Fiscal

Special Report

Highlights Pension reform in Brazil is pushing through. The upcoming 12-18 months offer a window of opportunity, most notably on the privatization and tax reform front. Ongoing efforts should sustain an improvement in “animal spirits” in the short term and create some potential for structural improvements over the long term. Nevertheless, Brazil’s slow grinding economic recovery remains vulnerable to a negative external or domestic shock that could cause it to “stall speed”. If structural reforms or the business cycle hit stall speed, financial markets will sell off. Weighing the pros and cons, we are upgrading Brazil from underweight to neutral. Feature Pension Reform Will (Eventually) Pass, But What Next? Recent progress on Brazil’s economic reform agenda is market-positive but is clearly at risk of “stall speed”1 if reform momentum is not sustained after the likely passage of social security cuts. Having cleared the Chamber of Deputies, the pension reform bill is now likely to pass the senate. The first round of voting is expected any day now and the government’s senate leader, Fernando Bezerra, expects the bill to pass the second round by mid-October (Diagram I-1). Diagram I-1Brazil: Pension Reform Timeline Chart I-1Pension Bill Will See The Light Of Day The reform is all but certain to be approved by congress, granting the Bolsonaro administration its first major legislative victory. Lower house deputies voted largely in line with party alliances – if this continues in the senate, the bill should rack up the support of at least 56 of the 81 senators – surpassing the 49 votes needed for passage (Chart I-1). We would not be surprised if the bill faced sudden hang-ups in the senate, such as delays or dilutions. The House bill was introduced in February and after some delay passed in August. Rodrigo Maia, President of the Chamber of Deputies, was instrumental in ensuring the bill’s smooth passage. While Senate President Davi Alcolumbre has a similar interest in ensuring its passage, there is no guarantee that it will be smooth. Fragmentation in the senate, for example, is at the highest level ever, unlike the lower house. The bill requires two rounds of voting. Bezerra’s expectation of voting on September 24 and October 15 is already a delay from the initial projection of September 18 and October 2. Bottom Line: Pension reform is highly likely to pass, if not as rapidly as its promoters say, and the Brazilian congress will soon need to turn to the next major item on the economic reform agenda. Tracking Bolsonaro’s Political Capital For The Post-Pension Reform Agenda Does Bolsonaro have enough political capital to pass other structural reforms? Or will he fall victim to stall speed as his policy focus shifts to less market-friendly areas, his relationship with the legislature breaks down, and his popular support continues to slide? With macroeconomic headwinds and a fragile governing coalition, the answer is a qualified yes that Bolsonaro has sufficient political capital to spend on additional reforms. But since it is impossible to know precisely what will occur after the pension reform goes through, we highlight the key signposts that we will use to monitor Bolsonaro’s progress. A fundamental premise is that neither Bolsonaro nor his party are instinctively or ideologically pro-market. He won the 2018 election due to a specific set of circumstances and popular policies. These form the four pillars of his political support: The Collapse Of The Left: The 2016 and 2018 elections wiped out the Worker’s Party, which had ruled Brazil since 2003, and swept Bolsonaro to power on a wave of deep disillusionment. The success of Bolsonaro’s right-wing Social Liberal Party (PSL), a decidedly minor party, over Fernando Haddad’s left-wing PT, one of the country’s biggest parties, highlighted Brazilians’ disenchantment after the worst recession in a century and a sprawling corruption scandal that implicated most of the political elite. Chart I-2The Left Is Still Wounded While Bolsonaro’s “honeymoon period” after election has ended, the PT has not recovered from its loss of legitimacy over the past decade. A poll conducted in late August reveals that if the 2022 election were held today, Bolsonaro would secure a sizable lead not only over the PT but also over the combined opposition (Chart I-2). Pension Reform: All of Brazil’s political elites recognize that the bloated pension system must be cut back to improve the country’s fiscal profile and debt sustainability. After the previous government failed to do so, this became a central Bolsonaro campaign promise. Consensus on pension reform has enabled him to form a majority coalition; it is among the most popular items on the government’s agenda not because people love having their pensions cut but because of the widespread perception that it is necessary and will improve Brazil’s overall economic circumstances (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Brazilians See The Value In Pension Reform Ironically, however, passing this reform will also remove this pillar of the administration’s political capital. Bolsonaro will be left with less political capital to spend on other reforms and he will face less unity within his coalition having accomplished its greatest shared goal. Thus if the bill passes yet fails to boost his approval rating, or immediately prompts him to pursue less market-friendly policies or to lose major parties from his coalition, then it is a red flag suggesting that he is a one-trick pony and will not get other major reforms done in his term. Law And Order: Bolsonaro was elected on a ticket of restoring order. The crime rate has fallen since the beginning of the year and voters will be looking for this to be sustained (Chart I-4). The fall in the crime rate and the net approval of the security environment in Brazil are positive for Bolsonaro’s credibility. However, it is not clear that his policies are directly responsible for this improvement, which means the trend could change. If crime goes up, he loses political capital to do other things. Moreover the public may not approve of his approach. As indicated by Chart I-3 above, while the population is divided over the right to possess weapons in the home, there is clear disapproval of the right to possess weapons on the street. Pursuit of an unpopular solution could diminish his support on law and order. Chart I-4A Rise In Crime Would Hurt Bolsonaro Chart I-5Moro Key For Bolsonaro Anti-Corruption Drive Corruption: The third panel of Chart I-4 also reveals that combating corruption is a key area of perceived success by the Bolsonaro administration to date. Bolsonaro won the office partly because he was seen as a clean leader during a time of pervasive corruption. His administration is also fortified by the presence of Minister of Justice Sergio Moro, who played a leading role in prosecuting corrupt figures in the Lava Jato operation. Moro is by far the most popular minister in cabinet today (Chart I-5). A decline in Moro’s popularity would be an indication that Brazilians are not satisfied with the administration’s progress on the anti-corruption front. As such it would flag declining political capital. If Moro departs the administration for any reason, that would also hurt Bolsonaro's credibility on this critical issue. Bolsonaro’s approval rating to date is very low relative to previous presidents and falling (Chart I-6). The only way this can change is if he gets credit for the pension reform and then prioritizes policies that are broadly popular rather than ideological. As mentioned, the change in the wake of pension reform will be critical to observe: polls show that the public gives the federal government and President Bolsonaro personally the most credit for improvements in Brazil (Chart I-7), but it is not clear that he will be greatly rewarded for cutting pensions. Chart I-6Will Pension Reform Passage Save Bolsonaro? Chart I-7All Credit Goes To The Bolsonaro Administration   The legislative effort has succeeded largely due to House Speaker Rodrigo Maia, a clutch player in congress. The economic liberal Maia has set aside personal differences with the leadership to shepherd economic reforms through congress. This has involved a pragmatic approach that sidelines the president’s controversial social policies and focuses on getting pro-market bills passed. Chart I-8A Weak Starting Point For PSL The political news flow from Brazil this year has been preoccupied with the rift between the legislative and executive branches. At first glance, congress looks impossible to navigate. As is typical in Brazil, congress is extremely fractured. Bolsonaro’s PSL holds only 10% of seats that belong to the 25 parties in the lower house, and only 5% of the seats that belong to the 17 parties in the upper house (Chart I-8). This is comparable to the first Cardoso administration – so it is not impossible to grow this legislative base – but it is a weak starting point. On top of that, Bolsonaro has held true to his campaign promise to shun so-called “old politics” – the granting of cabinet positions or “pork” based on congressional patronage. This reinforces his anti-corruption pillar but makes it hard to grease the wheels of legislation. The passage of the pension reform proposal through Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies shows that congress can be navigated, but it highlights Maia’s critical role. This relationship could break down after pension reform, which would reduce the government’s ability to accomplish additional reforms that require legislative approval. Maia’s third two-year term will expire at the end of next year. He technically cannot be elected for a successive term (although this rule has already been broken). This raises the threat that his successor may not be as pro-market or as successful in managing the lower house. In fact, the coming 12 to 18 months create a window of opportunity for the administration and legislature to pass bills before the 2020 local elections and the 2022 general election begin to interfere. Since the pension cuts will be back-loaded – delayed until subsequent years – voters will not immediately feel the pain of the social security changes, which will reduce the chances of a major popular backlash during this window. Provided Maia’s pragmatism continues to prevail, the government can use the pension reform to launch into another major reform initiative. Economy minister Paulo Guedes, another key pro-market player, has highlighted privatization and tax reforms as the next big issues on his agenda. The upcoming 12-18 months offer a window of opportunity for further reforms. Bottom Line: Tensions between the executive and legislative branches of government have not prevented pension reforms from passing because Bolsonaro had a fresh mandate, full political capital, and a broad consensus on the policy itself. Going forward a great deal of political capital will have been spent while consensus will have to be built for the next policy priority. House Speaker Rodrigo Maia is a clutch player, pragmatically enabling the passage of bills through congress, so his cooperation is essential. The upcoming 12-18 months offer a window of opportunity for further reforms, most notably privatization and tax reform. An Executive Way Forward On Privatization The administration’s privatization plan is overly ambitious but there is an executive path forward while the government enters a long slog in the legislature. Guedes has indicated that he wants to sell all of Brazil’s state owned enterprises to the private sector. In value terms, the government hopes to raise 1.3 trillion reals ($323 billion) in the process, about 20% of total public debt. Brazil has 418 SOEs controlled directly or indirectly by the state, both at the state and municipal levels. Of the 134 federal companies, 46 are under direct control, while the remaining 88 are under indirect control – subsidiaries of major SOEs such as Petrobras, Eletrobras, Banco do Brasil, Caixa, and BNDES. With Brazil’s public debt at 86% of GDP, profit from these sales would go toward paying down the debt and hopefully also raising GDP through gains from increased competition and efficiency. The program would also reduce the government’s interest payments – that account for 25% of government spending and 5% of GDP. Salim Mattar – Special Secretary of Privatization, Divestment and Market — argues that the interest saved will allow the government to divert funds to education and health, buoying Brazil’s human capital