we modified the original index by introducing a measure that captures a country's contribution to global final demand. The more an economy imports, the greater its bargaining power in terms of trade and vis-à-vis its geopolitical rivals. Arms Exports: Having a large army is no longer as relevant now that wars have become a high-tech affair. To capture that reality, we replaced the NCI's focus on the number of soldiers with arms exports as a share of the global defense industry. We retained the original three variables that measure primary energy consumption, GDP, and overall military expenditure. Chart 2 shows the updated data. As expected, the U.S. is in decline, having lost nearly a third of its quantitatively measured geopolitical power since 1998. Over the same period, China has gone from having just 30% of U.S. geopolitical power to over 80%. Other countries, like Russia, India, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, have also seen an increase in geopolitical power over the same period, confirming their roles as regional powers (Chart 3). Chart 2BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World Chart 3China Was Not The Only EM To Rise President Trump was elected with the mandate of changing the trajectory of American power and getting the country back on a "winning" path. Investors can perceive nearly all the moves by the administration - from protectionist actions against China and traditional allies, to applying a "Maximum Pressure" doctrine against North Korea and Iran - as a fight against the structural decline of U.S. power. Isn't President Trump "tilting at windmills"? Fighting a vain battle against imaginary adversaries? Yes. The decline of the U.S. is a product of classic imperial overstretch combined with the natural lifecycle of any global hegemon. U.S. policymakers have made decisions that have hastened the decline, but the overarching American geopolitical trajectory would have been negative regardless: Global peace brought prosperity which strengthened Emerging Markets (EM), particularly China, relative to the U.S. That said, Trump is not as crazy as the media often imply. Chaos is not necessarily bad for a domestically driven economy secured by two oceans. The U.S. tends to outperform the rest of the world - economically, financially, and geopolitically - amid turbulence. Our own updated GPI shows that both World Wars were massively favorable for U.S. hegemony (Chart 4), although this time around the chaos is mostly self-inflicted. Chart 4America Profits From Chaos Similarly, Trump's economic populism at home is buoying sentiment and assuaging the negative consequences - real or imagined - of his protectionism. Meanwhile, the threat of tariffs is souring the mood abroad. This policy mix is causing U.S. assets to outperform (Chart 5). Most importantly, the U.S. dollar is now up 2.7% since the beginning of the year, putting pressure on EM assets. When combined with continued counter-cyclical structural reforms in China, we maintain that the overall macro and geopolitical context remains bearish for global risk assets. This is not the first time that an American president has deployed both an aggressive trade policy and an aggressive foreign policy. The difference, this time around, is that the world is multipolar. A defining feature of multipolarity is that it is less predictable and more likely to produce inter-state conflict (Chart 6). As more countries matter - geopolitically, economically, financially - the number of "veto players" rises, making stable equilibria more difficult to produce. As such, bullying as a negotiating tactic worked when used by Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr., and Clinton, but may not work today. Investors should therefore prepare for a long period of uncertainty this summer as the world responds to a U.S. administration focused on "winning." Chart 5U.S. Assets Outperform Chart 6Multipolarity Produces Uncertainty Bottom Line: There is a clear logic behind President Trump's foreign and trade policy. He is trying to reverse a decline in U.S. hegemony. The problem is that his policy decisions are unlikely to address the structural causes of America's decline. What is much more likely is that his policy will cause the rest of the world to react in unpredictable ways. The U.S. may benefit, but that is not a forgone conclusion. Investors should position themselves for a volatile summer. Below we review three key issues, two negative and one positive. The U.S. Vs. China: The Trade War Is Real The Trump administration has announced that it will go ahead with tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports in retaliation for forced technology transfer and intellectual property theft under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. The tariffs will come in two tranches beginning on July 6. China will respond proportionately, based on both its statements and its response to the steel and aluminum tariffs (Chart 7). If the two sides stop here, then perhaps the trade war can be delayed. But Trump is already saying he will impose tariffs on a further $200 billion worth of goods. At that point, if Beijing re-retaliates, China's