over the long term. The privatization of inefficient and loss-generating SOEs is positive for both the near-term and long-term outlook, but the government’s plan is completely unrealistic. Even Mattar’s significantly lower projected gains – up to 800 billion reals ($214 billion) – are likely unattainable. Although the government will easily meet its target of raising $20 billion this year,2 these sales represent the low-hanging fruit – they are the asset sales that face no or low resistance from the public and congress. On August 21, the Bolsonaro government released a list of 17 state-owned companies that it intends to privatize (Table I-1). From among the largest SOEs, – Petrobras, Eletrobras, BNDES, Banco do Brasil, and Caixa Economica Federal – only Eletrobras is on the list. The rest of the major SOEs will face greater hurdles as they have been identified as “strategic” and face greater resistance from the public (Chart I-9). In fact, although government officials expressed confidence that Eletrobras will be privatized in 2020, Senate President Davi Alcolumbre indicated that the process faces significant resistance in the senate. As such we would expect the legislature to tackle companies that are not as controversial. Table I-1Government Privatization List What is more, while congressional approval is required for the sale of SOEs, a supreme court ruling earlier this year allows the government to sell subsidiaries of its companies without approval from congress. Thus while major state companies such as Petrobras or Eletrobras are unlikely to be privatized (certainly not wholly), the government will attempt to move forward by selling non-core assets of non-strategic companies, and taking other measures to improve efficiency of operations. Chart I-9These "Strategic" SOEs Face Privatization Resistance Chart I-10Privatization Will Reduce Debt Burden Putting aside the administration’s plan to accelerate the program next year, if we project $20 billion worth of privatizations per year for the remainder of Bolsonaro’s term, the total $80 billion in total sales will bring Brazil’s debt-to-GDP ratio down to 81% from 85% (Chart I-10). Bottom Line: Although the sale of the largest “strategic” state-owned companies will not happen, the administration’s privatization program can succeed by diverting congressional efforts to non-strategic companies. The administration can also move alone on non-core assets. This is a net positive for overall productivity, competitiveness, and fiscal sustainability although it is not huge in magnitude. Less Optimism On Tax And Tariff Reform In addition to the outsized economic role of the state, Brazil has been suffering from inefficiencies due to the relatively elevated tax burden and overly complicated system (Chart I-11). This has reduced its ranking in the World Bank’s Doing Business rankings which assigns it the seventh worst spot in paying taxes (Chart I-12). The nearly six thousand laws governing taxes in Brazil likely hold back the country’s FDI potential and encourages tax evasion. Chart I-11Brazilians Suffer From Outsized Tax Burden … Chart I-12… Contributing To An Unattractive Business Environment Given Brazil’s poor fiscal standing and large debt load, there is no room to reduce taxes. Rather, reform efforts are centered around simplifying the tax code in order to improve the investment environment. A complete overhaul requires the approval of three-fifths of congress. Pension reform shows this is theoretically possible, but the process will be lengthy and unlikely to occur before the second half of next year. There are currently four main proposals being considered. All aim to simplify the tax system by combining all current taxes imposed on consumption into a single tax. The proposal most advanced in the legislative process enjoys the support of Maia and has already been deemed lawful by a lower house committee. It recommends applying the single tax rate uniformly across all states. Bolsonaro’s administration is also designing its own reform proposals, but has yet to release details. As revealed by the firing of special secretary to Brazil’s federal revenue service Marcos Cintra on September 11, the cabinet is in conflict over the reintroduction of a financial transactions tax, such as the CPMF which expired in 2007. Chart I-3 above illustrates that the tax is generally unpopular, causing Bolsonaro to be staunchly against the tax, while Guedes has indicated that it should be part of the reform. The proposal is expected to be put to lawmakers in a congressional committee responsible for drafting the bill by October 8 before being introduced to the lower house. However, given that the financial transactions tax is unpopular and a point of contention in the administration, the timeline will likely be delayed. Moreover the legislative approval process will be lengthy. While Bezerra Coelho does not expect tax reform to be approved until the second half of 2020, this is an optimistic assessment. Given the complexity of overhauling the tax system, we expect a one-year process at minimum and therefore doubt that approval will come in 2020. Instead modifications to the current system may be easier to enact and implement. Guedes has also signaled the need for a reduction in Brazil’s extremely elevated import tariffs which have been erected amid a policy of import substitution (Chart I-13). With most tariffs in the range of 10% and 35%, Guedes has stated that the government plans to reduce tariffs by 10 percentage points during Bolsonaro’s four year term by cutting the rate by one percentage point in the first year, two in the second, three in the third, and four in the fourth. This can be done by executive action and does not require legislation. What about Bolsonaro's trade liberalization push? On the campaign trail, Bolsonaro expressed his intention to step back from Mercosur and instead prioritize bilateral trade with rich countries such as the United States. However, given the importance of the bloc to Brazilian trade, the reality is that Bolsonaro cannot afford to neglect these countries (Chart I-14). The recently agreed EU-Mercosur trade deal, 20 years in the making, could create opportunities for Brazil over the long-run, but it is being held up by European countries as appetite for free trade deals becomes politically problematic across the world. Chart I-13Elevated Tariff Rate Hurts Brazil's Competitiveness Chart I-14Trade Surplus With Mercosur Is Reliable While greater integration with global trade will increase Brazil’s market access – a positive for exports – it also results in increased competition and a threat to existing companies that are unable to compete at an international level over the near term. Thus it is not immediately clear whether trade liberalization will generate net gains for Brazil’s economy in the short term. If Bolsonaro and Guedes do not move immediately, they will have to pause these efforts in the 2021 lead up to the 2022 election. Moreover the Mercosur agreement, as well as Brazil’s general bilateral trade with Argentina, are at risk if opposition leader Alberto Fernandez wins the presidential election on October 27. A return to protectionist policies by Argentina could harm Brazilian exports and threaten progress on the Mercosur trade bloc. There is more reason to be optimistic about privatization than about tax reform or trade liberalization. Bottom Line: There is more reason to be optimistic about privatization efforts than about the passage of a major overhaul to Brazil’s tax system or the integration of Brazil with global markets. Nevertheless, ongoing efforts should sustain an improvement in “animal spirits” in the short term and create some potential for structural improvements over the long term. The Economy: A Stall Speed Risk Chart I-15A Slow Grinding Recovery The Brazilian economy is en route to recovery, albeit a slow one. The level of economic activity is still well below its pre-recession level but is grinding slowly back (Chart I-15). The key economic risk is stall speed. Like an aircraft, if the pace of growth falls below stall speed, gravity forces will overwhelm, and the economy will descend into a recession. In the case of Brazil, gravity forces refer to indebtedness – public debt, household debt servicing costs and corporate foreign currency debt. The path of least resistance for the business cycle is up and bullishness on Brazil is pervasive in the global investment community. Nevertheless, the economy remains very fragile. At the current juncture, while acknowledging that odds for the positive outlook to pan out are reasonably high, we would like to emphasize that gravity forces remain acute in Brazil. While odds for the positive outlook to pan out are high, gravity forces remain reasonably acute. Weakening narrow money growth fore shadows a weaker pace of nominal and real economic activity (Chart I-16). Brazilian households have increasingly relied on credit cards and revolving credit lines to finance their consumption in recent years. These types of credit carry high interest rates. Consequently, at 21% of disposable income, household debt servicing remains very elevated despite a large reduction in bond yields and policy rates (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Is Growth About To Stall? Chart I-17Household Servicing Costs Remain Elevated Private banks have experienced a modest uptick in non-performing loans (NPLs) (Chart I-18). This may incentivize private banks to moderate credit growth. With public banks deleveraging or shrinking their balance sheets, any moderation in private bank lending could stall the pace of growth in the economy. Interestingly, all-time low bond yields and the Selic rate have not yet translated into a meaningful recovery in real estate prices and new construction launches remain anemic (Chart I-19). Chart I-18Private Banks NPLs And Credit Growth Chart I-19Weak Property Market Despite Low Interest Rates   Fiscal policy is straightjacketed by the spending cap rule, which indexes government spending to the rate of inflation of the previous year. Nominal fiscal spending will grow only 4.3% this year and will expand by a mere 3.4% in 2020. Foreign debt obligations (FDO) – the sum of short-term claims, interest payments and amortization over the next 12 months – stand at $180 billion, equivalent to 78% of Brazil’s annual exports (Chart I-20).  The current account deficit will continue widening if domestic demand and, consequently, imports recover. Foreign funding requirements – FDO plus the current account balance – are substantial, standing at $250 billion (Chart I-21). If portfolio flows to EM are disturbed, Brazil will feel the pain. Chart I-20Foreign Debt Obligation Are Elevated Chart I-21Brazil Has Large Funding Gap... Chart I-22...With Exports Contracting With export growth contracting by double digits on both a value and volume basis (Chart I-22), the demand vesus supply of dollars in Brazil will likely keep the greenback well bid versus the Brazilian real. The nation’s pension bill is a very positive and much-needed step in the structural reform process. However, in its current form, it is insufficient to make public debt dynamics sustainable – i.e., halt the rise in the government debt-to-GDP ratio. Bottom Line: The path of least resistance for the business cycle is up. However, the economy remains very fragile. A negative external or domestic shock could cause the Brazilian economy to stall speed. Barring such negative shocks, the economy will continue its recovery. Have Financial Markets Reached Escape Velocity? Financial markets are vulnerable to the risk of stall speed on both the structural reforms and economic growth fronts. This is especially true now that equity and bond prices have risen substantially. If the pace of structural reforms or the economy fall victim to stall speed, financial markets will tumble. On the contrary, if the reform agenda progresses and economic growth accelerates, financial markets will reach escape velocity and sustain their bull markets. Apart from the outlook for both structural reforms and the business cycle, the largest risks to Brazil’s financial markets are as follows: BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team expects base metals and energy prices to decline further, weighing on EM currencies. The main culprit is weakening Chinese demand. This scenario entails non-negligible odds of Brazilian real depreciation because the latter has historically been positively correlated with commodity prices (Chart I-23). Brazil has become a net exporter of oil, so lower crude prices are negative for the currency. Importantly, the real is not cheap based on the real effective exchange rate (Chart I-24). Chart I-23Commodity Prices Hold The Key Chart I-24Real Valuations Are Not Yet Attractive The gap between local currency and U.S. dollar bond yields has narrowed to a record low. This along with the large overhang of corporate foreign currency debt, as discussed above, is already encouraging debt swap - corporates borrow in reals to repay their foreign currency debt. These capital outflows from residents will continue weighing on the exchange rate. A widening current account deficit has historically foreshadowed lower share prices in U.S. dollar terms (Chart I-25). Finally, local bond yields, and sovereign and corporate spreads have plummeted despite currency depreciation. Such resilience by fixed-income markets to currency depreciation is historically unprecedented. It remains to be seen if yields and credit spreads can remain low if the currency breaks down. Bottom Line: Barring stall speed in structural reforms and economic growth, downside in Brazilian asset prices is limited. However, near-term volatility is likely as the nation’s financial markets are overbought and investor sentiment is very bullish. Besides, equity prices in dollar terms have not broken above important technical resistance levels, as shown in Chart I-26. Hence, we can say the bull market in the Bovespa in dollar terms has not yet reached escape velocity. Chart I-25The Current Account Is A Risk To Share Prices Chart I-26The Bovespa In Dollar Terms Has Not Reached Escape Velocity Investment Recommendations Weighing the pros and cons, we recommend upgrading Brazil from underweight to neutral for dedicated EM equity, credit and domestic bond portfolios. Given the potential risks discussed above, we are looking for a better entry point to upgrade Brazil to overweight. We upgraded Brazil to overweight on October 9, 2018 following the first round of presidential elections but downgraded it on April 4, 2019 when volatility began rising. In retrospect, that was the wrong decision. Volatility could rise but there is a basis for giving the administration the benefit of the doubt as long as it remains committed to pro-market reforms. Chart I-27Real Estate Stocks Offer An Opportunity For long-term absolute return investors the key risk is the exchange rate. Hence, these investors should adopt a positive long-term bias for local currency returns but hedge currency risk periodically. Currently, global financial markets are in a juncture where the dollar will likely move higher and the Brazilian real will depreciate. Hence, investors already invested in Brazil should hedge exchange rate risk. Within the Brazilian equity universe, BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy service favors real estate because low nominal and real interest rates are bullish for the property sector. The latter was devastated during the recession and has not yet recovered (Chart I-27). Consequently, for long-term investors, we continue recommending Brazilian real estate plays/assets on dips. Footnotes   1      "Stall speed" is the velocity below which an aircraft will descend, or 'stall', regardless of its angle of attack. If an aircraft's airspeed is greater than the stall speed then the pilot can increase the aircraft's angle of attack to achieve additional lift. 2      So far in 2019 the government has already sold off $12.3 billion worth of assets from Petrobras, $4.9 billion in shares held in various companies, and gained $1.9 billion from leases on airports, railways and ports.

Highlights We are upgrading Indian stocks from underweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. Nevertheless, the outlook for the absolute performance of Indian share prices remains downbeat. Odds are that local bond yields will rise due to a widening budget deficit. Higher bond yields and still depressed growth will overwhelm the one-off positive effect of corporate tax cuts on equity prices. Feature The unexpected extraordinary measure was adopted because growth in the Indian economy has downshifted drastically. The Indian government resorted to an unexpected large corporate income tax cut last week. The government reduced the effective corporate tax rate from 35% to around 25%. What are the investment implications of this dramatic policy change? Why The Extraordinary Measure? The unexpected extraordinary measure was adopted because growth in the Indian economy has downshifted drastically: Household discretionary spending is shrinking (Chart I-1). Measures of capital spending by enterprises are extremely weak, and in many cases are also contracting (Chart I-2). Chart I-1India: Household Discretionary Spending Is Contracting Chart I-2India: Capital Spending Is In The Doldrums Earnings per share for the top 500 listed Indian companies are down 8% from a year ago in local currency terms (Chart I-3). Core measures of inflation are low (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Indian Corporate Earnings Are Contracting Chart I-4Inflation Is Extremely Subdued The central bank has been cutting interest rates, but borrowing costs in real terms remain elevated. The reason is that inflation has dropped, pushing lending rates higher in real (inflation-adjusted) terms (Chart I-5). Besides, corporate borrowing costs (local currency BBB corporate bond yields) are above nominal GDP growth (Chart I-6). This implies that borrowing costs are not at levels conducive for capital expenditure outlays among businesses. The government’s decision to cut corporate income taxes drastically is the right policy decision in the current environment. Policymakers are hoping businesses will in turn invest and a virtuous economic cycle will unfold. Chart I-5Real Rates Are High And Rising Chart I-6Borrowing Rates Are High Relative To Nominal Growth Chart I-7Commercial Bank Lending: Public Vs. Private Finally, lenders are still licking their wounds from non-performing loans. Public banks have undergone retrenchment, non-bank finance companies are currently shrinking their balance sheets and private banks could be the next in line to reduce their pace of credit origination (Chart I-7). Realizing that gradual reduction in the central bank’s policy rates is unlikely to boost growth in the near term, authorities have resorted to fiscal policy to stimulate. India is an underinvested country and capital spending holds the key to its long-term growth potential. Therefore, the government’s decision to cut corporate income taxes drastically is the right policy decision in the current environment. Policymakers are hoping businesses will in turn invest and a virtuous economic cycle will unfold.  A pertinent question for investors, however, is whether these policy measures will put a floor under share prices now or if a better buying opportunity lies ahead. Local Bond Yields Hold The Key To Stock Prices If government and corporate local bond yields rise materially in response to this fiscal stimulus, share prices will struggle. Chart I-8High Borrowing Costs Are Negative For Stock Prices If domestic bond yields rise materially in response to this fiscal stimulus, share prices will struggle. In contrast, if local bond yields remain close to current levels, equity prices will fare well, especially relative to the EM benchmark (Chart I-8). Critically, stock prices are much more sensitive to interest rates and long-term growth expectations than to next year’s profits or dividends.1 The reduction in corporate taxes is a one-off event that will boost earnings and possibly dividends next year, but only next year. If interest rates rise or expectations of long-term nominal growth moderate, a one-off rise in corporate profits will not be sufficient to justify higher equity valuations. On the contrary, higher interest rates or lower nominal growth expectations will overwhelm the positive effect of one-off rise in corporate profits next year. As a result, the fair value of equities will drop, not rise. Bottom Line: Local currency bond yields and long-term growth expectations are much more important for equity valuations than the one-off rise in corporate earnings. The Outlook For Domestic Bonds Why would local bond yields spike amid lingering weak growth and very low inflation? The primary reason is a sharply widening fiscal deficit, instigating a need to increase issuance of government bonds. The central government’s overall fiscal deficit was 3.7% of GDP prior to the latest corporate tax cut. Combined with state governments, the aggregate fiscal deficit is around 6% of GDP. Going forward, the central budget deficit will considerably exceed the government’s 3.3% of GDP forecast for this fiscal year. On top of the corporate tax reductions, government revenue growth has been plunging and will continue to drop until at least the end of the current fiscal year – March 2020 – due to very sluggish nominal growth. Chart I-9India: Money Creation Versus The Fiscal Deficit If broad money creation by commercial banks falls short of the aggregate fiscal deficit (which is equivalent to net government bond issuance), bond yields will come under upward pressure. Chart I-9 shows that as the aggregate fiscal deficit surges, the incremental increase in broad money supply might not be sufficient to absorb the widening deficit.  Barring banks’ large purchases of bonds, this would entail that there is less financing available for both the public and private sectors. This would push bond yields higher. There are rising odds that new bond issuance is unlikely to be easily absorbed by the market. At 28% of deposits, banks’ holdings of government bonds are already well above the statutory minimum of 18.75%. Foreigners’ holdings of government bonds have also surged since 2014. Foreign investors’ appetite for Indian government bonds will likely be sluggish in the coming months for the following reasons: A sharply rising public debt-to-GDP ratio from its current elevated level of 67%. EM currency depreciation will likely trigger foreign capital outflows from EM fixed-income markets, which will erode international demand for Indian local currency bonds. Banks account for 42% of government bond holdings, insurance companies 23%, and mutual funds and foreigners 3% each. Altogether, they presently account for 71% of outstanding government bonds. Hence, banks hold the key to financing both public and private sectors. Chart I-10RBI Ownership Of Government Bonds A risk to the scenario of higher bond yields is if Indian’s central bank further accelerates its ongoing purchases of government bonds (Chart I-10). In such a case, bond yields will be capped. However, this entails quantitative easing or monetization of public debt. The latter will lead to currency depreciation and trigger capital flight. Bottom Line: Odds are that Indian government bond yields will drift higher. This will push up local currency corporate bond yields and in turn weigh on equity valuations. Investment Conclusions The outlook for the absolute performance of Indian share prices remains downbeat (Chart I-11, top panel). Nevertheless, we are using the underperformance of the past several months to upgrade this bourse from underweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Odds of equity outperformance versus the EM benchmark have risen because of the corporate tax cuts but are not high enough to justify an overweight allocation. Chart I-11Indian Stock Prices: Profiles Of Absolute And Relative Performance Chart I-12Our Long Indian Software / Short EM Stocks Position As is the case with other EM currencies, the rupee is vulnerable to a pullback in the coming months. Historically, foreign investors in India have cumulatively pumped $148 billion into equity and investment funds. Hence, accruing disappointments by foreign investors concerning India’s growth trajectory and fiscal deficits could trigger a period of outflows. A weaker currency and our theme of favoring DM growth plays versus EM continue warranting a long Indian software stocks / short overall EM equity index position. We have initiated this position on December 21, 2016 and it has produced sizable gains (Chart I-12). Fixed-income investors should continue betting on yield curve steepening by receiving 1-year / paying 10-year swap rates.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      The reason is that both interest rates and earnings long-term growth rate are present in the denominator of any cash flow discount model (Stock Price = Expected Dividends / (Interest rate – Earnings long-term growth rate)). Hence, they have the potential to affect share prices exponentially while dividends/profits are present in the numerator so their impact on equity prices is linear. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Dear Client, Owing to BCA’s 40th Annual Investment Conference at the Grand Hyatt in New York City next week, there will be no report on Wednesday, September 25. We will return to our regular publication schedule on Wednesday, October 2. I look forward to meeting China Investment Strategy clients in person at our conference. Please do not hesitate to say hello. Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist Highlights China’s economy should bottom as a result of the pickup in credit that occurred earlier this year, but the circumstances surrounding the ongoing slowdown are unprecedented in nature. This raises the risk that policymakers will have to do more in order to stabilize growth. Optimism surrounding recent Chinese policy announcements is misguided. For now, Chinese policymakers are not upping the pace of stimulus, which underscores the risk to our forecast that growth will soon stabilize. A more meaningful shot of reflation will occur in the coming few months if the economy slows further, but policymakers will be reactive rather than proactive. Barring a successful (even if temporary) trade deal, we expect more weakness in the RMB as a passive source of reflation to aid the economy. But currency devaluation is a double-edged sword, and cannot be counted on to single-handedly stabilize China’s economy. Over a 6-12 month time horizon, investors should continue to overweight Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark in currency hedged terms, but the risk of further underperformance over the near-term is high. Feature Chinese economic growth continues to weaken. The Caixin manufacturing PMI for August, along with the New Export Orders component of the manufacturing PMI released by China’s National Bureau of Statistics, registered small gains in August from July. However, any hopes pinned on this being an emerging sign of turnaround in the Chinese economy soon faded. A slew of August data showed continued sluggishness in exports, an even worse domestic-demand picture, and further deflation in ex-factory producer prices. Most importantly, we continue to witness “half-measured” stimulus. In explaining past and existing economic weakness, many investors point to the trade war with the U.S. However, Charts 1 and 2 serve as an important reminder that domestic weakness predates U.S. protectionism. The trade war tensions and tariffs are magnifying this weakness, but China’s slowdown is, at its core, policy driven. Chart 1Weakness In Chinese Economy Predates The Trade War... Chart 2…And Has Been A Byproduct Of Financial De-Risking Campaign Given this, investors should be more focused on identifying signs of a major reversal in policy. So far Chinese policymakers have been firmly holding their line in keeping credit growth somewhat in check.  Policy-Induced Economic Stabilization: A Tough Forecast To Make Our baseline view is that the current scale of stimulus should be sufficient to stop economic growth from decelerating further.  Two factors support our baseline view: The direct impact from tariffs on the Chinese economy is limited. Growth in China’s exports to the U.S. in 2019 is likely to be somewhere close to a 9% contraction, down from the 10.8% increase registered in 2018. Based on a simple calculation with all else being equal, this is likely to shave 1.6 percentage points off China’s total export growth and 0.3 percentage points off nominal GDP growth in 2019. This is not trivial, but arguably not devastating to China’s aggregate economy either. There is anecdotal evidence suggesting some Chinese exports have been re-routed to peripheral countries such as Vietnam and Taiwan in order to avoid the U.S. import tariffs on Chinese goods (Chart 3). This suggests that real growth in Chinese exports to the U.S. could be stronger than the current data suggests. Chart 3Exports Finding Alternative Routes? Chart 4Bottoming in the economy In Sight? Credit growth has picked up since the beginning of this year. Based on the historical relationship between China’s credit impulse (measured by the 12-month change in BCA’s adjusted total social financing as a percentage of nominal GDP) and domestic demand, the economy should bottom out at some point before the end of the year (Chart 4). Although, import growth, a key measure of China’s domestic demand, remains in deep contraction, some of its components that usually lead industrial activities are showing signs of improvement (Chart 5). Chart 5Early Signs of Improved Domestic Demand Chart 6Manufacturing Investment Growth In Contraction However, our level of confidence that the existing stimulus will be sufficient to stabilize economic growth is lower than it otherwise would be. This is due to the fact that the challenges facing the Chinese economy are unprecedented in nature.  For one, the indirect impact of the trade war on China’s economy through business sentiment and manufacturing investment has yet to be fully revealed in the data. As Chart 6 shows, manufacturing investment is already deteriorating, particularly in export-intensive sectors. The ultimate impact on investment from the trade war is still uncertain, and can pose significant downside risks to the Chinese economy in the coming year. More importantly, as Chart 7 suggests, a weak credit impulse will at best lead to a very subdued economic recovery even if growth does indeed bottom. In terms of the link between policy and the economy, Chart 8 points out a key difference between the current slowdown and previous down cycles: Monetary conditions have been ultra-loose for more than a year, but current economic conditions remain on a downward trend – much more so than in the previous cycles. This huge gap and lag in economic response to monetary stance can only be explained by an impaired policy transmission mechanism. An expansionary monetary stance has not proportionally translated into credit expansion or economic recovery. This challenges the effectiveness and timeliness of future monetary loosening in terms of its ability to revive the Chinese economy. Chart 7Current Pace Of Credit Growth Will Lead To A Fragile Recovery, At Best Chart 8An Impaired Monetary Policy Transmission The scale and timing of the current stimulus measures have been “behind the curve.” Therefore, the historical relationship between China’s credit impulse and the turning points in the economy may not apply to the current cycle. Bottom Line: China’s economy should bottom as a result of the pickup in credit that occurred earlier this year, but the circumstances surrounding the ongoing slowdown are unprecedented in nature. This raises the risk that policymakers will have to do more in order to stabilize growth. An Unusually Prudent Policy Bias For some, the recent slew of announcements on upcoming stimulus qualified as a major shift in policy bias. Our analysis suggests otherwise. The bank reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cuts announced late in August have been among the most cited policy announcements, with the PBoC stating that the new cuts will release RMB 900 billion of fresh liquidity.1 In our view, this measure is more about maintaining liquidity in China’s large commercial banks than adding to it (on a net basis). Chart 9RRR Cuts May Not Be That Stimulative Chart 9 shows that, in previous episodes of meaningful RMB depreciation against the U.S. dollar, in order to prevent the RMB from falling at an undesirable pace, PBoC has had to intervene in the spot market by selling U.S. dollars. The selling of U.S. dollars in this round of RMB depreciation has been much more muted than in 2015-2016, but we suspect some intervention has taken place following each bout of escalation in the trade war. This has had a liquidity tightening effect on banks, as selling central bank foreign-exchange reserves reduces liquidity in the banking system. It is very likely that following the PBoC’s defense of the RMB in the last two months, the RRR cuts were a measure aimed at preventing a liquidity crunch ahead of the September tax season. If true, this hardly qualifies as net new stimulus for the economy. There were also two important announcements that came out of the September 5th State Council meeting: The entire 2019 quota for local government special project bonds must be issued by the end of September, and all money raised from the bonds must be disbursed to projects by the end of October. This too is not exactly “stimulative,” as over 90% of the 2019 local government special-project bond quota has already been issued. This leaves less than 10% of the quota outstanding, an 80% decline from what was issued last September. On a quarterly basis, special-bond issuance in the third quarter of 2019 will end up being 30% lower than the same period last year.   It was also announced that, in order to meet the local needs for construction of key projects, part of 2020’s special bonds quota will be allocated in advance to ensure that the funds are available for use at the beginning of next year.2  While the announcement did not indicate how much in the way of special-purpose bonds local governments are allowed to frontload through the remainder of this year, we maintain our view that this is not a policy shift towards materially larger stimulus than we have seen so far this year: Without an additional quota, local government special-purpose bond issuance would essentially fall to zero in the fourth quarter as the 2019 target would be hit by the end of September. Thus, the frontloading of next year’s bond issuance will only “fill the gap” between now and year-end. As special-purpose bond issuance only accounts for 15% of total funding for local governments’ infrastructure spending, the new measure alone is unlikely to meaningfully accelerate investment growth.3  We have noted in previous reports that in order for local governments to accelerate spending within the current fiscal budget framework, one of three things must occur: more direct funding from the central government, an acceptance by policymakers of more shadow bank lending, or a larger quota for bond issuance. So far we have not seen any of the above-mentioned shifts in policy. Chart 10Local Governments Tightening Belt This Year The only positive sign for local government spending has been a pickup in land sales in Q2, which makes up more than 70% of local government revenues. But, it is far from making up the shortfalls in local governments’ budgets (Chart 10). Local governments are facing considerable fiscal pressure as annual tax revenue growth has fallen to near zero. Critically, the government’s regulatory stance on local government budgets has continued to tighten: Local governments have been ordered by the Ministry of Finance to liquidate state-owned assets to fund their budget deficits this year.4 This austerity measure is also being met with explicit reiteration from the Ministry of Finance on the central government not bailing out local governments, and that local government officials are held responsible for their own borrowing and spending.5   Bottom Line: Optimism surrounding recent Chinese policy announcements is misguided. For now, Chinese policymakers are not upping the pace of stimulus, which underscores the risk to our forecast that growth will soon stabilize. A more meaningful shot of reflation will occur in early 2020 if the economy slows further in Q4, but policymakers will most likely continue their reactive approach rather than proactive. RMB Depreciation: A Plus Or Peril? The RMB’s renewed depreciation since August initially raised fears among global investors that an uncontrolled decline might occur, but these fears have subsided over the past several weeks. Even though the USD-CNY exchange rate has broken the psychological 7 threshold, it is not forming a linear downward trend. Unlike after the August 2015 devaluation, it appears that the PBoC can successfully enact countercyclical measures to guide the RMB’s value higher following each large depreciation (Chart 11). Chart 11PBoC Not Panicking Over RMB Depreciation Fears of uncontrolled capital outflows following the depreciation are also abating. We presented a dashboard for monitoring short-term capital outflows from China in our March 20 Special Report,6 and an update of these indicators suggests that China’s heightened capital controls