proportionate response will cover more goods than the entire range of U.S. imports (Chart 8). Retaliation will have to occur elsewhere. Chart 7Trump's Steel/Aluminum Tariffs Chart 8Trump's Tariffs On China We would expect the CNY/USD to weaken as negotiations fail. We would also expect tensions to continue spilling over into the South China Sea and other areas of strategic disagreement.2 The South China Sea or Taiwan could produce market-moving "black swan" geopolitical events this year or next.3 Chart 9Downside Risks Continue It is critical to distinguish between the U.S. trade conflict with China and the one with the G7. In the latter case, the U.S. political establishment will push against the Trump administration, encouraging him to compromise. With China, however, Congress is becoming the aggressor and we certainly do not expect the Defense Department or the intelligence community to play the peacemaker with Beijing. In particular, members of Congress are trying to cancel Trump's ZTE deal while expanding the powers of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to restrict Chinese investments.4 These congressional factors underscore our theme that U.S.-China tensions are structural and secular.5 Would China stimulate its economy to negate the effects of tariffs? We see nothing yet on the policy side to warrant a change in our fundamental view, which holds that any stimulus will be limited due to the agenda of containing systemic financial risk. Credit growth remains weak and fiscal spending has not yet perked up (Chart 9), portending weak Chinese imports and negative outcomes for EM. The risk to Chinese growth remains to the downside this year (and likely next year) as the government continues with the reforms. Critically, stimulus is not the only possible Chinese response to trade war. A trade war with the United States will provide Xi with a "foreign devil" on whom he can blame the pain of structural reforms. As such, it is entirely possible that Beijing doubles-down on reforms in light of an aggressive U.S. Bottom Line: The U.S.-China trade war is beginning and will cause additional market volatility and, potentially, a "black swan" event, especially ahead of the U.S. midterm elections. We do not expect 2015-style economic stimulus from Beijing. Stay long U.S. small caps relative to large caps; short U.S. China-exposed equities; and remain short EM equities relative to DM. The U.S. Vs. The G6: This Is About NAFTA There was little rhyme or reason to President Trump's smackdown of traditional U.S. allies at the G7 summit in Quebec. As our colleague Peter Berezin recently pointed out, the U.S. is throwing stones while living in a glass house.6 While the overall level of tariff barriers within developed countries is low, the U.S. actually stands at the top end of the spectrum (Chart 10). The decision to launch an investigation into whether automobile imports "threaten to impair the national security" of the U.S. - under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 - falls into the same rubric of empty threats. The U.S. has had a 25% tariff on imported light trucks since 1964, a decision that likely caused its car companies to become addicted to domestic pickup truck demand to the detriment of global competitiveness. Meanwhile, only 15% of U.S. autos shipped to the EU were subject to the infamous European 10% surcharge on auto imports. This is because U.S. autos containing European parts are exempt from the tariff. Many foreign auto manufacturers have already adjusted to the U.S. market, setting up manufacturing inside the country (Chart 11). Tariffs would hurt luxury brands like BMW, Daimler, Volvo, and Jaguar.7 As such, we doubt the investment-relevance of Trump's threat against autos. Either way, the investigation is unlikely to be completed until the tail-end of Q1 2019. Chart 10Tariffs: Who Is Robbing The U.S.? Chart 11Car Imports? What Imports? Instead, investors should take Trump's aggressive comments from the G7 in the context of the ongoing NAFTA negotiations and the closing window for a deal. President Trump wants to get a NAFTA deal ahead of the U.S. midterms in November and prior to the new Mexican Congress being inaugurated on September 1.8 This means that a deal has to be concluded by late July, or early August, giving the "old" Mexican Congress enough time to ratify it before the new president - likely Andrés Manuel López Obrador - comes to power on December 1. This would conceivably give the U.S. Congress enough time to ratify a deal by December, assuming Republicans can remove some procedural hurdles before then. The rising probability of no resolution before the U.S. midterm election will increase the risk that Trump will trigger Article 2205 and announce the U.S.'s withdrawal. Trump has always had the option of triggering the six-month withdrawal period as a negotiating tactic to increase the pressure on Canada and Mexico. Withdrawing might fire up the base, while major concessions from Canada or Mexico might be presented as "victories" to voters. Anything short of these binary outcomes is useless to Trump on November 6. Therefore, if Canada and Mexico do not relent in the next month