are holding – i.e., outflows have not escalated as they did in 2015 (Chart 12). Chart 12No Major Capital Outflow Chart 13RMB Depreciation Partially Offsets Tariffs Thus, the conclusion is that Chinese policymakers appear to be in control of the currency. The reduced risk of an uncontrolled decline has allowed policymakers to (passively) provide meaningful stimulus to the domestic economy via depreciation. Indeed, the RMB has not only depreciated against the USD, but also against many Asian currencies including direct trade competitors such as Vietnam and Taiwan (Chart 13). This is helping offset the negative impact of U.S. tariffs on Chinese exporters. But currency devaluation can come with a price tag – in particular for corporations that have borrowed heavily in U.S. dollar-denominated debt. We estimate that $440 billion of U.S. dollar debt will be maturing over the coming two years, for Chinese companies and banks in the aggregate.7 A 12% depreciation in the RMB since April 2018 means that debt servicing costs will be 12% higher for unhedged debtors. This is particularly painful for real estate and financial services companies, two of the largest holders of U.S. dollar-denominated loans, and the weakest sectors in the current economic downturn. Most importantly, while currency devaluation ease the slowdown, it cannot be counted on to stabilize Chinese economic activity on its own. For example, while our earnings recession model suggests that the decline in the RMB since May has reduced the odds of a major decline in economic activity by roughly 20%, the model also shows that such an event is still highly probable (current odds are roughly at 70%). Bottom Line: Barring a successful (even if temporary) trade deal, we expect more weakness in the RMB as a passive source of reflation to aid the economy. But currency devaluation is a double-edged sword, and cannot be counted on to single-handedly stabilize China’s economy if a further slowdown occurs. An Update On Corporate Earnings Against a backdrop of what may turn out to be insufficient policy support, the earnings picture is providing one modest positive for equity investors. While the growth rate in investable earnings per share has slowed significantly over the past year (Chart 14), it has merely fallen to zero and not deeply into negative territory, as what seemingly occurred in 2015-2016. In our view, the risk of a similar collapse in earnings per share (EPS) has been an important factor weighing on Chinese investable equities’ relative performance since June 2018. In reality, a closer examination of MSCI China Index earnings reveals that a huge decline in EPS this year was never really a threat, because the apparent collapse in 2015-2016 did not actually transpire. Changes to the composition in the MSCI China Index that took effect in November 2015 and June 2016 had the effect of depressing index EPS, due to the sizeable inclusion of a set of richly valued stocks. Chart 15 presents BCA’s calculation of “break-adjusted” EPS for Chinese investable stocks, which shows that EPS growth bottomed out at -10% in late-2016, as opposed to the -28% implied by the unadjusted series. Chart 14Investable EPS Has Yet To Contract Meaningfully Chart 15The Potential Downside For Earnings Is Less Than Many Fear Chart 16A Cyclical Recovery In Earnings Has Not Yet Begun The existence of less downside potential for earnings is certainly positive for investable stocks at the margin, but it does not alter the outlook for equity fundamentals over the coming year. We have shown in several previous reports that there is a strong and reliable link between investable EPS growth and China’s coincident economic activity,8 and the continued slowing in the latter does not suggest that a bottom in earnings is imminent. In addition, Chart 16 highlights that while net earnings revisions have recovered from their early-year lows, they remain in negative territory and have stopped rising over the past few weeks. Twelve-month forward EPS momentum, also presented on a break-adjusted basis, is modestly negative, and has recently weakened (panel 2). Bottom Line: The downside risk to earnings for Chinese investable equities is less than many investors fear. But absent stronger credit growth, it remains too early to confidently project a cyclical earnings recovery. Investment Conclusions The historical relationship between credit growth and economic activity suggests that the latter should soon stabilize, which is our base case view for the coming few months. Still, the risk of a further, meaningful deceleration in growth is elevated, given the unprecedented circumstances surrounding the ongoing slowdown. For equity investors, less potential downside risks to earnings than previously feared is a positive at the margin, but the fundamental outlook still hinges on a durable pickup in economic activity. Over a 6-12 month time horizon, this implies that one of two scenarios will unfold: The economy will stabilize in response to the easing that has already occurred (i.e. our base case view). The economy slows further in the near-term, prompting a more significant policy response that leads to an even sharper pickup in activity. Chart 17Investable Stocks: An Overshoot To The Downside? In the first scenario, investable stocks have probably overshot to the downside versus the global benchmark and thus will very likely outperform from current levels. Near-term performance is likely to be flat-to-down, as investors await hard evidence of a sequential improvement in growth (Chart 17). In the second scenario, investable stocks are at potentially acute near-term risk, but will likely eventually outperform global stocks once activity begins to pick up sharply. In this scenario, the outperformance of Chinese equities will commence later, but would likely still occur by the tail end of our cyclical investment horizon (6-12 months). As a final point, we are not ruling out the possibility of a temporary trade deal between the U.S. and China, as both sides have the incentive to avoid a further escalation and are now showing goodwill towards constructive negotiations. This may change our tactical view on Chinese stocks, but our cyclical view remains focused on China’s domestic policy and economic fundamentals.   Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1      PBC Official: The RRR Cut Aims at Bolstering Real Economy, September 6, 2019 2      China to accelerate the issuance and use of special local government bonds to catalyze effective investment, China State Council, September 4, 2019 3      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Chinese Infrastructure Investment: A Ramp-Up Ahead?”, dated August 1, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4      China’s Local Governments Sell Assets to Make Up for Revenue Loss, Caixin, September 3, 2019 5      http://www.mof.gov.cn/zhengwuxinxi/caizhengxinwen/201909/t20190906_3382239.htm?mc_cid=eb2b199651&mc_eid=9da16a4859 6      Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows”, dated March 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 7      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “China’s Foreign Debt, And A Secret Weapon”, dated September 12, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 8      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2):Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Feature BCA Research (aka The Bank Credit Analyst) published its first report in 1949, a remarkable 70 years ago. This probably makes us the longest-running independent investment research firm in the world. As we age, it is normal to occasionally reflect on how the world has changed over the course of our lives. It is an interesting exercise in the case of BCA. We need to start with a little history. The Bank Credit Analyst began life as a small-circulation newsletter produced by Hamilton Bolton, a Montreal-based money manager. He had been sending out investment commentary to his clients for some time and was encouraged to start catering to a wider audience. Bolton was a visionary because he was one of the few market analysts at that time to understand the importance of money and credit in driving economic and market cycles. In those days, banks were the dominant financial intermediary, so an analysis of flows through the banking system provided accurate and leading signals about economic and market trends. That is why he named his new service “The Bank Credit Analyst”. Bolton developed a series of monetary-based indicators that allowed him to make some great market calls. He passed away in 1967, but his valuable contribution to financial research was acknowledged in 1987 when the CFA Institute posthumously awarded him the prestigious “Outstanding Contribution to Investment Research Award”.1 Hamilton Bolton was a product of his times in that his worldview was influenced heavily by having lived through the Great Depression. Like many of his generation, he had a strong aversion to excessive debt growth, and was highly sensitive to any buildup of financial imbalances that could tip the economy back into a severe downturn. In fact, widespread fears of renewed depression did not really fade until the late 1950s. That psychology helps explain why policymakers were complicit in allowing inflation to take hold in the 1960s because there is a common tendency to fight the last war. As long as depression/deflation is seen as the primary threat, then there will be complacency about inflation risks. Does This Sound Familiar? Let’s look at some of the conditions that existed in 1949, when The Bank Credit Analyst started publication. The U.S. long-term Treasury yield had been capped at 2.5% since April 1942. At the request of the Treasury Department, the Fed had given up control of the money supply by buying whatever bonds were needed to keep yields below 2.5%, in order to support the financing of war-inflated budget deficits. The level of federal debt was down from its wartime peak of 106% of GDP, but was still at a historically high 77.5%. The European and Japanese economies were in a complete mess, having been devastated during the war. As already noted, fears of renewed deflation and depression were prevalent. Inflation was tame with the U.S. personal consumption deflator declining by 0.8% in 1949 and rising by only 1.2% in 1950. There was considerable geopolitical upheaval. Most notably, the Cold War intensified as Russia extended its control over East Europe and other countries. Mao Zedong founded the People’s Republic of China in October 1949 after his communist forces defeated the Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai-shek. There were serious border clashes between North and South Korea in August 1949, a prelude to the North’s invasion in June 1950. It does not require a huge stretch of the imagination to see some parallels with the current environment. We currently are having (or have had): Massive central bank purchases of government debt (i.e. quantitative easing) and the explicit pegging of bond yields by the Bank of Japan. A huge increase in government debt levels, albeit not because of war-related spending. In a remarkable coincidence, U.S. federal debt reached 77.8% of GDP in fiscal 2018, almost exactly the same level as in 1949. The European and Japanese economies are moribund. However, unlike in 1949, this reflects structural forces, not war-related devastation. There are widespread fears about the long-run economic growth outlook, well captured by the secular stagnation thesis, promoted by Larry Summers. Central bankers are concerned that inflation is too low. Geopolitical concerns abound. These include U.S.-China tensions, Brexit, Korea (again), rising populism and Russia’s more aggressive stance on the world stage. In the end, the fears of 70 years ago that the world might slip back into depression proved unfounded. The 1950s and 1960s, for the most part, turned out to be golden decades for consumers, businesses and equity investors. Unfortunately, this does not mean that we can look forward to a repeat experience in the decades ahead, because we must now turn to the major differences between the present and the past. The Past Worked Out Just Fine The conditions for an economic boom in the 1950s and 1960s could hardly have been better. The U.S. armed forces employed more than 12 million men and women at the end of WWII, 7.6 million of whom were stationed overseas. After the war, these people were desperate to get back to a normal life, with civilian jobs, marriage and children. The inevitable result was a population boom and a surge in growth as pent-up demand for housing and consumer goods was unleashed. It was all aided by the 1944 G.I. Bill that provided low-cost mortgages and many other benefits. The improvement in economic growth boosted government tax receipts and, coupled with a drop in defense spending, this kept fiscal finances in check. During the 1950s and 1960s, the federal deficit averaged less than 1% of GDP and debt had fallen to less than 30% of GDP by 1969. This occurred despite a surge in federal infrastructure spending, helped by the Federal Highway Act of 1956 that authorized the construction of an interstate highway system. Meanwhile, the economy did not appear to be impeded by tax rates that were far above current levels. The reconstruction of the European economies was a monumental task that was beyond the financing capabilities of those shattered countries. However, between 1948 and 1951, the U.S. European Recovery Program (The Marshall Plan) transferred $100 billion in 2018 dollars to aid the recovery effort and this helped Europe get back on its feet. There also was a huge amount of U.S. aid to support the rebuilding of Japan. Economic growth in Japan averaged almost 9% a year in the 1950s and more than 10% in the 1960s. In Germany, the comparable figures were 7.7% and 4.2%. The growth of the world economy also was boosted by steady reductions in tariffs during the 1950s and 60s. The most notable was the Kennedy Round of 1964-67 that achieved a 38% weighted average drop in tariffs. Protectionism was in strong retreat in the decades after WWII. Finally, a word on the markets. At the end of 1949, the S&P 500 was trading at seven times trailing earnings while the dividend yield was at 6¾%. The market’s earnings yield of 14% compared to a 2.2% yield on 30-year Treasuries. In other words, stocks were incredibly cheap. Moreover, when the 1951 Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord ended the bond peg, yields inevitably rose steadily over the subsequent years, making bonds a poor investment. In the 1950s, U.S. equities delivered real compound returns of 16.6% a year compared to -3.3% for 30-year bonds. In the 1960s, the annualized real returns were a still-respectable 5.3% for stocks and -1.4% for bonds. In sum, the two decades after the launch of the BCA were a very favorable time and it was largely due to a very depressed starting point. However, the current environment is very different to that of 70 years ago. It’s a Different Picture Now Perhaps the most important difference with the past is the demographic outlook. In contrast to the post-WWII baby boom, the U.S. and most other developed economies face bleak population dynamics. Almost all developed economies – and many emerging ones – have seen the birth rate drop below replacement levels with the result that population growth has slowed dramatically. In many cases, populations are in actual decline – especially in the important working-age segment. That deprives economic growth of its main driver. The annual potential growth of U.S. real GDP averaged 4% in the 1950s and 4.3% in the 1960s. Potential growth in the next decade will average only 1.8% a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). And it will be even lower in Europe and Japan. As far as pent-up demand is concerned, the picture also is very different. While the consumer industry works hard to develop new must-have goods and services, the reality is that demand is satiated for a lot of products. For example, in 2017, there were 259 million registered private and commercial autos and trucks in the U.S. compared to only 225 million licensed drivers. In 1950, the number of licensed drivers (62 million) far exceeded the number of registered vehicles (48 million). And it is hard to believe that the ownership penetration of most consumer durables has much upside. Turning to government finances, the current environment of bloated deficits and debt significantly constrains the room for fiscal stimulus. Yes, there is constant talk of the need for more infrastructure spending, but this has proven very difficult to implement without offsetting cuts in other spending or measures to boost revenues. The U.S. is saddled with unprecedented peacetime fiscal deficits and the CBO projects that federal debt will approach 100% of GDP within ten years, even without factoring in another recession. The comparison between the free trade era of the 1950s and 60s and the current situation speaks for itself. It is unclear at this stage just how far the move toward protectionism will go, but one thing seems clear. The rush toward globalization that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union and the entry of China into the global trading system is in retreat. This shows up not only in rising tariffs, but also in declining cross-border direct investment flows and increased antipathy to large-scale international migration. The irony is that the developed world needs more immigration to offset the weak growth in resident populations. What about the markets? The stock market certainly is not cheap, the way it was 70 years ago, with the S&P 500 trading at more than 18 times trailing operating earnings. Low interest rates are providing support, but future returns are likely to be in low single figures in a world where economic growth is moderate and there is little scope for profit margins and/or multiples to expand. Prospects for bonds do look somewhat similar to the situation in the early 1950s. Then, there was only one way for yields to go once the Fed’s peg ended. Today, yields will only fall sustainably if the economy sinks into a protracted downturn. We will get another recession in the next few years and yields could certainly hit new lows at that point. But the resulting policy response – both fiscal and monetary – seems almost certain to lead to higher inflation down the road. That would not bode well for the bond outlook, as was the case between the second half of the 1960s and the early 1980s. Concluding Thoughts Hamilton Bolton was fortunate to launch his new investment service ahead of a powerful economic revival and an almost two-decade bull market in stocks. He did not live long enough to witness the inflation upturn and volatile economic environment of the 1970s and 1980s, but BCA’s monetary focus allowed it to prosper during that period. Under the leadership of Tony Boeckh, the company’s then owner and Editor-in-Chief, BCA was strident in warning investors about the buildup of inflationary pressures and the dangers this posed for markets. During this time, BCA also developed the concept of the Debt Supercycle which helped investors understand the complex forces driving policy and the economic/market cycles. If Bolton was alive today, he would be horrified at the state of the world. He would not be able to understand how investors could be so complacent in the face of record government deficits and debt and by what he would regard as the reckless behavior of central banks. At the same time, he would be able to identify with the renewed focus on weak growth and deflation risks. The bottom line is that he would be advising investors to be extremely cautious. Investors currently are semi-obsessed with the timing of the next recession as that would be the signal to significantly downgrade risk assets. The official BCA stance is that a recession is not imminent and this creates a window for stocks to outperform. This matters for those investors who need to be concerned with relative performance. It is painful to sit on the sidelines if markets keep rising and you underperform your peers. However, for those more concerned with absolute performance, and that was true of most investors in Bolton’s time, the upside potential currently seems unattractive relative to the downside risks. Unfortunately, economists have a poor track record of forecasting recessions and bear markets thus often come as a complete surprise. Yes, low interest rates provide a floor under stocks, with the dividend yield comfortably above the 10-year Treasury yield. But rates are low for a reason: the economy and thus corporate earnings face major downside risks. Against this background, I would tend to side with what I imagine Bolton would say: this is a time to focus on capital preservation rather than taking risks to maximize returns. Let me try to end on a more positive note. As noted earlier, the long-term outlook turned out much better than Bolton probably anticipated 70 years ago. What could make that true this time around? Some things cannot be changed, at least over the next decade: adverse demographic trends, high ownership of consumer goods, and high levels of government debt. Geopolitical developments could go either way – for the better or worse – so I will make no predictions there. The one savior would be a marked revival in productivity because, ultimately, that is the only real source of rising living standards. Technology is changing rapidly and there are lots of exciting innovations. But to make a significant and lasting difference it will require more than developments such as autonomous vehicles or 3-D printing. We will need a new General Purpose Technology (GPT) that has a profound impact on the way economies and societies are structured. Previous examples include the steam engine, electricity and of course the internet. Perhaps Artificial Intelligence will do the trick, but that does not seem likely to be a near-term cure. Chart 1Then (1949) And Now (2019) In closing, we can be sure of one thing. The world changed in ways Hamilton Bolton could not have conceived and that also will be true for us today. BCA will endeavor to evolve with the times as it has done over the past 70 years and we look forward to keep helping our clients prosper in a complex and ever-changing world. 1949 – A Very Momentous Year Hamilton Bolton launches The Bank Credit Analyst The Peoples Republic of China, the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) are founded Indonesia gains independence from the Netherlands The civil war in Greece ends NATO is established The Geneva Convention is agreed The Soviet Union detonates its first atomic bomb Apartheid becomes official policy in South Africa Alfred Jones creates the first hedge fund The first non-stop circumnavigation of the world by an aircraft occurs The first commercial jet airliner, the De Havilland Comet, has its maiden flight EDSAC – the first practicable stored-program computer runs its first program at Cambridge University Products introduced that year included Lego, the 45 rpm record, the first Porsche car and the Xerox photocopier. George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 is published People born include Ivana Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, Benjamin Netanyahu, Meryl Streep and Bruce Springsteen 2019 – Not So Much Chaotic politics in the U.K., Italy and many other countries Trade wars   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Previously known as the Nicholas Molodovsky Award  