or two, the odds of Trump triggering Article 2205 will shoot up. The key is that Trump faces limited legal or economic constraints in withdrawing: Legal Constraints: Not only can Trump unilaterally withdraw from the agreement, triggering the six-month exit period, but Congress is unlikely to stop him. Announcing withdrawal automatically nullifies much of the 1993 NAFTA Implementation Act.9 Some provisions of NAFTA under this act may continue to be implemented, but the bulk would cease to have effect, and the White House could refuse to enforce the rest. Economic Constraints: The U.S. economy has far less exposure to Canada and Mexico than vice- versa (Chart 12). Certain states and industries would be heavily affected - ironically, the U.S. auto industry would be most severely impacted (Chart 13) - and they would lobby aggressively to save the agreement. But with the American economy hyper-charged with stimulus, the drag from leaving NAFTA is not prohibitive to Trump. Voters will feel any pocketbook consequences about three months late i.e., after the election. Chart 12U.S. Economy:##br## Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Chart 13NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto ##br##Manufacturing More Competitive The potential saving grace for Canada is the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), which took effect in 1989 and was incorporated into NAFTA. The U.S. and Canada agreed through an exchange of letters to suspend CUSFTA's operation when NAFTA took effect, but the suspension only lasts as long as NAFTA is in effect. However, reinstating CUSFTA is not straightforward. The NAFTA Implementation Act suspends some aspects of the CUSFTA and amends others (for instance, on customs fees), so there will not be an easy transition from NAFTA to a fully operational CUSFTA.10 Trump may well walk away from both CUSFTA and NAFTA in the same proclamation, or he could walk away from NAFTA while leaving CUSFTA in limbo. The latter would mitigate the negative impact on Canada, but it would still see rising tariffs, customs fees, and rising policy uncertainty. Bottom Line: We originally assigned a high probability to the abrogation of NAFTA.11 Subsequently, we lowered the probability due to positive comments from the White House and Trump's negotiating team. This was a mistake. As we initially posited, there are few constraints to abrogating NAFTA, particularly if President Trump intends to renegotiate the deal later, or conclude two separate bilateral deals that effectively maintain the same trade relationship. We are closing our trade favoring an equally-weighted basket of CAD/EUR and MXN/EUR. We are also closing our trade favoring Mexican local government bonds relative to EM. North Korea: A Geopolitical Opportunity, Not A Risk Not every move by the Trump administration is increasing geopolitical volatility. Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine may have elevated risks on the Korean Peninsula in 2017, but it ultimately worked. The media is missing the big picture on the Singapore Summit. Diplomacy is on track and geopolitical risk - namely the risk of war on the peninsula - is fading. It is false to claim that President Trump got nothing in return for the summit. Since November 28, North Korea has moderated its belligerent threats, ceased conducting missile tests, released three U.S. political prisoners, and largely blocked off access to the Punggye-ri nuclear testing site. Now, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has held the summit with Trump, reaffirmed his longstanding promise of "complete denuclearization," reaffirmed the peace-seeking April 2018 Panmunjom Declaration with South Korea, and pledged to dismantle a ballistic missile testing site and continue negotiations. In response, President Trump has given security guarantees to the North Korean regime and has pledged to discontinue U.S.-South Korea military drills for the duration of the negotiations. Trump has not yet eased economic sanctions and his administration has ruled out troop withdrawals from South Korea for now. There is much diplomatic work to be done. But the summit was undoubtedly a positive sign, dialogue is continuing at lower levels, and Kim is expected to visit the White House in the near future. Table 1 shows that the Singapore Summit is substantial when compared with major U.S.-North Korea agreements and inter-Korean summits - and it is unprecedented in that it was agreed between American and North Korean leaders. Table 1How The Singapore Summit Stacks Up To Previous Pacts With North Korea Because Trump demonstrated a credible military threat, and China enforced sanctions, the foundation is firmer than that of President Barack Obama's April 2012 agreement to provide food aid in payment for a cessation of nuclear and missile activity. It is much more similar to that of President Clinton and the "Agreed Framework" of 1994, which lasted until 2002, despite many serious failures on both the U.S. and North Korean sides. We should also bear in mind that it was originally U.S. Congress, not North Korea, which undermined the 1994 agreement. Aside from removing war risk, Korean diplomacy is of limited global significance. It marginally improves the outlook for South Korean industrials, energy, telecoms, and consumer staples relative to their EM peers (Chart 14). In the long run it should also be positive for the KRW. Chart 14Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement We maintain that a U.S.-China trade war will not be prevented because of a Korean deal. But we do not expect China to spoil the negotiations. Geopolitically, China benefits from reducing the basis for U.S. forces to be stationed in South Korea. Bottom Line: Go long a "peace dividend" basket of South Korean equity sectors (industrials, energy, consumer staples, and telecoms) and short South Korean "loser" sectors (financials, IT, consumer discretionary, and health care), both relative to their EM peers. Stick to our Korean 2-year/10-year sovereign bond curve steepener trade. Brexit Update: A New Election Is Now In Play Prime Minister Theresa May is fending off a revolt within her Conservative Party this week that could set the course for a new election this year. May reneged on a "compromise" with soft-Brexit/Bremain Tory backbenchers on an amendment that would have given the House of Commons a meaningful vote on the final U.K.-EU Brexit deal. According to the press, the compromise was killed by her own Brexit Secretary, David Davis. There is a fundamental problem with Brexit. The current path towards a hard Brexit, pushed on May by hard-Brexit members of her cabinet and articulated in her January 2017 speech, is incompatible with her party's preferences. According to their pre-referendum preferences, a majority of Tory MPs identified with the Bremain campaign ahead of the referendum (Chart 15). That would suggest that a vast majority prefer a soft Brexit today, if not staying in the EU. We would go further. The current trajectory is incompatible with the democratic preferences of the U.K. public. First, polls are showing rising opposition to Brexit (Chart 16). Second, most voters who chose to vote for Brexit in 2016 did so under the assumption that the Conservative Party would pursue a soft Brexit, including continued membership in the Common Market. Boris Johnson, the most prominent supporter of Brexit ahead of the vote and now the foreign minister, famously stated right after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market."12 Chart 15Westminster MPs Support Bremain! Chart 16Bremain On The Rise So what happens now? We expect the government to be defeated on the crucial amendment giving Westminster the right to vote on the final EU-U.K. deal. If that happens, PM May could be replaced by a hard-Brexit prime minister, most likely Davis. Given the lack of support for an actual hard-Brexit outcome - both in Westminster and among the public - we believe that a new election remains likely by March 2019. Bottom Line: Political risk remains elevated in the U.K. A new election could resolve this risk, but the potential for a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party to win the election could add additional political risk to U.K. assets. We remain short GBP/USD. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013; and "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," dated June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," dated March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 The Senate has passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act with a rider that would boost CFIUS and maintain stringent restrictions on ZTE's business with the U.S. These restrictions have crippled the company but would have been removed under the Trump administration's snap deal in June. The White House claims it will remove the rider when the House and Senate hold a conference to resolve differences between their versions of the defense bill, but it is not clear that the White House will succeed. Congress could test Trump's veto. If Trump does not veto he will break a personal promise to Xi Jinping and escalate the trade war further than perhaps even he intended. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Piggy Bank No More? Trump And The Dollar's Reserve Currency Status," dated June 15, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 We do not include Porsche in this list as we would gladly pay the 25% tariff on top of its current price. 8 Mexican elections for both president and Congress will take place on July 1, but the new Congress will sit on September 1 while the new president will take office on December 1. 9 Please see Lori Wallach, "Presidential Authority to Terminate NAFTA Without Congressional Approval," Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, November 13, 2017, available at www.citizen.org. 10 The National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, "Issues Surrounding US Withdrawal From NAFTA," available from GHY International at www.ghy.com. See also Dan Ciuriak, "What if the United States Walks Away From NAFTA?" C. D. Howe Institute Intelligence Memos, dated November 27, 2017, available at www.cdhowe.org. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see "U.K. will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. Geopolitical Calendar