Highlights Our cyclical view is unchanged, … : Despite the evident risks from escalating trade tensions, soft global economic data, and widespread recession concerns, we expect the expansion and the bull markets in spread product and equities will remain intact. … as fiscal largesse has provided the U.S. economy with ample cushion: Per the IMF’s estimates, the fiscal stimulus package centered on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 amounted to about 70 basis points (“bps”) of fiscal thrust in 2018 and another 40 bps in 2019. But how is Congress’ unprecedented experiment shaping up beyond 2019?: The first-order impact of the tax cuts on government revenues is straightforward. The ultimate net effect turns on how lower taxes alter the course of corporate investment and work force participation. The CBO’s latest projections have the federal deficit widening by an additional $1 trillion over the next decade: Supply-side benefits from the 2017 Act have underwhelmed so far, and the fate of the federal budget depends on lawmakers’ restraint. We are long-run bearish on Treasuries and the dollar. Feature The fundamental backdrop remains mixed in the United States and the rest of the world. Global trade has slowed, and the world is experiencing a sharp manufacturing slowdown. The consensus of BCA researchers expects that manufacturing will soon find a footing, and the global economy will revive, helped along by easier monetary policy. A fiscal pick-me-up is long overdue, and would be especially welcome, but we are not holding our breath, especially when Japan finally seems prepared to impose its repeatedly-postponed VAT increase. Opinion within BCA is notably split, and the glass-half-full and glass-half-empty camps remain far apart. The mixed tone of the macro data offers something for bulls and bears, and contributed to the sharp single-day moves that characterized August’s equity action. Although the S&P 500 moved at least 1% in half of its sessions, however, it was down less than 2% for the month through Thursday. After slipping from its 3,000 perch amidst a 5% decline across August’s first three sessions on renewed trade hostilities, it traded in a narrow range between 2,825 and 2,945 the rest of the way (Chart 1). Chart 1Big Daily Swings, But A Tight Monthly Range The Fed is caught in a loop of responding to inorganic shocks. It tightened policy in 2018 while nervously looking over its shoulder at a sizable injection of procyclical fiscal stimulus that wound up exerting less overheating pressure than it had feared. Now it finds itself uncomfortably drawn into the vortex of the trade war, cutting rates to keep the expansion from being snuffed out prematurely by self-inflicted wounds. Various Fed officials seem to be chafing under the burden of serving as a bulwark against the drag from the tariff fights. As Chair Powell admonished in his Jackson Hole address, “[M]onetary policy … cannot provide a settled rulebook for international trade.” Like it or not, the Fed is stuck cleaning up other policymakers’ messes. Jackson Hole would normally have brought down the curtain on any meaningful market news until after Labor Day. But Bill Dudley, the head of the New York Fed from 2009 to 2018, had other ideas. He argued in a Bloomberg opinion column that the Fed should refuse to abet foolhardy trade policy with rate cuts that offset its ill effects. He went on to posit that it is within the Fed’s remit to set policy with an eye toward influencing the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Dudley’s grenade enlivened a slow news day and had the effect of unifying the economics community in condemnation of his polemic. The Fed swiftly distanced itself from the comments, reiterating that its “decisions are guided solely by its congressional mandate,” and that “political considerations play absolutely no role.” It is hard to know what Dr. Dudley intended to accomplish, but he ensured that we will be at BCA’s 40th Annual Investment Conference bright and early on Friday, September 27th when he kicks off its second day. Initial Estimates Soon after the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed, the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) assessed how its provisions would affect the U.S. economy. Although calculating the components involves myriad complex estimates, the budget equation is quite simple: Budget Surplus/(Deficit) = Revenues – Outlays. Cutting taxes clearly reduces revenues, and the reductions in individual tax rates, partially offset by limits on deductions, were estimated to cost the federal government roughly $300 billion over the next decade. The 10-year tab for lower corporate rates, and immediate expensing of business investments through 2022, was estimated to run about $1 trillion. Relief from some spending constraints brought the total estimated cost to $1.7 trillion. A trillion here, and a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money. Though the Act was sure to worsen the deficit, it contained provisions meant to encourage investment and labor supply. Corporate tax cuts and the full immediate expensing of investments in software and eligible equipment were expected to permanently increase the nation’s capital stock, thereby boosting the trend pace of productivity growth. A reduced individual income tax burden was expected to encourage more people to enter the workforce and incumbents to work longer hours. Ultimately, the CBO projected that the Act would boost the level of real potential GDP by 0.7%, on average, through 2029.  Six Quarters On It follows that people might work more if they are able to keep more of what they earn, but the data since individual income tax rates were reduced at the beginning of 2018 are inconclusive. The labor force participation rate has been treading water for several years (Chart 2, solid line), as it battles against the drag from baby boomer aging (Chart 2, dashed line). Prime-age labor force participation has risen very slowly off of its 2015 bottom, and has spent 2019 unwinding its gains from late last year (Chart 3). Average weekly hours worked remain locked in the narrow range that has prevailed since 2012 (Chart 4). Though it is difficult to isolate the drivers of participation gains, the part rate’s erratic 2018-9 course suggests that the Act has not yet had a discernible work force impact. Chart 2The Baby Boomers Have Become A Demographic Headwind Chart 3Labor Supply ##br##Gains ... Chart 4... Have Yet To Materialize Residential investment, which lost some tax subsidies via the Act’s limits on mortgage interest and state and local tax deductions, has declined in every quarter since it was passed, and we back it out of fixed investment to assess the Act’s impact on corporate investment. As with labor supply, the record so far is mixed. Fixed investment (ex-residential investment) built on its 4Q17 acceleration over the first three quarters of 2018 only to slide in the three subsequent quarters (Chart 5). Publicly traded corporations have proven more eager to share their cash windfall with shareholders than they have been to invest it. Chart 5Investment Stimulus? What Investment Stimulus? Looking Ahead – Activity Effects We accept that lower individual income tax rates make work more attractive. People respond to incentives, and more after-tax pay, all else equal, should encourage some discouraged workers to rejoin the labor market and push some of the currently employed to want to work more. The changes are modest, though, with take-home pay increasing $324, or 2%, for someone earning $20,000, and $1,299, or 3%, for someone earning $50,000 (Table 1). We see the Act as having no more than a modest marginal effect on labor supply, though it should help boost consumption until households begin to factor in seemingly inevitable future tax hikes. Table 1Take-Home Pay Is Up, But Not By Much If the 2017 Act really is going to boost the potential trend rate of growth, it will have to do so by pushing the rate of productivity growth higher.1 Workers are able to produce more in a given block of time when they’re endowed with more and better tools, and new tools require investment. If fixed investment doesn’t accelerate, there’s no reason to expect that productivity will (Chart 6). The capex outlook from the NFIB survey and the various Fed regional manufacturing surveys is iffy, and BCA has previously noted how an aging population and a shift to more capital-light businesses may restrain investment. Chart 6Investment Drives Productivity It will not be an easy matter to boost productivity by boosting capex, though some of businesses’ after-tax cash will likely find its way to investment. To help the process along, Congress incorporated a familiar provision: accelerated depreciation. Accelerated depreciation’s empirical record as an investment catalyst is hardly clear (Box), and we don’t find its theoretical basis terribly compelling. We think the Act’s trend growth impacts are more likely to disappoint the CBO’s expectations than exceed them. Investment confronts demographic headwinds, too. Pushing trend growth higher will not be easy. Box - An Anodyne Prescription A celebrated provision of the Act allows for the immediate expensing of qualified investments until 2022. Accelerated depreciation programs, which allow for more rapid expensing of investments in property, equipment and other depreciable assets in an attempt to stimulate investment, are a stock measure in lawmakers’ stimulus toolkit, but their effectiveness is hardly assured. For one thing, they’re not new, and businesses may have built up an immunity to them, as they have been a continuous feature of the tax code since 1981. The immediate expensing allowed under the 2017 Act is a form of bonus depreciation, which was initially introduced in the wake of the September 11th attacks. It has remained in place for all but one subsequent year, and though investment peaked during the other stretch that provided for immediate write-offs (September 2010 - December 2011), we are skeptical that it will materially increase the size of the capital stock going forward. Accelerated depreciation schemes encourage investment via the time value of money. They do not increase the depreciation benefit provided by a particular investment, they simply speed up its recognition. Savvy businesses may adjust the timing of their investments to take advantage of temporary bonus periods, but they will not necessarily invest more.2 With rock-bottom interest rates squeezing the time value of money, it’s possible that bonus depreciation’s impact may be especially muted this time. Looking Ahead – The Budget Deficit The CBO’s updated projections through 2029, released two weeks ago, call for the budget shortfall to widen by $800 billion more than previously estimated in January. Despite a downward revision of over $1 trillion in projected interest expense, additional spending has weakened the deficit outlook. It appears that elected officials simply can’t help themselves. In a climate in which neither Congress nor voters evince any desire to rein in the deficit, it seems foolishly naïve to assume that future sessions of Congress will abide by built-in expenditure limits like sunset provisions and spending caps. Although the CBO projects that federal revenues will rise across its 10-year forecasting horizon, they will not do so fast enough to keep up with outlays swollen by interest payments on the growing pile of Treasuries (Chart 7). The CBO sees debt as a share of GDP rising to 95% by 2029, within reach of the all-time high recorded after World War II (Chart 8). Financial markets don’t care now, and we don’t think they will any time in the near future, but the CBO’s baseline projections, which assume future Congresses abide by their stated commitments, probably represent an optimistic scenario. We are more inclined to expect the alternative scenarios, in which sunset provisions are ignored, and pre-set spending caps are set aside, to come to pass. Chart 7A Widening Budget Gap ... Chart 8... Leads To An Increased Debt Burden Investment Implications Chart 9The Dollar's Long-Run Direction Is Down Treasury yields are currently within sight of their July 2016 Brexit-inspired lows, and may well revisit them. Negative yields are a common feature well out the maturity curve in core Europe and Japan. A sustained move higher is not in the cards in the near term, and though we do expect yields to rise as the global economy gains some traction later this year, we do not foresee a disruptive move higher even over the next couple of years. The very long-term outlook for Treasuries is lousy, however, and the dollar also faces secular pressures (Chart 9). The U.S. is not likely to turn into Japan, but the next decade’s returns will likely pale beside those earned since 1982. We are congenitally optimistic about humanity, and Americans seem to have a particular knack for pulling rabbits out of hats. We do not see the U.S. turning into Argentina, Greece or even Japan. The debt burden will weigh on potential growth down the road, however, as debt service will limit Congress’ ability to deploy countercyclical adjustments and longer-term investments, and debt issuance will eventually crimp private entities’ access to capital. All of these factors will limit potential economic growth and contribute to softening returns on equity and credit. We continue to foresee tepid returns over the next ten years relative to the returns investors have grown accustomed to over the last four decades, and we would much rather borrow at current rates for the next 20 or 30 years than lend at them.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Economic growth is the sum of growth in productivity and growth in the size of the labor force. Since the Act does not bear on immigration or birthrates, productivity represents its best shot at moving the growth needle. 2 Congressional Research Service Report RL31852, The Section 179 and Section 168(k) Expensing Allowances: Current Law and Economic Effects, by Gary Guenther, May 1, 2018.  

Highlights While a self-fulfilling crisis of confidence that plunges the global economy into recession cannot be excluded, it is far from our base case. Provided the trade war does not spiral out of control, it is highly likely that global equities will outperform bonds over the next 12 months. The auto sector has been the main driver of the global manufacturing slowdown. As automobile output begins to recover later this year, so too will global manufacturing. Go long auto stocks. As a countercyclical currency, the U.S. dollar will weaken once global growth picks up. We expect to upgrade EM and European equities later this year along with cyclical equity sectors such as industrials, energy, and materials. Financials should also benefit from steeper yield curves. We still like gold as a long-term investment. However, the combination of higher bond yields and diminished trade tensions could cause bullion to sell off in the near term. As such, we are closing our tactical long gold trade for a gain of 20.5%. Feature “The Democrats are trying to 'will' the Economy to be bad for purposes of the 2020 Election. Very Selfish!” – @realDonaldTrump, 19 August 2019 8:26 am “The Fake News Media is doing everything they can to crash the economy because they think that will be bad for me and my re-election” – @realDonaldTrump, 15 August 2019 9:52 am Bad Juju Chart 1Spike In Google Searches For The Word Recession President Trump’s remarks, made just a few days after the U.S. yield curve inverted, were no doubt meant to deflect attention away from the trade war, while providing cover for any economic weakness that might occur on his watch. But does the larger point still stand? Google searches for the word “recession” have spiked recently, even though underlying U.S. growth has remained robust (Chart 1). Could rising angst induce an actual recession? Theoretically, the answer is yes. A sudden drop in confidence can generate a self-fulfilling cycle where rising pessimism leads to less private-sector spending, higher unemployment, lower corporate profits, weaker stock prices, and ultimately, even deeper pessimism. Two things make such a vicious cycle more probable in the current environment. First, the value of risk assets is quite high in relation to GDP in many economies (Chart 2). This means that any pullback in equity prices or jump in credit spreads will have an outsized impact on financial conditions.   Chart 2The Total Market Value Of Risk Assets Is Elevated Chart 3Not Much Scope To Cut Rates Second, policymakers are currently more constrained in their ability to react to adverse shocks, such as an intensification of the trade war, than in the past. Interest rates in Europe and Japan are already at zero or in negative territory (Chart 3). Even in the U.S., the zero-lower bound constraint – though squishier than once believed – remains a formidable obstacle. Chart 4 shows that the Federal Reserve has cut rates by over five percentage points, on average, during past recessions. It would be impossible to cut rates by that much this time around if the U.S. economy were to experience a major downturn.   Chart 4The Fed Is Worried About The Zero Bound Fiscal stimulus could help buttress growth. However, both political and economic considerations are likely to limit the policy response. While China is stimulating its economy, concerns about excessively high debt levels have caused the authorities to adopt a reactive, tentative approach. Japan is set to raise the consumption tax on October 1st. Although a variety of offsetting measures will mitigate the impact on the Japanese economy, the net effect will still be a tightening of fiscal policy. Germany has mused over launching its own Green New Deal, but so far there has been a lot more talk than action. President Trump floated the idea of cutting payroll taxes, only to abandon it once it became clear that the Democrats were unwilling to go along. On The Positive Side Despite these clear risks, we are inclined to maintain our fairly sanguine 12-to-18 month global macro view. There are a number of reasons for this: First, the weakness in global manufacturing over the past 18 months has not infected the much larger service sector (Chart 5). Even in Germany, with its large manufacturing base, the service sector PMI remains above 50, and is actually higher than it was late last year. This suggests that the latest global slowdown is more akin to the 2015-16 episode than the 2007-08 or 2000-01 downturns. Chart 5AThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (I) Chart 5BThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (II) Second, manufacturing activity should benefit from a turn in the inventory cycle over the remainder of the year. A slower pace of inventory accumulation shaved 90 basis points off of U.S. growth in the second quarter and is set to knock another 40 basis points from growth in the third quarter, according to the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model. Excluding inventories, U.S. GDP growth would have been 3% in Q2 and is tracking at 2.7% in Q3 – a fairly healthy pace given the weak global backdrop (Chart 6). Chart 6The U.S. Economy Is Still Holding Up Well Outside the U.S., inventories are making a negative contribution to growth (Chart 7). In addition to the official data, this can be seen in the commentary accompanying the Markit manufacturing surveys, which suggest that many firms are liquidating inventories (Box 1). Falling inventory levels imply that sales are outstripping production, a state of affairs that cannot persist indefinitely. Third, and related to the point above, the automobile sector has been the key driver of the global manufacturing slowdown. This is in contrast to 2015-16, when the main culprit was declining energy capex. According to Wards, global vehicle production is down about 10% from year-ago levels, by far the biggest drop since the Great Recession (Chart 8). The drop in automobile production helps explain why the German economy has taken it on the chin recently. Chart 7Inventories Are Making A Negative Contribution To Growth Chart 8Auto Sector: The Culprit Behind The Manufacturing Slowdown Importantly, motor vehicle production growth has fallen more than sales growth, implying that inventory levels are coming down. Despite secular shifts in automobile ownership preferences, there is still plenty of upside to automobile usage. Per capita automobile ownership in China is only one-fifth of what it is in the United States, and one-fourth of what it is in Japan (Chart 9). This suggests that the recent drop in Chinese auto sales will be reversed. As automobile output begins to recover later this year, so too will global manufacturing. Investors should consider going long automobile makers. Chart 10 shows that the All-Country World MSCI automobiles index is trading near its lows on both a forward P/E and price-to-book basis, and sports a juicy dividend yield of nearly 4%.1 Chart 9The Automobile Ownership Rate Is Still Quite Low In China Chart 10Auto Stocks Are A Compelling Buy   Fourth, our research has shown that globally, the neutral rate of interest is generally higher than widely believed. This means that monetary policy is currently stimulative, and will become even more accommodative as the Fed and a number of other central banks continue to cut rates. Remember that unemployment rates have been trending lower since the Great Recession and have continued falling even during the latest slowdown, implying that GDP growth has remained above trend (Chart 11). As diminished labor market slack causes inflation to rebound from today’s depressed levels, real policy rates will decline, leading to more spending through the economy.  Chart 11Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower The Trade War Remains The Biggest Risk The points discussed above will not matter much if the trade war spirals out of control. It is impossible to know what will happen for sure, but we can deduce the likely course of action based on the incentives that both sides face. President Trump has shown a clear tendency in recent weeks to try to de-escalate trade tensions whenever the stock market drops. This is not surprising: Despite his efforts to deflect blame for any selloff on others, he knows full well that many voters will blame him for losses in their 401(k) accounts and for slower domestic growth and rising unemployment. What about the Chinese? An increasing number of pundits have warmed up to the idea that China is more than willing to let the global economy crash if this means that Trump won’t be re-elected. If this is China’s true intention, the Chinese will resist making any deal, and could even try to escalate tensions as the U.S. election approaches. It is an intriguing thesis. However, it is not particularly plausible. U.S. goods exports to China account for 0.5% of U.S. GDP, while Chinese exports to the U.S. account for 3.4% of Chinese GDP. Total manufacturing value-added represents 29% of Chinese GDP, compared to 11% for the United States. There is no way that China could torpedo the U.S. economy without greatly hurting itself first. Any effort by China to undermine Trump’s re-election prospects would invite extreme retaliatory actions, including the invocation of the War Powers Act, which would make it onerous for U.S. companies to continue operating in China. Even if Trump loses the election, he could still wreak a lot of havoc on China during the time he has left in office. Moreover, as Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, has stressed, if Trump were to feel that he could not run for re-election on a strong economy, he would try to position himself as a “War President,” hoping that Americans rally around the flag. That would be a dangerous outcome for China.  Chart 12Would China Really Be Better Off Negotiating With A Democrat As President? In any case, it is not clear whether China would be better off with a Democrat as president. The popular betting site PredictIt currently gives Elizabeth Warren a 34% chance of winning, followed by Joe Biden with 26%, and Bernie Sanders with 15% (Chart 12). This means that two far-left candidates with protectionist leanings, who would stress environmental protection and human rights in their negotiations with China, have nearly twice as much support as the former Vice President. All this suggests that China has an incentive to de-escalate the trade war. Given that Trump also has an incentive to put the trade war on hiatus, some sort of détente between the U.S. and China, as well as between the U.S. and other players such as the EU, is more likely than not. Investment Conclusions Provided the trade war does not spiral out of control, it is very likely that global equities will outperform bonds over the next 12 months. Since it might take a few more months for the data on global growth to improve, equities will remain in a choppy range in the near term, before moving higher later this year. As we discussed last week, the equity risk premium is quite high in the U.S., and even higher abroad, where valuations are generally cheaper and interest rates are lower (Chart 13).2 Chart 13AEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Chart 13BEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II) The U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency (Chart 14). If global growth picks up later this year, the greenback should begin to weaken. European and emerging market stocks have typically outperformed the global benchmark in an environment of rising global growth and a weakening dollar (Chart 15). We expect to upgrade EM and European equities – along with more cyclical sectors of the stock market such as industrials, materials, and energy – later this year. Chart 14The U.S. Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 15EM And Euro Area Equities Usually Outperform When Global Growth Improves     Thanks to the dovish shift by central banks around the world, government bond yields are unlikely to return to their 2018 highs anytime soon. Nevertheless, stronger economic growth should lift long-term yields at the margin, causing yield curves to steepen (Chart 16). Steeper yield curves will benefit beleaguered bank stocks. Chart 16Stronger Economic Growth Should Lift Long-Term Bond Yields, Causing Yield Curves To Steepen Finally, a word on gold: We still like gold as a long-term investment. However, the combination of higher bond yields and diminished trade tensions could cause bullion to sell off in the near term. As such, we are closing our tactical long gold trade for a gain of 20.5%. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Box 1 Evidence of Inventory Liquidation In The Manufacturing Sector Footnotes 1 The top ten constituents of the MSCI ACWI Automobiles Index are Toyota (22.6%), General Motors (7.8%), Daimler (7.3%), Honda Motor (6.2%), Ford Motor (5.7%), Tesla (4.8%), Volkswagen (4.8%), BMW (3.8%), Ferrari (3.0%), Hyundai Motor (2.4%). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades