Financial Markets

Special Report

BCA takes pride in its independence. Strategists publish what they really believe, informed by their framework and analysis. Occasionally, this independence results in strongly diverging views and we currently are in one of those times. Within BCA, two views on the cyclical (six to 12-months) outlook for assets have emerged. One camp expects global growth to rebound in the second half of the year. Along with accelerating growth, they anticipate stock prices and risk assets to remain firm, cyclical equities to outperform defensive ones, safe-haven yields to move up, and the dollar to weaken. Meanwhile, another group foresees a further deterioration in activity or a delayed recovery, additional downside in stocks and risk assets, outperformance of defensives relative to cyclicals, low safe-haven yields, and a generally stronger dollar. For the sake of transparency, we have asked representatives of each camp to make their case in a round-table discussion, allowing our clients to decide for themselves which view is more appealing to them. Global Investment Strategy’s Peter Berezin, U.S. Investment Strategy’s Doug Peta, and Global Fixed Income Strategy’s Rob Robis take the mantle for the bullish camp. U.S. Equity Strategy’s Anastasios Avgeriou, Emerging Market Strategy’s Arthur Budaghyan, and European Investment Strategy’s Dhaval Joshi represent the bearish group.1   The round-table discussion below focuses on the cyclical outlook. For longer investment horizons, most strategists agree that a recession is highly likely by 2022. Moreover, on a long-term basis, valuations in both risk assets and safe-haven bonds are very demanding. In this context, a significant back up in yields could hammer risk assets. The BCA Round Table Mathieu Savary: Yield curve inversions have often been harbingers of recessions. Anastasios, you are amongst those investors troubled by this inversion. Do you not worry that this episode might prove similar to 1998, when the curve only inverted temporarily and did not foreshadow a recession? Moreover, how do you account for the highly variable time lags between the inversion of the yield curve and the occurrence of a recession? Anastasios Avgeriou: The yield curve inverts at or near the peak of the business cycle and it eventually forewarns of upcoming recessions. This past December, parts of the yield curve inverted and now, BCA’s U.S. Equity Strategy service is heeding the signal from this simple indicator, especially given that the SPX has subsequently made all-time highs as our research predicted.2 Chart 1 (ANASTASIOS)The 1998 Episode Revisited The yield curve inversion forecasts a Fed rate cut, and it has never been wrong on that front. It served well investors that heeded the message in June of 1998 as the market soon thereafter fell 20% in a heartbeat. If investors got out at the 1998 peak near 1200 and forwent about 350 points of gains until the March 2000 SPX cycle peak, they still benefited if they held tight as the market ultimately troughed near 777 in October 2002 (Chart 1). With regard to timing the previous seven recessions using the yield curve, if we accept that mid-1998 is the starting point of the inversion, it took 33 months before the recession commenced. Last cycle, the recession began 24 months after the inversion. Consequently, December 2020 is the earliest possible onset of recession and September 2021, the latest. Our forecast calls for SPX EPS to fall 20% in 2021 to $140 with the multiple dropping between 13.5x and 16.5x for an SPX end-2020 target range of 1,890-2,310.3 In other words we are not willing to play a 100-200 point advance for a potential 1,000 point drawdown. The risk/reward tradeoff is to the downside, and we choose to sit this one out. Mathieu: Rob, you take a much more sanguine view of the current curve inversion. Why? Rob Robis: While the four most dangerous words in investing are “this time is different,” this time really does appear to be different. Never before have negative term premia on longer-term Treasury yields and a curve inversion coexisted (Chart 2). Longer-term Treasury yields have therefore been pushed down to extremely low levels by factors beyond just expectations of a lower fed funds rate. The negative Treasury term premium is distorting the economic message of the U.S. yield curve inversion. Chart 2 (ROB)Negative Term Premium Distorting The Economic Message Of An Inverted Yield Curve Term premia are depressed everywhere, as seen in German, Japanese and other yields, reflecting the intense demand for safe assets like government bonds during a period of heightened uncertainty. Global bond markets may also be discounting a higher probability of the ECB restarting its Asset Purchase Program, as term premia typically fall sharply when central banks embark on quantitative easing. This has global spillovers. Prior to previous recessions, U.S. Treasury curve inversions occurred when the Fed was running an unequivocally tight monetary policy. That is not the case today. The real fed funds rate still is not above the Fed’s estimate of the neutral real rate, a.k.a. “r-star,” which was the necessary ingredient for all previous Treasury curve inversions since 1960 (Chart 3). Chart 3 (ROB)Fed Policy Is Not Tight Enough For Sustained Curve Inversion Mathieu: The level of policy accommodation will most likely determine whether Anastasios or Rob is proven right. Peter, you have been steadfastly arguing that policy, in the U.S. at least, remains easy. Can you elaborate why? Peter Berezin: Remember that the neutral rate of interest is the rate that equalizes the level of aggregate demand with the economy’s supply-side potential. Loose fiscal policy and fading deleveraging headwinds are boosting demand in the United States. So is rising wage growth, especially at the bottom of the income distribution. Given that the U.S. does not currently suffer from any major imbalances, I believe that the economy can tolerate higher rates without significant ill-effects. In other words, monetary policy is currently quite easy. Of course, we cannot observe the neutral rate directly. Like a black hole, one can only detect it based on the effect that it has on its surroundings. Housing is by far the most interest rate-sensitive sector of the economy. If history is any guide, the recent decline in mortgage rates will boost housing activity in the remainder of the year (Chart 4). If that relationship breaks down, as it did during the Great Recession, it would suggest that the neutral rate is quite low. Chart 4 (PETER)Declining Mortgage Rates Bode Well For Housing Given that mortgage underwriting standards have been quite strong and the homeowner vacancy is presently very low, our guess is that housing will hold up well. We should know better in the next few months. Mathieu: Dhaval, you do not agree. Why do you think global rates are not accommodative? Dhaval Joshi: Actually, I think that global rates are accommodative, but that the global bond yield can rise by just 70 bps before conditions become perilously un-accommodative. Here’s where I disagree with Peter: for me, the danger doesn’t come from economics, it comes from the mathematics of ultra-low bond yields. The unprecedented and experimental panacea of our era has been ‘universal QE’ – which has led to ultra-low bond yields everywhere. But what is not understood is that when bond yields reach and remain close to their lower bound, weird things happen to the financial markets. I refer you to other reports for the details, but in a nutshell, the proximity of the lower bound to yields increases the risk of owning supposedly ‘safe’ bonds to the risk of owning so-called ‘risk-assets’. The result is that the valuation of risk-assets rises exponentially (Chart 5). Because when the riskiness of the asset-classes converges, investors price risk-assets to deliver the same ultra-low nominal return as bonds.4   Comparisons with previous economic cycles miss the current danger. The post-2000 policy easing distorted the global economy by engineering a credit boom – so the subsequent danger emanated from the most credit-sensitive sectors in the economy such as mortgage lending. In contrast, the post-2008 ‘universal QE’ has severely distorted the valuation relationship between bonds and global risk-assets – so this is where the current danger lies. Higher bond yields can suddenly undermine the valuation support of global risk-assets whose $400 trillion worth dwarfs the global economy by five to one. Where is this tipping point? It is when the global 10-year yield – defined as the average of the U.S., euro area,5 and China – approaches 2.5%. Through the past five years, the inability of this yield to remain above 2.5% confirms the hyper-sensitivity of financial conditions to this tipping point (Chart 6). Right now, I agree that bond yields are accommodative. But the scope for yields to move higher is quite limited. Chart 6 (DHAVAL)Since 2015, the Global Long Bond Yield Has Struggled To Surpass 2.5 Percent Mathieu: Monetary policy is important to the outlook, but so is the global manufacturing cycle. The global growth slowdown has been concentrated in the manufacturing sector, tradeable goods in particular. Across advanced economies, the service and consumer sectors have been surprisingly resilient, but this will not last if the industrial sector decelerates further. Arthur, you still do not anticipate any major improvement in global trade and industrial production. Can you elaborate why? Chart 7 (ARTHUR)Global Trade Is Down Due To China Not U.S. Arthur Budaghyan: To properly assess the economic outlook, one needs to understand what has caused the ongoing global trade/manufacturing downturn. One thing we know for certain: It originated in China, not the U.S.  Chart 7 illustrates that Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese and Singaporean exports to China have been shrinking at an annual rate of 10%, while their shipments to the U.S. have been growing. China’s aggregate imports have also been contracting. This entails that from the perspective of the rest of the world, China has been and remains in recession. U.S. manufacturing is the least exposed to China, which is the main reason why it has been the last shoe to drop. Hence, the U.S. has lagged in this downturn, and one should not be looking to the U.S. for clues about a potential global recovery. We need to gauge what will turn Chinese demand around. In this regard, the rising credit and fiscal spending impulse is positive, but it has so far failed to kick start a recovery (Chart 8). The key reason has been a declining marginal propensity to spend among households and companies. Notably, the marginal propensity to spend of mainland companies leads industrial metals prices by a few months, and it currently continues to point south (Chart 8, bottom panel).   The lack of willingness among Chinese consumers and enterprises to spend is due to several factors: (1) the U.S.-China confrontation; (2) high levels of indebtedness among both enterprises and households (Chart 9); (3) ongoing regulatory scrutiny over banks and shadow banking as well as local government debt; and (4) a lack of outright government subsidies for purchases of autos and housing. Chart 8 (ARTHUR)Stimulus Versus Marginal Propensity To Spend Chart 9 (ARTHUR)Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than U.S. Ones   On the whole, the falling marginal propensity to spend will all but ensure that any recovery in mainland household and corporate spending is delayed. Mathieu: Meanwhile, Peter, you have a much more optimistic stance. Why do you differ so profoundly with Arthur’s view? Peter: China’s deleveraging campaign began more than a year before global manufacturing peaked. I have no doubt that slower Chinese credit growth weighed on global capex, but we should not lose sight of the fact there are natural ebbs and flows at work. Most manufactured goods retain some value for a while after they are purchased. If spending on, say, consumer durable goods or business equipment rises to a high level for an extended period, a glut will form, requiring a period of lower production.  Chart 10 (PETER)The Global Manufacturing Cycle Has Likely Reached A Bottom These demand cycles typically last about three years; roughly 18 months on the way up, 18 months on the way down (Chart 10). The last downleg in the global manufacturing cycle began in early 2018, so if history is any guide, we are nearing a trough. The fact that U.S. manufacturing output rose in both May and June, followed by this week’s sharp rebound in the July Philly Fed Manufacturing survey, supports this view. Of course, extraneous forces could complicate matters. If trade tensions ratchet higher, this would weaken my bullish thesis. Nevertheless, with China stimulating its economy again, it would probably take a severe trade war to push the global economy into recession. Mathieu: Dhaval, you are not as negative as Arthur, but nonetheless expect a slowdown in the second half of the year. What is your rationale? Dhaval: To be clear, I am not forecasting a recession or major downturn – unless, as per my previous answer, the global 10-year bond yield approaches 2.5% and triggers a severe dislocation in global risk-assets. In fact, many people get the relationship between recession and financial market dislocation back-to-front: they think that the recession causes the financial market dislocation when, in most cases, the financial market dislocation causes the recession! Nevertheless, I do believe that European and global growth is entering a regular down-oscillation based on the following compelling evidence: From a low last summer, quarter-on-quarter GDP growth rates in the developed economies have already rebounded to the upper end of multi-year ranges. Short-term credit impulses in Europe, the U.S., and China are entering down-oscillations (Chart 11). The best current activity indicators, specifically the ZEW economic sentiment indicators, have rolled over. The outperformance of industrials – the equity sector most exposed to global growth – has also rolled over. Why expect a down-oscillation? Because it is the rate of decline in the bond yield that drove the rebound in growth after its low last summer. Furthermore, it is impossible for the rate of decline in the bond yield to keep increasing, or even stay where it is. Counterintuitively, if bond yields decline, but at a reduced pace, the effect is to slow economic growth.  Mathieu: A positive and a negative view of the world logically result in bifurcated outlooks for interest rates and the dollar. Rob, how do you see U.S., German, and Japanese yields evolving over the coming 12 months? Rob: If global growth rebounds, U.S. Treasury yields will have far more upside than Bund or JGB yields. Inflation expectations should recover faster in the U.S., with the Fed taking inflationary risks by cutting rates with a 3.7% unemployment rate and core CPI inflation at 2.1%. The Fed is also likely to disappoint by delivering fewer rate cuts than are currently discounted by markets (90bps over the next 12 months). Treasury yields can therefore increase more than German and Japanese yields, with the ECB and BoJ more likely to deliver the modest rate cuts currently discounted in their yield curves (Chart 12). Chart 11 (DHAVAL)Short-Term Impulses Rebounded... But Are Now Rolling Over Chart 12 (ROB)U.S. Treasuries Will Underperform Bunds & JGBs Japanese yields will remain mired at or below zero over the next 6-12 months, as wage growth and core inflation remain too anemic for the BoJ to alter its 0% target on 10-year JGB yields. German yields have a bit more potential to rise if European growth begins to recover, but will lag any move higher in Treasury yields. That means that the Treasury-Bund and Treasury-JGB spreads will move higher over the next year. Negative German and Japanese yields may look completely unappetizing compared to +2% U.S. Treasury yields, but this handicap vanishes when all three yields are expressed in U.S. dollar terms. Hedging a 10-year German Bund or JGB into higher-yielding U.S. dollars creates yields that are 50-60bps higher than a 10-year U.S. Treasury. It is abundantly clear that German and Japanese bonds will outperform Treasuries over the next year if global growth recovers. Mathieu: Peter, your positive view on global growth means that the Fed will cut rates less than what is currently priced into the OIS curve. So why do you expect the dollar to weaken in the second half of 2019? Peter: What the Fed does affects interest rate differentials, but just as important is what other central banks do. The ECB is not going to raise rates over the next 12 months. However, if euro area growth surprises on the upside later this year, investors will begin to question the need for the ECB to keep policy rates in negative territory until mid-2024. The market’s expectation of where policy rates will be five years out tends to correlate well with today’s exchange rate. By that measure, there is scope for interest rate differentials to narrow against the U.S. dollar (Chart 13). Chart 13A (PETER)Interest Rate Expectations Against The U.S. Should Narrow (I) Chart 13B (PETER)Interest Rate Expectations Against The U.S. Should Narrow (II) Keep in mind that the U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it moves in the opposite direction of global growth (Chart 14). This countercyclicality stems from the fact that the U.S. economy is more geared towards services than manufacturing compared with the rest of the world. Chart 14 (PETER)The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency As such, when global growth accelerates, capital tends to flow from the U.S. to the rest of the world, translating into more demand for foreign currency and less demand for dollars. If global growth picks up in the remainder of the year, as I expect, the dollar will weaken. Mathieu: Arthur, as you are significantly more negative on growth than either Rob or Peter, how do you see the dollar and global yields evolving over the coming six to 12 months? Arthur: I am positive on the trade-weighted U.S. dollar for the following reasons: The U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency – it exhibits a negative correlation with the global business cycle. Persistent weakness in the global economy emanating from China/EM is positive for the dollar because the U.S. economy is the major economic block least exposed to a China/EM slowdown. Meanwhile, the greenback is only loosely correlated with U.S. interest rates. Thereby, the argument that lower U.S. rates will drive the value of the U.S. currency much lower is overemphasized. The Federal Reserve will cut rates by more than what is currently priced into the market only in a scenario of a complete collapse in global growth. Yet this scenario would be dollar bullish. In this case, the dollar’s strong inverse relationship with global growth will outweigh its weak positive relationship with interest rates.   Contrary to consensus views, the U.S. dollar is not very expensive. According to unit labor costs based on the real effective exchange rate – the best currency valuation measure – the greenback is only one standard deviation above its fair value. Often, financial markets tend to overshoot to 1.5 or 2 standard deviations below or above their historical mean before reversing their trend. One of the oft-cited headwinds facing the dollar is positioning, yet there is a major discrepancy between positioning in DM and EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar. In aggregate, investors – asset managers and leveraged funds – have neutral exposure to DM currencies, but they are very long liquid EM exchange rates such as the BRL, MXN, ZAR and RUB versus the greenback. The dollar strength will occur mostly versus EM and commodities currencies. In other words, the euro, other European currencies and the yen will outperform EM exchange rates. I have less conviction on global bond yields. While global growth will disappoint, yields have already fallen a lot and the U.S. economy is currently not weak enough to justify around 90 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months. Mathieu: Before we move on to investment recommendations, Anastasios, you have done a lot of interesting work on the outlook for U.S. profits. What is the message of your analysis? Chart 15 (ANASTASIOS)Gravitational Pull Anastasios: While markets cheered the trade truce following the recent G-20 meeting, no tariff rollback was agreed. Since the tariff rate on $200bn of Chinese imports went up from 10% to 25% on May 10, odds are high that manufacturing will remain in the doldrums. This will likely continue to weigh on profits for the remainder of the year. Profit growth should weaken further in the coming six months. Periods of falling manufacturing PMIs result in larger negative earnings growth surprises as market forecasters rarely anticipate the full breadth and depth of slowdowns. Absent profit growth, equity markets lack the necessary ‘oxygen’ for a durable high-quality rally. Until global growth momentum turns, investors should fade rallies. Our four-factor SPX EPS growth model is flirting with the contraction zone. In addition, our corporate pricing power proxy and Goldman Sachs’ Current Activity Indicator both send a distress signal for SPX profits (Chart 15). Already, more than half of the S&P 500 GICS1 sectors’ profits are estimated to have contracted in Q2, and three sectors could see declining revenues on a year-over-year basis, according to I/B/E/S data. Q3 depicts an equally grim profit picture that will also spill over to Q4. Adding it all up, profits will underwhelm into year-end. Mathieu: Doug, you do not share Anastasios’s anxiety. What offsets do you foresee? Moreover, you are not concerned by the U.S. corporate balance sheets. Can you share why? Doug Peta: As it relates to earnings, we foresee offsets from a revival in the rest of the world. Increasingly accommodative global monetary policy and reviving Chinese growth will give global ex-U.S. economies a boost. That inflection may go largely unnoticed in U.S. GDP, but it will help the S&P 500, as U.S.-based multinationals’ earnings benefit from increased overseas demand and a weaker dollar. When it comes to corporate balance sheets, shifting some of the funding burden to debt from equity when interest rates are at generational lows is a no-brainer. Even so, non-financial corporates have not added all that much leverage (Chart 16). Low interest rates, wide profit margins and conservative capex have left them with ample free cash flow to service their obligations (Chart 17). Chart 16 (DOUG)Corporations Have Not Added Much Leverage ... Chart 17 (DOUG)...Though They Have Ample Cash Flow To Service It Every single viable corporate entity with an effective federal tax rate above 21% became a better credit when the top marginal rate was cut from 35% to 21%. Every such corporation now has more net income with which to service debt, and will have that income unless the tax code is revised. You can’t see it in EBITDA multiples, but it will show up in reduced defaults. Mathieu: The last, and most important question. What are each of your main investment recommendations to capitalize on the economic trends you anticipate over the coming 6-12 months? Let’s start with the pessimists: Arthur: First, the rally in global cyclicals and China plays since December has been premature and is at risk of unwinding as global growth and cyclical profits disappoint. Historical evidence suggests that global share prices have not led but have actually been coincident with the global manufacturing PMI (Chart 18). The recent divergence is unprecedented. Chart 18 (ARTHUR)Global Stocks Historically Did Not Lead PMIs Second, EM risk assets and currencies remain vulnerable. EM and Chinese earnings per share are shrinking. The leading indicators signal that the rate of contraction will deepen, at least the end of this year (Chart 19). Asset allocators should continue underweighting EM versus DM equities. Finally, my strongest-conviction, market-neutral trade is to short EM or Chinese banks and go long U.S. banks. The latter are much healthier than EM/Chinese ones, as we discussed in our recent report.6  Anastasios: The U.S. Equity Strategy team is shifting away from a cyclical and toward a more defensive portfolio bent. Our highest conviction view is to overweight mega caps versus small caps. Small caps are saddled with debt and are suffering a margin squeeze. Moreover, approximately 600 constituents of the Russell 2000 have no forward profits. Only one S&P 500 company has negative forward EPS. Given that both the S&P and the Russell omit these figures from the forward P/E calculation, this is masking the small cap expensiveness. When adjusted for this discrepancy, small caps are trading at a hefty premium versus large caps (Chart 20). Chart 19 (ARTHUR)China And EM Profits Are Contracting Chart 20 (ANASTASIOS)Continue To Avoid Small Caps We have also upgraded the S&P managed health care and the S&P hypermarkets groups. If the economic slowdown persists into early 2020, both of these defensive subgroups will fare well. In mid-April, we lifted the S&P managed health care group to an above benchmark allocation and posited that the selloff in this group was overdone as the odds of “Medicare For All” becoming law were slim. Moreover, a tight labor market along with melting medical cost inflation would boost the industry’s margins and profits (Chart 21). This week, we upgraded the defensive S&P hypermarkets index to overweight arguing that the souring macro landscape coupled with a firming industry demand outlook will support relative share prices (Chart 22). Chart 21 (ANASTASIOS)Buy Hypermarkets Chart 22 (ANASTASIOS)Stick With Managed Health Care   Dhaval: To be fair, I am not a pessimist. Provided the global bond yield stays well below 2.5 percent, the support to risk-asset valuations will prevent a major dislocation. But in a growth down-oscillation, the big game in town will be sector rotation into pro-defensive investment plays, especially into those defensives that have underperformed (Chart 23). Chart 23 (DHAVAL)Switch Out Of Growth-Sensitives Into Healthcare On this basis: Overweight Healthcare versus Industrials. Overweight the Eurostoxx 50 versus the Shanghai Composite and the Nikkei 225. Overweight U.S. T-bonds versus German bunds. Overweight the JPY in a portfolio of G10 currencies. Mathieu: And now, the optimists: Doug: So What? is the overriding question that guides all of BCA’s research: What is the practical investment application of this macro observation? But Why Now? is a critical corollary for anyone allocating investment capital: Why is the imbalance you’ve observed about to become a problem? As Herbert Stein said, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Imbalances matter, but Dornbusch’s Law counsels patience in repositioning portfolios on their account: “Crises take longer to arrive than you can possibly imagine, but when they do come, they happen faster than you can possibly imagine.” Look at Chart 24, which shows a vast white sky (bull markets) with intermittent clusters of gray (recessions) and light red (bear markets) clouds. Market inflections are severe, but uncommon. When the default condition of an economy is to grow, and equity prices to rise, it is not enough for an investor to identify an imbalance, s/he also has to identify why it’s on the cusp of reversing. Right now, as it relates to the U.S., there aren’t meaningful imbalances in either markets or the real economy. Chart 24 (DOUG)Recessions And Bear Markets Travel Together Even if we had perfect knowledge that a recession would arrive in 18 months, now would be way too early to sell. The S&P 500 has historically peaked an average of six months before the onset of a recession, and it has delivered juicy returns in the year preceding that peak (Table 1). Bull markets tend to sprint to the finish line (Chart 25). If this one is like its predecessors, an investor risks significant relative underperformance if s/he fails to participate in its go-go latter stages. Table 1 (DOUG)The S&P 500 Doesn’t Peak Until Six Months Before A Recession … We are bullish on the outlook for the next six to twelve months, and recommend overweighting equities and spread product in balanced U.S. portfolios while significantly underweighting Treasuries. Peter: I agree with Doug. Equity bear markets seldom occur outside of recessions and recessions rarely occur when monetary policy is accommodative. Policy is currently easy, and will get even more stimulative if the Fed and several other central banks cut rates. Global equities are not super cheap, but they are not particularly expensive either. They currently trade at about 15-times forward earnings. Given the ultra-low level of global bond yields, this generates an equity risk premium (ERP) that is well above its historical average (Chart 26). One should favor stocks over bonds when the ERP is high. Chart 26A (PETER)Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated (I) Chart 26B (PETER)Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated (II) The ERP is especially elevated outside the United States. This is partly because non-U.S. stocks trade at a meager 13-times forward earnings, but it also reflects the fact that bond yields are lower overseas. Chart 27 (PETER)EM And Euro Area Equities Outperform When Global Growth Improves As global growth accelerates, the dollar will weaken. Equity sectors and regions with a more cyclical bent will benefit (Chart 27). We expect to upgrade EM and European stocks later this summer. A softer dollar will also benefit gold. Bullion will get a further boost early next decade when inflation begins to accelerate. We went long gold on April 17, 2019 and continue to believe in this trade.  Rob: For fixed income investors, the most obvious way to play a combination of monetary easing and recovering global growth is to overweight corporate debt versus government bonds (Chart 28). Within the U.S., corporate bond valuations look more attractive in high-yield over investment grade. Assuming a benign outlook for default risk in a reaccelerating U.S. economy, with the Fed easing, going for the carry in high-yield looks interesting. Emerging market credit should also do well if we see a bit of U.S. dollar weakness and additional stimulus measures in China. Chart 28 (ROB)Best Bond Bets: Overweight Global Corporates & Inflation-Linked Bonds European corporates, however, may end up being the big winner if the ECB chooses to restart its Asset Purchase Program and ramps up its buying of European company debt. There are fewer restrictions for the ECB to buy corporates compared to the self-imposed limits on government bond purchases. The ECB would be entering a political minefield if it chose to buy more Italian debt and less German debt, but nobody would mind if the ECB helped finance European companies by buying their bonds. If one expects reflation to be successful, a below-benchmark stance on portfolio duration also makes sense given the current depressed level of government bond yields worldwide. Yields are more likely to grind upward than spike higher, and will be led first by increasing inflation expectations. Inflation-linked bonds should feature prominently in fixed income portfolios, especially in the U.S. where TIPS will outperform nominal yielding Treasuries. Mathieu: Thank you very much to all of you. Below is a comparative summary of the main arguments and investment recommendations of each camp.   Summary Of Views And Recommendations   Anastasios Avgeriou U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Doug Peta Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary The Bank Credit Analyst mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      To be fair to each individual involved, this is simplifying their views. Even within each camp, the negativity or positivity ranges on a spectrum, as you will be able to tell from the debate itself. 2      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Signal Vs. Noise,” dated December 17, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “A Recession Thought Experiment,” dated June 10, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Risk: The Great Misunderstanding Of Finance,” October 25, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 5      France is a good proxy for the euro area. 6      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “On Chinese Banks And Brazil,” available at ems.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights So What? U.S. policy uncertainty adds to a slew of geopolitical reasons to remain tactically cautious on risk assets. Why? U.S. fiscal policy should ultimately bring market-positive developments – though the budget negotiation process could induce volatility in the near-term. We expect spending to go up and do not expect a default due to the debt ceiling or another prolonged government shutdown. Former Vice President Joe Biden remains the frontrunner for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2020. But left-wing progressive candidates are gaining on him and their success will trouble financial markets. With Persian Gulf tensions still elevated, go long Q1 2020 Brent crude relative to Q1 2021. Feature Chart 1U.S. Politics Poses Risks Through Next November Economic policy uncertainty is rising in the United States even as it falls around the world (Chart 1). Ongoing budget negotiations and the Democratic primary election give equity investors another reason to remain cautious in the near term. We expect more volatility. There also remain several persistent global threats to markets posed by unresolved geopolitical risks – rising Brexit risks with Boris Johnson likely to take the helm in the United Kingdom; oil supply threats amid Iran’s latest rejection of U.S. offers to negotiate its missile program; and a major confirmation of our theme of geopolitical risk rotation to East Asia, with Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the South China Sea all heating up at once. In sum, political and geopolitical risks are showing investors a yellow light, even though the macroeconomic outlook still supports BCA’s cyclical (12-month) equity overweight. U.S. Fiscal Policy Will Remain Accommodative While U.S. monetary policy has taken a dovish turn – supported by other central banks – fiscal spending is now coming into focus for investors. We expect the budget battle to be market-relevant this year, injecting greater economic policy uncertainty, but the end-game should be market-positive. Brinkmanship will not get as bad as during the debt ceiling crises of 2011 and 2013, though market jitters will be frontloaded if Pelosi and the White House fail to conclude a deal immediately. Chart 2The 'Stimulus Cliff' Awaits President Trump The U.S. budget process is always rocky and is usually concluded well into the fiscal year under discussion. This year the fight will be more important than over the past few years because, as the two-year bipartisan agreement of 2018 lapses, the so-called “stimulus cliff” looms over the U.S. economy and will get caught up in the epic battle over the 2020 election. The stimulus cliff is the automatic imposition of fiscal spending cuts (“sequestration”) in FY2020 that would take effect as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011. Standard estimates of the U.S. budget deficit expect that the deficit will shrink in 2020 if the spending caps are not raised, resulting in a negative fiscal thrust (Chart 2). The result would be to decrease aggregate demand at a time when the risk of recession is relatively high (Chart 3). Chart 3Recession Odds Still High Over Next 12 Months This is clearly not in President Trump’s interest, since a recession would devastate his reelection odds. Hence, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and other White House officials are pushing for a budget deal before the House of Representatives goes on recess on July 26 and the Senate on August 2. Ideally, an agreement would raise the spending caps, appropriate funds for the rest of the budget, and lift the “debt ceiling,” the statutory limit on U.S. debt. But it would be surprising if a deal came together as early as next week. A failure to agree on a budget deal before Congress goes on recess will make the market increasingly jittery. Congress can cancel the August recess, or wait until September 9 when they reconvene, but a failure to agree on something between now and then will make the market increasingly jittery. The U.S. has already surpassed the current debt limit and the latest estimates suggest that the Treasury Department’s “extraordinary measures” to meet U.S. debt payments could be exhausted by early-to-mid September.1 This would give Congress only a week in September to raise the debt limit. There are three main reasons to expect that the debt ceiling fight will not get out of hand: Chart 4Americans Stopped Worrying And Love Debt First, a technical default on U.S. debt could result in a failure to meet politically explosive obligations, such as sending social security checks to seniors. No one in Washington would benefit from such a failure and President Trump would suffer the most. Second, the public is not as worried about national deficits and debt today as it was in the aftermath of the financial crisis (Chart 4). Democrats, as the pro-government party, do not have an incentive to stage a showdown over the debt like Tea Party Republicans did under the previous administration. To be fair, they did do so in January 2018, but backed off after merely two days due to high political costs. Third, the one budget conflict that could create a catastrophic impasse – funding for Trump’s border wall – can be assuaged by Trump’s use of executive action, as he demonstrated by declaring a national emergency and appropriating military funds for fencing. Trump is fighting a general election in 2020 and is unlikely to use the debt ceiling as leverage to the point that the U.S. defaults on its obligations. The risk to investors, however, is that he goes back to threatening a 25% tariff on Mexico if it fails to staunch the flow of immigrants from Central America. What if the Republicans and Democrats cannot agree on the budget and spending caps? Democrats say they will not raise the debt limit unless they get non-defense spending increases. House Democrats need to reward their constituents for voting for them in 2018 and want to increase non-defense spending at “parity” with increases to defense spending. They also want to reduce the defense increases that Republicans seek in order to pay for non-defense increases. President Trump and the Republicans have a higher defense target and a lower non-defense target. The truth is that the Republicans and Democrats have agreed three times to increase spending caps beyond the levels required under the 2011 law – and they have done so most emphatically under President Trump with the FY2018-19 agreement (Chart 5). This year the two parties stand about $17 billion apart on defense and $30 billion apart on non-defense spending.2 We would expect both sides to splurge on spending and get what they want, but they could also split the difference: the amounts are small but the acrimony between the two parties could extend the talks. Congress may have to pass one or more “continuing resolutions” (stopgap measures keeping spending levels constant) to negotiate further. A continuing resolution could at least raise the debt ceiling and leave the rest of the budget negotiation until later, removing the majority of the political risk under discussion. Is another government shutdown possible? Yes, but not to the extent of early 2019. Trump saw a sharp drop in his approval ratings during the longest-ever government shutdown last year (Chart 6). Brinkmanship could lead to another shutdown, but he is likely to capitulate before it becomes prolonged. In early 2020, he wants to be lobbing grenades into the Democratic primary election rather than giving all of the Democrats an easy chance to criticize him for dysfunction in Washington. Ultimately, Trump can simply refrain from vetoing whatever the House and Senate agree – it is not in his interest to shrink the budget deficit in an election year. The Democrats’ spending increases would boost aggregate demand and are thus in President Trump’s personal interest. Trump is the self-professed “king of debt” – he is not afraid to agree to a deal that will be criticized by fiscal hawks. The latter have far less influence in Congress anyway since the 2018 midterm election. Why should House Democrats extend the economic expansion knowing that it would likely improve President Trump’s reelection chances? Because Trump will capitulate to most of their spending demands; voters would punish them if they are seen deliberately engineering “austerity”; and they need to show voters that they can govern. As for the 2020 race, they will focus on other issues: they will attack Trump on trade and immigration and focus on social policy: health care, the minimum wage, taxes and inequality, climate change, and student debt. What will be the fiscal and economic impact of a budget deal? The budget deal under negotiation ($750 billion in defense discretionary spending, $639 billion in non-defense discretionary spending) would raise the spending cap by about $145 billion – this is slightly above the $112 billion negative fiscal thrust expected in 2020.3 The result is that the U.S. fiscal drag expected in 2020 will at least be eliminated (if not turned into a fiscal boost), helping to prolong the cycle. The removal of fiscal drag will coincide with monetary easing, which is positive for markets since inflation is subdued. The Federal Reserve abandoned rate hikes this year (after four last year) because of the asymmetric risk of deflation relative to inflation (Chart 7). The FOMC believes that they can always jack up interest rates to combat an inflation overshoot, as their predecessors did in the 1980s, but that they are constrained by the zero lower-bound in interest rates. They may never recover from a loss of credibility and collapse of inflation expectations, so an insurance policy is necessary. The result is likely to be one or two rate cuts this year, which has already improved financial conditions. Chart 7The Fed Fears The Asymmetric Threat Of Deflation Bottom Line: Budget brinkmanship could become a near-term source of volatility but it is ultimately likely to be resolved with the pro-market outcome of less fiscal drag in 2020. The debt ceiling debate is unlikely to result in a U.S. default and any government shutdown is likely to resemble the short one of 2018 more than the long one of 2019. We expect U.S. equities to grind higher over the 12-month cyclical horizon, but we remain exceedingly cautious on a three-month tactical horizon. The price of Trump’s capitulation on border funding could be a renewed threat of tariffs against Mexico. The Budget Deal, Geopolitics, And The Dollar Chart 8China Shifts From Reform To Stimulus What does this fiscal outlook imply for the U.S. dollar? Near-term moves will probably be negative, since the fiscal boost outlined above will not be comparable to 2018-19, and meanwhile our view on China’s stimulus is bearing out reasonably well (Chart 8). Improvements in global growth, Fed cuts, and rising oil prices will weigh on the greenback even though later we expect the dollar to recover on the back of renewed U.S.-China conflict and global recession in 2021 or thereafter. Beyond the recession, two of our major political and geopolitical themes continue to point to large downside risk to the dollar: populist politics and multipolarity, or geopolitical competition among the world’s great powers. Beyond the recession, two of our major political and geopolitical themes continue to point to large downside risk to the dollar: populist politics and multipolarity. Populism and the Fed: Domestically, the United States is seeing a rise in populism that is continuing across administrations and political parties. This is conducive to easier monetary policy. Left-wing firebrand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (AOC) recent exchange with Fed Chairman Jay Powell highlights the trend. AOC asked one of the most frequent questions that BCA’s clients ask: Does the Phillips Curve still work? Powell answered that in recent years it has not. President Trump’s Economic Director Larry Kudlow applauded AOC, saying “she kind of nailed that” (obviously the administration is pushing for lower rates). If inflation is not a risk, monetary policy need not guard against it. This interchange should be taken in the context of President Trump’s attempts to jawbone Powell into rate cuts and the notable monetary promiscuousness of his ostensibly “hard money” Federal Reserve nominees. The extremely different ideological and institutional profiles of these various policymakers suggests that a new consensus is forming that is conducive to more dovish monetary policy than otherwise expected over the long run. Populists of any stripe, from Trump to AOC, would like to see lower interest rates, higher nominal GDP growth, and a lower real debt burden on households. We are reminded of an oft-overlooked point about the stagflation of the 1970s. Fed Chair Arthur Burns is usually depicted as a lackey of President Richard Nixon who succumbed to political influence and failed to raise interest rates adequately to fight inflation. But this is only part of the story. Leaving aside that the Fed only had a single mandate of minimizing unemployment at that time, Burns was conflicted. He saw the need to fight inflation, but he had more than Nixon’s wrath to fear. He also dreaded the impact on the Fed’s credibility and popular support as an institution if he hiked rates too aggressively and stoked unemployment (Chart 9).4 Chart 9Rate Hikes Are Hard To Defend Amid High Unemployment In other words, populism can constrain the Fed from the bottom up as well as from the top down in a context of rising unemployment.5 Multipolarity and Currency War: Since President Trump’s election we have highlighted that dollar depreciation is likely to be the administration’s ultimate aim if President Trump’s overall economic strategy is truly to stimulate growth, reduce the trade deficit, and repatriate manufacturing. Jacking up growth rates relative to the rest of the world while disrupting global trade via tariffs is a recipe for a strong dollar that undermines the attempt to bring jobs back from overseas. We have always argued that China would not grant the U.S. “shock therapy” liberalization and market opening – and that neither China, nor Europe, nor Japan would or could engage in currency appreciation along the lines of a new Smithsonian or Plaza Accord. The U.S. does not have as much geopolitical clout as it had in the 1970s-80s when it forced major currency deals on its allies and partners. The remaining option is for the U.S. to attempt unilateral depreciation. The combination of profligate spending, easy monetary policy, and populism may do the trick. But it is also possible that President Trump will attempt to engineer depreciation through Treasury Department intervention. If a slide toward recession threatens his reelection – or he is reelected and hence gets rid of the first-term reelection constraint – his unorthodox policies pose a significant risk to the dollar. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar faces near-term risks as growth rebalances towards rest of the world, but will probably resume its rise in the impending recessionary environment and expected re-escalation of tensions with China. Over the long run, it faces severe risks due to fiscal mismanagement, domestic populism, and geopolitical struggle. A Progressive Overshoot Will Hurt Democrats … And Equities Chart 10A Democratic Win Will Weigh On Animal Spirits The Democratic Party’s primary election is also a risk to the equity rally. We see a 45% risk that President Trump will be unseated in November 2020 and hence that the U.S. will once again experience a dramatic policy reversal (as in 2000, 2008, and 2016). The risks are to the downside because the market is at all-time highs and Democratic proposals include raising taxes on corporations and re-regulating the economy (Chart 10). Whether you accept our 55% odds of Trump reelection, the race will be a continual source of uncertainty for investors going forward. How extreme is the uncertainty? Former Vice President Joe Biden remains the frontrunner in the race, though he has lost his initial bump in opinion polls (Chart 11). Biden’s success is market-positive relative to the other Democratic candidates since he is an establishment politician and a known quantity. Given his age, a Biden presidency would likely last for one term and focus on repudiating Trumpism and consolidating the Obama administration’s signature achievements (the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, environmental regulation, etc). Greater predictability in the health care sector and a return to lower-level tensions with Iran would be market-positive. The financial sector would be consoled by the fact that nothing worse than Dodd-Frank would be in the offing. A Biden victory would be more likely to yield Democratic control of the senate than a progressive candidate’s victory.6 This means that the risk of Democrats taking full control of government and passing more than one major piece of legislation after 2020 increases with Biden. Yet any candidate capable of defeating Trump is likely to take the senate in our view; and Biden’s legislative initiatives are likely to be more centrist.7 So as long as Biden remains in the lead in primary polling, he increases his chances of winning the nomination, maximizes the 45% chance of Democrats winning the White House, and decreases the intensity of the relative policy uncertainty facing markets. The risk to the Democrats is … a left-wing or progressive overshoot that knocks out Biden in the primary, replacing him with a progressive candidate who may not be as electable in the general election.  The risk to the Democrats is that the leftward policy shift within the party (Chart 12) may lead to a left-wing or progressive overshoot that knocks out Biden in the primary, replacing him with a progressive candidate who may not be as electable in the general election. This would give President Trump the ability to capitalize on his advantage as the incumbent by inveighing against socialism. Most of the major progressive candidates are electable – they have a popular and electoral path to the White House – as revealed by their successful head-to-head polling against Trump in battleground state opinion polling (Chart 13). But these pathways are narrower than Biden’s. Biden is the only candidate whose name has been on the ballot in two presidential elections carrying the critical Rust Belt swing states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (not to mention Ohio and Florida). He is from Pennsylvania. And he is more competitive than most of his rivals in the American south and southwest, giving him the potential to pick up Florida or Arizona in the general election. But none of this matters if Biden cannot win the Democratic nomination first. The risk of a progressive overshoot is growing at present. Biden is losing his lead in the primary polling, as mentioned. Progressive candidates taken together are polling better than centrists, contrary to previous Democratic primaries (Chart 14). This is true even if we define centrists broadly, for instance to include Buttigieg (Chart 15). Biden is in a weaker position than Hillary Clinton in 2007 – and the more progressive candidate Obama ultimately defeated her (Chart 16). Biden has now slipped to second place in one national poll and some state polls. The second round of Democratic debates on July 30-31 will be a critical testing period for whether Biden can maintain frontrunner status. The first round fulfilled our expectation of boosting the progressives at his expense, especially Elizabeth Warren. It surprised us in dealing a blow to the campaign of Bernie Sanders, the independent Senator from Vermont who initiated the progressive left’s surge with his hard-fought race against Hillary Clinton in 2016. Sanders is more competitive than the other progressives in the Rust Belt, and in the general election, based on his head-to-head polling against Trump. Yet he has fallen behind in recent Democratic primary polling, ceding ground to Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg, who are all his followers in some sense. The second debate is a critical opportunity for him to arrest the loss of momentum. Otherwise he is likely to be fatally wounded: a collapse in polling beneath his floor of about 15%, and relative to other progressives, despite extensive name recognition, will make it very difficult for him to recover in the third round of debates in September. His votes will go toward other progressives, particularly Buttigieg – the other white male progressive-leaning candidate who is competitive in the Midwest.8 Our 55% base case that Trump is reelected rests on the high historical reelection rate for incumbents, particularly in the event of no recession during the first term – yet discounted due to Trump’s relatively low nationwide popularity, as it is reminiscent of a president in a recessionary environment (Chart 17). Trump has his ideological base more fired up than Obama did (Chart 18), which helps drive voter turnout, although as a result he risks losing support from the rest of the population. Still, Trump’s approval rating is in line with Obama’s at this stage in his first term. As long as the economy holds up and Trump does not suffer a foreign policy humiliation, he should be seen as a slight favorite. A Trump victory is not positive for risk assets, aside from a relief rally on policy continuity. This is because in a second term he cannot reproduce the same magnitude of pro-market effects (huge tax cuts and deregulation) yet, freed from the need for reelection, he has fewer political constraints in producing higher magnitude anti-market effects (tariffs and/or sanctions on China, Iran, Russia, and possibly the EU and Mexico). This view dovetails with the BCA House View which remains overweight equities relative to bonds and cash over a cyclical (12 month) horizon but underweight over the longer run with the expectation that a recession will loom. Bottom Line: The Democratic Primary election should start having an impact on markets – the general election is likely to be too close for market participants to have a high conviction, driving up uncertainty. Uncertainty will be especially pronounced if, and as, leftwing or progressive candidates outperform in the primary races and poll well against Trump in the general election. This dynamic is negative for business sentiment and the profit outlook, especially if Biden’s polling falls further in the wake of the second debate. Investment Conclusions We recommend staying long JPY-USD, long gold, and short CNY-USD. We remain overweight Thai equities within emerging markets, a defensive play. And we would not close our tactical overweight in health care sector and health care equipment sub-sector relative to the S&P 500. The rally in Chinese equities – despite China’s Q2 GDP growth rate of 6.2%, the worst in 27 years – brings full circle the view we initiated in April 2017 that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power would result in a major deleveraging drive that would drag on the global economy. Since February we have argued that the U.S. trade war has pushed Chinese policymakers to favor stimulus over reform – but we have also maintained that the effectiveness of stimulus is declining, especially as a result of the trade war hit to sentiment. Nevertheless, as a result of this turn in Chinese policy – along with the turn in U.S. monetary and fiscal policy – we see the global macroeconomic outlook improving. Combining this view with ongoing tensions in the Persian Gulf and the expectation that oil markets will tighten, we recommend our Commodity & Energy Strategy’s trade of going long Brent crude Q1 2020 versus Q1 2021.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See U.S. Department of Treasury, “Secretary Mnuchin Sends Debt Limit Letter to Congress,” July 12, 2019, home.treasury.gov. Jordan LaPier, “New Projection: Debt Limit “X Date” Could Arrive in September,” July 8, 2019, bipartisanpolicy.org. 2 See Jordain Carney and Niv Elis, White House, Congress inch toward debt, budget deal,” July 17, 2019, thehill.com. 3 See the Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2019 to 2029,” January 2019; “Final Sequestration Report for Fiscal Year 2019,” February 2019; and Theresa Gullo, “Discretionary Appropriations Under the Budget Control Act,” Testimony before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, February 27, 2019, www.cbo.gov. 4 See James L. Pierce, “The Political Economy of Arthur Burns,” The Journal of Finance 34: 2 (1979), pp. 485-96, esp p. 489 regarding a congressional testimony: “Interestingly, no questions were raised or innuendo offered that monetary expansion would be excessive to support Richard Nixon’s reelection efforts. Instead, Burns was urged by the Democrats to follow an expansionary monetary policy in order to reduce the level of unemployment.” See also Athanasios Orphanides and John C. Williams, “Monetary Policy Mistakes and the Evolution of Inflation Expectations,” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Working Paper 2010-12 (2011), www.frbsf.org. 5 An analogy might be drawn with the Supreme Court, whose independence as one of three constitutional branches is much more firmly grounded in U.S. law than the Fed’s, but nevertheless cannot make decisions in an ivory tower. It must consider the effects of its judgments on popular opinion, since universally deplored decisions would reduce the court’s credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the public over time and ultimately the other government branches’ adherence to those decisions. 6 This is both because Biden is more electable (thus more likely to bring a vice president who can break a tie vote in the senate) and because his candidacy can help Democrats in all of the senate swing races – for example, Arizona as well as Colorado and Maine. Harris is not as helpful in Maine while Warren and Sanders are not as helpful in Arizona. 7 Biden would return to the 39.6% top marginal individual tax rate and double the capital gains tax on those earning incomes of more than $1 million. See Biden For President, “Health Care,” joebiden.com. 8 Conversely, if Biden somehow collapses, Buttigieg unlike Sanders has the option of moving toward the political center to absorb Biden’s large reservoir of support.

Special Report

Highlights Mutual Funds & ETFs: The liquidity mismatch between easily tradeable mutual fund shares and the less liquid underlying corporate bonds makes it possible for negative feedback loops to emerge between fund flows and corporate bond spreads. The growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond market should be seen as a risk that could exacerbate future periods of spread widening, leading to worse economic outcomes. BBB Securities: The large amount of outstanding BBB debt could lead to fire sales from corporate bond holders with investment grade-only mandates when the debt is downgraded to junk. However, in contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, the evidence shows that the negative price pressure from fallen angel fire sales is fleeting. Leveraged Loans: The rapid surge in leveraged loans has been partially offset by reduced high-yield issuance, helping mitigate a potentially destabilizing rise in all riskier corporate debt. At the same time, bank exposure is focused on the safest CLO tranches, limiting the potential systemic risks from bank losses. Feature In April, we published a Special Report that investigated whether corporate debt poses a risk to the U.S. economy.1 That report focused on what economic theory and empirical evidence say about the relationship between corporate debt and future economic growth. We arrived at the following conclusions: The empirical evidence decisively shows that private (household + business) debt helps predict future economic outcomes. Some evidence shows that household debt is more important than corporate debt in this regard. In contrast to mainstream economic theory, the level of private debt-to-GDP does not help predict future economic outcomes. Rather, it is rapid private debt growth that is linked to more severe economic downturns. Ebullient credit market sentiment is also shown to predict weak economic growth. Tight credit spreads should be viewed as a warning sign, similar to rapid private debt growth. In this follow-up Special Report, we consider three credit market developments that are unique to this cycle: The large ownership stake of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the U.S. corporate bond market. The elevated amount of BBB-rated debt outstanding relative to other credit tiers. The rapid issuance of leveraged loans. All three of these developments could mediate the relationship between corporate debt and economic growth, potentially increasing risks to the economy. We consider each factor in turn. 1. Fund Flows One unique feature of the current cycle is that open-ended mutual funds and ETFs own a much larger share of outstanding corporate bonds than in the past. Back in 1990, insurance companies and pension funds were the largest holders of corporate debt, controlling 54% of the market. Meanwhile, open-ended funds owned a paltry 3%. Since then, fund ownership has surged to 16%, mostly at the expense of financial institutions, insurance companies and pensions. Foreign holdings of U.S. corporate bonds have also increased during this period, from 13% of the market to 28% (Charts 1 & 2). Chart 2Mutual Funds Now An Important Market Player Why Does Fund Ownership Matter? We focus on fund ownership of corporate bonds because it has been theorized that flows into and out of open-ended mutual funds can have a similar impact on market prices as leverage, amplifying price moves in either direction. As described in a 2014 paper by Feroli, Kashyap, Shoenholtz, and Shin:2 [W]hen asset flows for certain fixed income securities are high, prices persistently rise and a feedback loop emerges. High flows lead to rising prices, which attract more flows, which further raises prices. Obviously, the proposed feedback loop also works in reverse: Outflows cause prices to decline, and lower prices lead to further outflows. This sort of feedback loop is unique to mutual funds. Insurance companies and pension funds, for example, do not experience investor capital flight in response to a near-term price drop. This makes the larger presence of mutual funds in the corporate bond market potentially destabilizing. Fund ownership has surged to 16%, from a paltry 3% back in 1990. Why Do Fund Flows Behave This Way? Mutual fund shares are much more liquid than the corporate debt securities they hold. As described in a 2017 paper by Goldstein, Jiang and Ng:3 When [mutual] fund investors redeem their shares, they get the net asset value as of the day of redemption. The fund then has to conduct costly liquidation that hurts the value of the shares for investors who keep their money in the fund. Hence, the expected redemption by some investors increases the incentives for others to redeem. In other words, during times of stress, mutual fund investors have an incentive to withdraw their money before other fund shareholders get the chance. Otherwise, they could be stuck holding a basket of illiquid corporate bonds. This bank-run like behavior is well documented for corporate and municipal bond funds, though it appears not to exist for funds that traffic in more liquid instruments, such as Treasuries and equities. In fact, when Goldstein et al looked at how flows into and out of individual corporate bond and equity funds respond to past fund performance, they found that the Flow-Performance curve for an individual corporate bond fund exhibits a pronounced concave shape. Meanwhile, the same curve for an individual equity fund is convex (Chart 3). This means that corporate bond mutual fund shareholders are quick to redeem their shares in response to poor fund performance, while equity fund shareholders are more inclined to stand pat. On the flipside, positive fund performance leads to large equity fund inflows, but doesn’t attract capital to corporate bond funds to the same extent. The above results apply to individual funds, but Goldstein et al also performed the same analysis for corporate bond funds in the aggregate. That is, rather than measuring whether investors sold a particular corporate bond mutual fund in response to its poor performance, they measured whether investors exited the corporate bond mutual fund space altogether in response to poor corporate bond performance. Interestingly, they found a very similar result (Chart 4). Investors are inclined to exit the corporate bond space entirely following periods of poor performance. Meanwhile, they found no relationship between aggregate equity fund flows and performance. Investors might switch between different equity funds in response to recent performance trends, but they don’t exit the asset class altogether.   These results provide a clear indication for why the large presence of corporate bond mutual funds might be destabilizing. Corporate bond fund investors are quick to flee the space during periods of poor performance. For more liquid securities, such as equities and Treasuries, a large mutual fund presence in the market is not a concern, since flows do not respond as aggressively to price shocks. Empirical Evidence For The Flow-Performance Feedback Loop The evidence presented above shows that fund flows respond to performance, but for the theorized feedback loop between fund flows and corporate bond prices to exist, we also need evidence that fund flows impact corporate bond performance. In that regard, a 2019 Banque de France working paper examines the impact of aggregate flows into French corporate bond funds on the yields of the underlying securities.4 It finds that not only do flows impact yields contemporaneously, but also that outflows have a larger influence on yields than inflows. Using a different methodology, a 2015 paper by Hoseinzade finds no material impact of fund flows on underlying corporate bond yields, but for an interesting reason.5 The paper confirms that corporate bond fund shareholders demonstrate bank-run like behavior in response to poor performance, but also argues that “bond fund managers hold a significant level of liquid assets, allowing them to manage redemptions without excessively liquidating corporate bonds.” Chart 5Funds Deploy Cash Before Selling Bonds It’s true that corporate bond mutual funds often hold significant allocations to cash and U.S. Treasuries, and Hoseinzade shows that fund managers tend to discharge their most liquid holdings first, before attempting to sell corporate bonds. This result lines up with our casual observation. Chart 5 shows the aggregate liquid asset (cash and Treasury) holdings of corporate bond mutual funds. It is apparent that they tend to fall during periods of spread widening. We also note that corporate bond mutual funds, in aggregate, currently hold about 6% of their assets in liquid securities. This buffer can probably withstand a sizeable shock, but liquid assets fell from similar levels into negative territory during each of the past two recessions. One other factor that could help break the feedback loop between fund flows and prices is the institutional ownership of corporate bond mutual funds. Goldstein et al find that mutual funds mostly owned by institutional investors exhibit less of a feedback loop between flows and performance. That is, large institutional investors are less likely to redeem their shares in response to a bout of poor performance. While we don’t have data on corporate bond mutual fund ownership specifically, Federal Reserve data reveal that insurance companies and pension funds own a significantly larger proportion of outstanding mutual fund shares than in the 1990s, though less than they did in the mid-2000s (Chart 6). Note that Chart 6 shows data for all mutual funds, including equity funds, Treasury funds, etc… Chart 6Institutional Ownership Of Mutual Funds We conclude that there is enough evidence of a feedback loop between fund flows and corporate bond prices that we should be wary of the growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond space. Cash holdings and institutional ownership can help mitigate negative flow/performance feedback loops to some extent, but probably shouldn’t be counted on in the event of a severe shock. What’s The Economic Impact? In our corporate debt Special Report from April, we postulated that changes in corporate bond spreads might, themselves, cause an economic downturn, rather than simply reflect one. The mechanism is summarized nicely by Lopez-Salido, Stein and Zakrajsek (2016):6 [a] sentiment-driven widening of credit spreads amounts to a reduction in the supply of credit, especially to lower credit-quality firms. It is this reduction in credit supply that exerts a negative influence on economic activity. With that in mind, in the current environment it seems very possible that an initially sentiment-driven credit spread widening could be exacerbated by outflows from corporate bond mutual funds. A larger shock to credit spreads leads to a larger reduction in credit supply and a more severe economic impact. Aggregate liquid asset holdings of corporate bond mutual funds tend to fall during periods of spread widening. Bottom Line: The liquidity mismatch between easily tradeable mutual fund shares and the less liquid underlying corporate bonds makes it possible for negative feedback loops to emerge between fund flows and corporate bond spreads. The growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond market should be seen as a risk that could exacerbate future periods of spread widening, leading to worse economic outcomes. 2: BBB Debt Outstanding Chart 7The Large Amount Of BBB Debt It has been widely reported that an unusually large amount of outstanding corporate bonds are rated BBB, the lowest credit rating that is still considered investment grade. In fact, the par value of BBB-rated securities now makes up 50% of the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade index, up from 21% in 1990 (Chart 7). The amount of outstanding BBB securities is more than double the par value of the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index, and BBBs represent 41% of the total combined par value of the investment grade and high-yield indexes. The reason to be wary about the large amount of outstanding BBB debt is that when the credit cycle turns and ratings downgrades start to occur, a larger than normal amount of debt will be downgraded from investment grade into high-yield. When that happens, any investors with an investment grade-only mandate will be forced to sell. The concern is that such forced selling could set off a negative feedback loop very similar to the one discussed in the first section. An added layer of risk comes from the fact that in addition to investment grade-only mutual funds, insurance companies and pension funds – who still control 35% of the corporate bond market (see Chart 2 on page 3) – are often burdened with larger capital costs for high-yield debt. This means that a very large pool of investors could be impacted by a spate of BBB downgrades. In terms of the potential market impact, a 2010 paper by Ellul, Jotikasthira and Lundblad investigated fire sales of downgraded corporate bonds induced by regulatory constraints.7 The authors found that insurance companies often engage in the forced selling of bonds that have been recently downgraded into high-yield. Further, the downgraded bonds experience negative near-term price pressure from the fire sale, but that pressure tends to reverse after a few months. The finding that the negative price pressure is fleeting is important. In contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, BBB securities can only be downgraded to high-yield once. In other words, once the initial fire sale of fallen angel debt takes place, there is no mechanism to force the downward price pressure to continue.8 Bottom Line: The large amount of outstanding BBB debt could lead to fire sales from corporate bond holders with investment grade-only mandates when the debt is downgraded to junk. However, in contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, the evidence shows that the negative price pressure from fallen angel fire sales is fleeting. 3. Leveraged Loans The rapid growth of leveraged loans – lending made to below investment-grade borrowers - over the past couple of years has caught the attention of global central banks and financial regulators. That concern is understandable, as it would be a dereliction of duty for any policymaker or regulator who lived through the 2008 financial crisis to not consider the potential risks to financial stability and future economic growth from a surge in lower quality lending. This is especially true given the increase in the number of securitized instruments linked to leveraged loans – collateralized loan obligations, or CLOs – which evokes memories of the toxic subprime mortgage products that helped trigger the 2008 crisis. Although as the Fed’s Vice Chair for Supervision, Randal Quarles, recently noted, the financial media has been overplaying the leveraged loan story in such a way that it felt like “the Earth must be getting hit by an asteroid.” The BoE estimates that the CLOs would have to suffer a loss more than twice as severe as seen during the 2008 financial crisis for the AAA-rated piece of CLOs issued in 2018 to incur losses. The leveraged loan and CLO markets can be opaque. However, based on the information we do have from credible sources like central banks, the IMF and the BIS, some conclusions can be made about the potential economic risks from the rapid build-up of U.S. leveraged loans: Leveraged loan expansion has been partially offset by high-yield contraction. Chart 8More Leveraged Loans, Less Junk Bonds Based on estimates from the BIS and IMF, there are around $1.4 trillion in U.S. leveraged loans outstanding, which is greater than the $1.2 trillion U.S. high-yield bond market (Chart 8). That is an all-time high in the dollar amount of leveraged loans, as well as for the share of all lower-rated corporate debt accounted for by loans. The annual growth rate of U.S. leveraged loans is now a whopping 29% - the fastest pace seen since 2007. Yet the growth of the total amount of leveraged loans plus high-yield bonds is a much lower 12%. While that is still a large number, it is below the peak growth rates seen during the past fifteen years. This is because the amount of high-yield bonds outstanding has been modestly contracting since 2015. Much of that run-up in leveraged loan growth has been to satiate the demand for loans created by private equity funds and, more importantly, CLOs. The strong risk appetite from investors resulted in a notable deterioration in lending standards, with loans coming out at higher leverage multiples (debt/EBITDA) and with reduced investor covenant protection. Yet since lower-rated companies were not ramping up high-yield bond issuance at the same time, the economic stability risks from a rapid run-up in total riskier borrowing are lower, on the margin. The ownership structure of leveraged loans (and CLOs) is diverse enough to not create systemic problems. To date, the Bank of England (BoE) has compiled the most detailed estimates of the ownership breakdown of both leveraged loans and CLOs.9 In Chart 9, we have recreated a chart from the BoE’s July 2019 Financial Stability Report, which colorfully shows the ownership of global leveraged loans and CLOs. The way to read the chart is that each square represents a 1% share of the estimated $3.2 trillion of global leveraged loans and CLOs. The split in the chart is 75% loans and 25% CLOs (CLO ownership is shown on the right side of the thick dotted line). The biggest category of leveraged loan investor is what the BoE titled “U.S. and other global banks”, a group that represents 38% of total loans and CLOs. European banks own 12%, U.K. banks own 3% and Japanese banks own 3% (entirely through CLOs), thus bringing the global bank exposure to 56% of all leveraged loan instruments. While that sounds like a large number, the majority of that is in the form of revolving credit facilities – effectively, overdraft facilities to lower-rated borrowers. Revolving credit facilities are typically less risky than leveraged loans, because credit facilities have greater covenant protection and even more seniority in terms of creditor claims on borrower assets. The BoE estimates that 40% of all global leveraged loans and CLOs are owned by non-bank investors. This includes pension funds, insurance companies and investment funds (mutual funds and ETFs). Chart 9 shows how much more diverse the investor base is for CLOs than for other leveraged loans. It suggests that any future potential losses from CLOs will be distributed more evenly within the financial system, rather than being concentrated in the banks. Chart 10Leveraged Loan Losses Are Typically Lowered Compared To Junk Even within the bank holdings of CLOs, the systemic risks are lessened. The BoE noted that the increased amount of subordination (i.e. lower-rated tranches) of more recent CLO deals helps protect the senior tranches from losses. According to the BoE, the AAA-rated piece of a representative sample of CLOs issued in 2018 was 63%; this compares to 70% for CLOs issued in 2006.10 Furthermore, the central bank estimates that the CLOs would have to suffer a loss more than twice as severe as seen during the 2008 financial crisis for the AAA-rated piece of CLOs issued in 2018 to incur losses. That would be an extraordinary outcome, given how 2008 generated losses on leveraged loans that were over twice as bad as the previous worst year in 2002 (Chart 10). Potential losses from AAA tranches are important from a financial stability perspective. The BoE estimates that 40% of all CLOs are owned by global banks (including a large 13% share from yield-chasing Japanese banks). These banks tend to focus on safer AAA-rated CLO tranches. The demand for leveraged loan products is volatile, but that might actually be a good thing for economic stability. The surge in leveraged loans over the past two years has not only been related to demand from private equity funds and CLOs. U.S. retail investors have also been big buyers of mutual funds and ETFs linked to the leveraged loan market, as a way to seek out higher credit returns against a backdrop of Fed rate hikes. Chart 11Fed Rate Expectations Drive The Demand For Loans Vs Bonds Leveraged loans are floating rate instruments. Thus, they are more desirable than fixed-rate high-yield corporate debt when short-term interest rates are rising. This is seen in Chart 11, where we show net flows into the largest U.S. junk bond and leveraged loan ETFs. These flows are plotted with the JP Morgan survey of bond investor duration positioning (top panel) and our Fed Funds Discounter that measures the market-implied expected change in the fed funds rate over the next year (bottom panel). The conclusion is obvious – there was very strong retail demand for floating-rate leveraged loans over fixed-rate junk bonds during 2016-18 when expected rate hikes justified defensive duration positioning. In 2019, the tables have turned. The Fed is more dovish, rate cuts are now expected, investors have been adding duration exposure, and demand for leveraged loan funds has plunged while high-yield bond funds have been seeing inflows. The exodus from all leveraged loan funds has been historically large, with Lipper reporting that there were 33 straight weeks of outflows to July 3, 2019, for a total of $32 billion.11 Already, that reduced demand for leveraged loans has translated into sharply reduced issuance of new U.S. CLOs, which was 73% lower in the first half of 2019 versus the same period in 2018 (Chart 12). At the same time, high-yield bond issuance was up 20% in the first six months of 2019 versus 2018. The reduced demand for leveraged loans has also shifted the balance of power back to lenders, as the share of U.S. leveraged loans that have been issued with limited covenant protection (“cov-lite”) has plunged from 72% in 2018 to around 40% (Chart 13). Chart 12Lower-Rated Issuance Is "Self-Regulating" Chart 13Reduced Covenant-Lite Issuance So Far In 2019     This is a critical point on the potential stability risks from leveraged loans – the market for those loans is “self-regulating”, based on final demand from investors who “toggle” between floating rate and fixed rate credit instruments. This helps limit the growth in overall corporate indebtedness, helping to put off the date when credit booms turn into future credit busts. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Risk From U.S. Corporate Debt: Theory And Evidence”, dated April 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2     https://www.nowpublishers.com/article/DownloadEBook/9781680834864?format=pdf 3     http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~itayg/Files/bondfunds-published.pdf 4     https://ideas.repec.org/p/bfr/banfra/706.html 5     https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5a60feab84a7d10de084abfce414b5888d5586e2.pdf 6     https://www.nber.org/papers/w21879 7     https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/55a4/8602b17bc7e7f8428695ab6a3ef2c87756ab.pdf 8      Corporate bonds that are downgraded from investment grade to high-yield are called fallen angels. 9      The Financial Stability Board, the international body that monitors and makes recommendations on the global financial system, is due to publish a comprehensive analysis of the ownership structure of the leveraged loan market in the autumn of 2019. 10     For a more detailed description of this analysis, see pages 28 & 29 of the Bank of England’s July 2019 Financial Stability report, which can be found here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/financial-stability-report/2019/july-20… 11     https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/leveraged-loan-news/leveraged-loan-fund-withdrawal-streak-hits-record-33-weeks-totaling-32b  

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Recession odds continue to tick higher, according to the NY Fed’s probability of recession model, at a time when global growth is waning, U.S. profit growth is contracting and the non-financial ex-tech corporate balance sheet is degrading rapidly. On a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon we remain cautious on the broad equity market. This is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view, which stands in contrast to the more sanguine equity BCA House View. The souring macro backdrop coupled with a firming industry demand outlook signal that more gains are in store for hypermarket stocks. The global growth slowdown, declining real bond yields, missing inflation, rising policy uncertainty and a favorable relative demand backdrop suggest that there is an exploitable tactical trading opportunity in a long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P pair trade. Recent Changes Upgrade the S&P hypermarkets index to overweight, today. Initiate a long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas exploration & production (E&P) pair trade, today Table 1 Feature Obsession with the Fed easing continues to trump all else, with the SPX piercing through the 3,000 mark to fresh all-time highs last week. However, it is unrealistic for the Fed to do all the heavy lifting for the equity market as we have argued recently (see Chart 3 from June 24),1 at a time when profit cracks are spreading rapidly. This should be cause for some trepidation. Since the Christmas Eve lows essentially all of the 26% return in equities is explained by valuation expansion. The forward P/E has recovered from 13.5 to nearly 17.2 (Chart 1). There is limited scope for further expansion as four interest rate cuts in the coming 12 months are already priced in lofty valuations. Now profits will have to do the heavy lifting. But on the eve of earnings season, more than half of the S&P 500 GICS1 sectors are forecast to have contracted profits last quarter, and three sectors could not lift revenue versus year ago comps, according to I/B/E/S data. Looking further out, there is a plethora of indicators that we highlighted last week that suggest that a profit recession is looming.2 Our sense is that once the euphoria around the looming Fed easing cycle settles, there will be a massive clash between perception and reality (Chart 2) that will likely propagate as a surge in volatility. Chart 1Multiple Expansion Explains All Of The SPX’s Return Chart 2Unsustainable Divergence This addiction to low rates has come at a great cost to the non-financial corporate sector. As a reminder, this segment of the economy is where the excesses are in the current cycle as we have been highlighting in recent research.3 Using stock market related data for the non-financial ex-tech universe, net debt has increased by 70% to $4.2tn over the past five years, but cash flow has only grown 18% to $1.7tn. As a result, net debt-to-EBITDA has spiked from 1.7 to 2.5, an all-time high (Chart 3). While stocks are at all-time highs (top panel, Chart 3), the debt-saddled non-financials ex-tech universe will likely exert substantial downward pressure to these equities in the coming months (Chart 4). Chart 3Balance Sheet Degrading Chart 4Something’s Got To Give Moving on to the labor market, we recently noticed an interesting behavior between the unemployment rate and wage inflation since the early-1990s recession: a repulsive magnet-type property exists where like magnetic poles repel each other (middle panel, Chart 5). In other words, every time the falling unemployment rate has kissed off accelerating wage growth, a steep reversal ensued at the onset of recession during the previous three cycles. A repeat may be already taking place, as average hourly earnings (AHE) growth has been stuck in the mud since peaking in December 2018. Importantly, the AHE impulse is quickly losing steam and every time the Fed embarks on an aggressive easing cycle it typically marks the end of wage inflation (bottom panel, Chart 5). Chart 5Beware Of Repulsion Chart 6Waiting For Growth Meanwhile, BCA’s global manufacturing PMI diffusion index has cratered to below 40% (middle panel, Chart 6). Neither the G7 nor the EM aggregate PMIs are above the boom/bust line (top panel, Chart 6). Our breakdown of the Leading Economic Indicators into G7 and EM14 also signals that global growth is hard to come by, albeit EMs are showing some early signs of a trough (bottom panel, Chart 6). As the early-May announced increase in Chinese tariffs begin to take a toll, we doubt global growth can have a sustainable recovery for the rest of 2019, despite Chinese credit growth picking up. Now, even Japan and Korea are fighting it out and are erecting barriers to trade, dealing a further blow to these economically hyper-sensitive export-oriented economies. Netting it all out, the odds of recession by mid-2020 continue to tick higher according to the NY Fed’s model (NY Fed’s probability of recession shown inverted, top panel, Chart 5) at a time when global growth is waning, U.S. profit growth is contracting and the non-financial ex-tech corporate balance sheet is degrading rapidly. On a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon we remain cautious on the broad equity market. This is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view, which stands in contrast to the more sanguine equity BCA House View. This week we are upgrading a consumer staples subgroup to overweight and initiating an intra-commodity market neutral trade. Time To Buy The Hype The tide is shifting and we are upgrading the S&P hypermarkets index to an above benchmark allocation. While valuations are stretched, trading at a 50% premium to the overall market on a 12-month forward P/E basis (not shown), our thesis is that these Big Box retailers will grow into their pricey valuations in the coming months.  The macro landscape is aligned perfectly with these defensive retailers. Consumer confidence has been falling all year long and now cracks are spreading to the labor market (confidence shown inverted, top panel, Chart 7). ADP small business payrolls declined for the second month in a row. Similarly, the NFIB survey shows that small business hiring plans are cooling (hiring plans shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 7). As a reminder, 2/3 of all new hiring typically occurs in the small and medium enterprise space. In the residential real estate market, the drop in interest rates that is now in its eighth month has yet to be felt, and house price inflation has ground to a halt. Historically, Costco membership growth has been inversely correlated with house prices (house price inflation shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Deteriorating Macro Backdrop … Chart 8…Is A Boon To Hypermarkets… Chart 8 shows three additional macro variables that signal brighter times ahead for the relative share price ratio. The drubbing in the 10-year U.S. treasury yield reflects a souring macro backdrop, melting inflation and a steep fall in U.S. economic data surprises. The ISM manufacturing index that continues to decelerate and is now closing in on the boom/bust line corroborates the bond market’s grim message. Tack on the Fed’s expected four cuts in the coming 12 months, and factors are falling into place for a durable rally in relative share prices. This disinflationary backdrop along with the Fed’s looming easing interest rate cycle have put a solid bid under gold prices. Hypermarket equities and bullion traditionally move in lockstep, and the current message is to expect more gains in the former (top panel, Chart 9). On the trade front specifically, these Big Box retailers do source consumer goods from China, but up to now these imports have been nearly immune to the U.S./China trade dispute as prices have been deflating (import prices shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 9). However, this does pose a risk going forward and we will be closely monitoring it for two reasons: First, because downward pressures may intensify on the greenback and second, President Trump may impose additional tariffs, both of which are negative for industry pricing power. Chart 9Profit Margins… Chart 10…Will Likely Expand Meanwhile, industry demand is on the rise and will likely offset the potential trade and U.S. dollar induced margin pressures. Hypermarket retail sales are climbing at a healthy clip outpacing overall retail sales (bottom panel, Chart 10). Already non-discretionary retail sales are outshining discretionary ones, which is a precursor to recession at a time when overall consumer outlays have sunk below 1% (real PCE growth shown inverted, top panel, Chart 10). The implication is that hypermarkets will continue to garner a larger slice of consumer outlays as the going gets tough. In sum, the souring macro backdrop coupled with a firming industry demand outlook signal that more gains are in store for hypermarket stocks. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P hypermarkets index to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5HYPC – WMT, COST. Initiate A Long Global Gold Miners/Short S&P Oil & Gas E&P Pair Trade One way to benefit from the global growth soft-patch and looming global liquidity injection is to go long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P stocks on a tactical three-to-six month basis. While this market neutral and intra-commodity pair trade has already enjoyed an impressive run, there is more upside owing to a favorable macro backdrop. The key determinant of this share price ratio is the relative move in the underlying commodities that serve as pricing power proxies (top panel, Chart 11). Given the massive currency debasement potential that has gripped Central Banks the world over, such a flush liquidity backdrop will boost the allure of the shiny metal more so than crude oil. Global manufacturing PMIs are foreshadowing recession and our diffusion index has plummeted to the lowest level since 2011 (diffusion shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 11). In the U.S. specifically there is a growth-to-liquidity handoff and the ISM manufacturing survey’s new order versus prices paid subcomponents confirms that global gold miners have the upper hand compared with E&P equities (bottom panel, Chart 11). Chart 11Global Soft-Patch… Chart 12…Disinflation… As a result of this growth scare that can easily morph into recession especially if the U.S./China trade war continues into next year, inflation is nowhere to be found. Unit labor costs are slumping (top panel, Chart 12), the NY Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge has rolled over decisively (not shown),4 and the GDP deflator is slipping (middle panel, Chart 12).      Parts of the yield curve first inverted in early-December and the 10-year/fed funds rate slope is still inverted, signaling that gold miners will continue to outperform oil producers (yield curve shown on inverted scale, bottom panel, Chart 13). The near 100bps dive in real interest rates since late-December ties everything together and is a boon to bullion (and gold producers) that yields nothing (TIPS yield shown inverted, top panel, Chart 13). Meanwhile, bond volatility has spiked of late and the bottom panel of Chart 14 shows that historically the MOVE index has been joined at the hip with relative share prices. Chart 13…Melting Real Yields And… Chart 14…The Spike In Bond Vol, All Favor Gold Miners Over Oil Producers On the relative demand front, we peer over to China to take a pulse of the marginal moves in these commodity markets. China (and Russia) has been aggressively shifting their currency reserves into gold, and bullion holdings are rising both in volume terms and as a percentage of total FX reserves. In marked contrast, oil demand is feeble and Chinese apparent diesel consumption that is closely correlated with infrastructure and manufacturing activity has tumbled. Taken together, the message is to expect additional gain in relative share prices (middle & bottom panels, Chart 15). Adding it all up, the global growth slowdown, declining real bond yields, missing inflation, rising policy uncertainty and a favorable relative demand backdrop suggest that there is an exploitable tactical trading opportunity in a long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P pair trade. Bottom Line: Initiate a tactical long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P pair trade on a three-to-six month time horizon with a stop at the -10% mark. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: GDX:US and BLBG – S5OILP – COP, EOG, APC, PXD, CXO, FANG, HES, DVN, MRO, NBL, COG, APA, XEC, respectively. Chart 15Upbeat Relative Demand Backdrop   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Cracks Forming” dated June 24, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Beware Profit Recession” dated July 8, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “A Recession Thought Experiment” dated June 10, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/underlying-inflation-gauge   Current Recommendations Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights A lower fed funds rate will not necessarily boost equities, … : A chorus of Wall Street strategists has recently advised investors to curb their enthusiasm about looming rate cuts. … because stocks are more sensitive to the relative level of the fed funds rate than they are to its direction: The Street strategists’ advice is sound, even if they haven’t homed in on its true rationale. Monetary policy’s influence on equity returns is primarily a function of the fed funds rate’s relationship to the equilibrium rate, not the direction in which it’s moving. Monetary policy settings remain accommodative, in our view, … : We estimate that the equilibrium fed funds rate remains well above the target fed funds rate. One or two rate cuts will push monetary policy even further into accommodative territory. ... and investors should therefore remain at least equal weight equities: Over the last 60 years, investors would have done exceptionally well if they had simply owned stocks when monetary policy settings were easy, and avoided them when they were tight. Feature Dear Client, We are in the midst of collaborating with several of our colleagues on a roundtable Special Report outlining the view differences between BCA’s most bullish and bearish strategists, scheduled to be published on Friday, July 19th. In the absence of a major event between now and then, the July 19th roundtable report will replace the July 22nd U.S. Investment Strategy. We will return to our usual format on Monday, July 29th. Best regards, Doug Peta U.S. equities have rallied smartly since Fed officials began hinting at rate cuts in early June. The S&P 500 advanced nearly 7% last month on rate cut hopes, and tacked on close to another 2% by making new highs in each of July’s first three sessions. As the gains grew, however, so too did the admonitions from equity strategists at leading broker-dealers that they were getting out of hand. Over the last month, no less than four shops wrote reports warning that rate cuts will not necessarily boost equities. From the financial media’s summaries of the reports, the curb-your-enthusiasm conclusion stems from a straightforward analysis of rate-cut impacts over the last 35 years. According to Goldman Sachs by way of Barron’s, the S&P 500 posted double-digit returns in the year following the start of all five of the rate-cutting cycles that occurred from the mid-eighties to the end of the nineties, before performing terribly following the cuts that began in 2001 and 2007.1 The Street-wide takeaway was that rate cuts worked wonders for stocks when the Greenspan put was still a fresh concept, but the inverse relationship between interest rates and equity multiples that initially prevailed has since been supplanted by a direct relationship. It is surely true that rate cuts are not a magic bullet for equities, but we find the flipped-correlation hypothesis wanting. There is more to the question of how monetary policy impacts equities than just the direction of rates. The state of monetary policy – accommodative or restrictive – matters, too. Even though assessments of the state of policy are necessarily uncertain, they allow for a much more sophisticated analysis of policy impacts. Without estimating the equilibrium fed funds rate, an investor cannot go beyond simple observations of the correlation between policy rates and equity returns to the causal interactions that drive the observed correlations. Numerators And Denominators When an investor buys a stock, s/he is buying a pro rata claim on the future earnings of the company that issued it. The value of that claim is a function of the company’s estimated future earnings and the interest rate used to discount them. Expressed as an equation, the fundamental value of a share of stock is as follows, where r is the reference interest rate: Year 1 Earnings + Year 2 Earnings + Year 3 Earnings + … + Year n Earnings          (1+r)                    (1+r)2                              (1+r)3                                 (1+r)n That equation can be simplified and rewritten as: Fundamental Value = ∑nt=1(Year t Earnings)                                               (1+r)t It’s a stretch to think that equities’ reaction to rate cuts reversed after the year 2000. The final form of the equation shows that the underlying value of a share of stock is directly related to its future earnings and inversely related to interest rates. When the broker-dealer analyses conclude that the ‘80s-‘90s inverse relationship between stock prices and rate cuts has flipped since the turn of the millennium, they’re asserting that the relative sensitivities of stock prices to changes in the numerator (earnings) and the denominator (interest rates) have changed. That’s a mouthful, but the effect can be seen clearly by holding the numerator constant: if earnings don’t change, stock prices are inversely related to changes in interest rates. Relaxing the constant earnings assumption, the inverse relationship between rate cuts and stock prices in the ‘80s and ‘90s could only have occurred if earnings rose when the Fed cut, or if earnings fell when the Fed cut rates, but not so much that they offset the beneficial impact of the reduction in the discount rate. An Empirical Curveball When investors think about the impact of changes in interest rates on stock prices, they tend to assume that earnings remain constant. They therefore conclude that lower rates are good for stocks and higher rates are bad for them. The underlying assumption is flawed, however, because it ignores the fact that earnings are themselves a function of the macro backdrop that influences interest rates. Rising real interest rates are most often a sign of gathering economic momentum; since the end of World War II, U.S. equities have performed markedly better when real long-term Treasury yields were rising than they have when they were falling (Chart 1). Chart 1Stocks Do Better When Real Rates Rise Investors’ appetite for equities reinforces the direct relationship between earnings and rates, as long as rates are not at extremes. Trailing P/E multiples have risen with real interest rates except when rates are negative or above 4% (Chart 2). When real rates are negative, deflation is a real possibility and fearful investors value future earnings streams conservatively. When they’re above zero, investors have been willing to let multiples rise with real rates, until rates get high enough to squeeze profitability. The key, then, is what is going to happen with real yields if the Fed does indeed cut rates. Will 50 basis points (“bps”) of incremental accommodation (we expect 25-bps cuts in July and September) help to extend the expansion, or will it be too little, too late to impede the course of a recession that’s already begun? In the former case, economic growth will get a boost, and real yields and corporate earnings will go along for the ride. In the latter, the economy will contract, drawing real yields and corporate earnings into its vortex. We believe monetary policy is still squarely accommodative, and therefore have both feet planted firmly in the bullish camp. The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Our fed funds rate cycle framework helps us to assess the line of demarcation between accommodative and restrictive policy settings and thereby project the direction of corporate earnings following rate cuts. To refresh, we decompose the fed funds rate cycle into four phases based on the interaction between the level of rates and their direction (Diagram 1), as follows: Diagram 1The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Phase I represents the early stage of the withdrawal of monetary stimulus. This phase begins with the first rate hike of a new tightening cycle and ends when the fed funds rate crosses above our estimate of the equilibrium rate. Phase II represents the latter stages of the tightening cycle, when the Fed hikes its target rate above equilibrium in a deliberate effort to cool an overheating economy. Phase III represents the early stage of the easing cycle. It begins with the first rate cut from the peak and lasts until the Fed cuts its target rate below equilibrium. Phase IV represents the late stage of the easing cycle. It encompasses both the period when the fed funds rate falls from below its equilibrium level to its cycle trough and the subsequent adjustment period when the Fed remains on hold in an effort to kick start an economic recovery. Plotting the course of the fed funds rate is a simple matter; the challenge in Diagram 1 comes in deciding where to draw the dashed line. That decision requires estimating the policy rate that neither encourages nor discourages economic activity. Our equilibrium estimate, which uses potential GDP growth to adjust a smoothed and filtered long-run series of the actual fed funds rate, can be viewed as a line in the sand separating the point where monetary policy goes from encouraging activity to discouraging it. When the funds rate is above our estimate of equilibrium, we consider policy to be tight; when it’s below our estimate of equilibrium, we consider policy to be easy. Since equilibrium is a concept, rather than an observable objective data point, we have to look at the broad sweep of economic activity to infer whether or not our equilibrium estimate is accurate. As we’ve repeatedly written, we interpret the economic data received so far this year as indicating that the U.S. economy is decelerating from its stimulus-fueled 2018 surge, but is on track to meet or exceed its long-term potential growth pace of 2 - 2.25%. We therefore do not believe that policy is tight, and that a recession has already begun, or is in the offing. Recession? What About Stock Prices? We didn’t forget about stock prices. Markets are always our primary focus, and we study the economy for insight into how it might impact their direction. The business cycle is a robust link connecting the state of monetary policy with equity performance. In the 60 years covered by our equilibrium fed funds rate estimate, recessions have only occurred when the funds rate has exceeded our estimate of equilibrium (Chart 3). Equity bear markets typically coincide with recessions – Black Monday in October 1987 is the only instance of a bear market occurring independently of a recession in the last half-century. Chart 3Recessions Only Occur When Policy Is Tight For 60 years, stocks have thrived when monetary policy is easy and staggered when it is tight. S&P 500 performance across the four phases of the fed funds rate cycle reveals that it has been the level of rates vis-à-vis the equilibrium rate that has mattered for equity returns, not the direction. Annualized nominal S&P 500 price returns have been nine percentage points higher when policy is easy than when it is tight (Table 1), and the disparity widens to ten-and-a-half percentage points after adjusting for inflation (Table 2). The disparity is even more pronounced when the Fed is cutting rates – annualized Phase IV price returns beat Phase III by eleven percentage points on a nominal basis, and by thirteen-and-a-half percentage points on a real basis. Table 1Stocks Love Easy Policy, ... Table 2… Especially After Adjusting For Inflation Our base case is that the FOMC will cut the fed funds rate by 25 bps at its July and September meetings. The investment strategy question arising from our base-case scenario is what will that mean for equities? With reference to the dot-com bust and the financial crisis, the broker-dealers say, “nothing much.” We posit that a more sophisticated answer would consider the monetary-policy climate in which the cuts occur. Reduce equity exposure if you believe the Fed went too far hiking rates last year, but maintain/increase it if you think monetary policy has always remained accommodative. 60 years of history say that incremental accommodation will boost equities if it occurs against a backdrop of already easy policy. The S&P 500 will decline, on the other hand, if the monetary policy starting point is restrictive.2 In terms of our fed funds rate cycle framework, the equity market outcome turns on whether the cuts occur in Phase III or Phase IV. We estimate that the equilibrium rate is currently in the neighborhood of 3¼%, so we have a high level of conviction that equities will spend the rest of the year in Phase IV, the rate cycle phase that has been most conducive to equity outperformance. Investment Implications From the perspective of our monetary policy cycle framework, positioning a balanced portfolio for impending rate cuts boils down to one’s take on current monetary policy settings. If one thinks the Fed’s already tightened policy enough to squeeze the economy, s/he should sell stocks. (Some of our BCA colleagues advocate that course, and we will share the stage with them in next week’s roundtable Special Report). If one thinks, like we and the overall BCA consensus do, that the Fed hasn’t yet crossed the easy/tight Rubicon and is on a course to push the date when it will out to 2021 or beyond, one should maintain his/her equity positions and consider adding to them.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Hough, Jack, “The ‘Fed Put’ Is Kaput and Interest Rate Cuts Might Hurt Stocks,” Barron’s, July 1, 2019. 2 Remember that monetary policy impacts the economy with a lag. Cuts ameliorating too-tight policy don’t have an effect until after the initial overtightening makes its way through the system.

Special Report

Highlights Our intermediate-term timing models are not sending any strong signals at the moment. That means the balance of forces could tilt the greenback in either way, in what appears to be a stalemate for the U.S. dollar so far.  We are maintaining a pro-cyclical currency stance, but have a few portfolio hedges in the event we are caught offside in what could be a volatile summer. Stay long petrocurrencies versus the euro. Remain short USD/JPY. Also hold a short basket of gold bullion versus the yen. Feature Chart 1Major Peak In The Bond-To-Gold Ratio Regular readers of our publication are well aware that we have maintained a pro-cyclical stance over the past few months, a view that has been underpinned by a few tectonic forces moving against the U.S. dollar. The reality is that the DXY index has been stuck in a broad range of 96 to 98 for most of this year, failing to decisively breakout or breakdown in what has largely been an extremely frustrating stalemate for traders. Our rationale for a breakdown in the dollar was outlined in a Special Report 1 we penned in March, and the arguments still hold true today (Chart 1).    Over the next few weeks, we will be going back to the drawing board to see if and where we could be offside in this view. We start this week with a review of our intermediate-term timing models. Back in 2016, we developed a set of currency indicators to help global portfolio managers increase their Sharpe ratio in managing currency exposure. The idea was quite simple: For every developed-world country, there were three key variables that influenced the near-term path of its exchange rate versus the U.S. dollar. Interest Rate Differentials: Under the lens of interest rate parity, if one country is expected to have lower interest rates versus another one, the incumbent’s currency will fall today so as to gradually appreciate in the future and nullify the interest rate advantage. This sounds vaguely familiar for the U.S. dollar. Inflation Differentials:  Assuming no transactional costs, the price of sandals cannot be relatively high and rising in Mumbai versus Auckland. Either the Indian rupee needs to fall, the kiwi rise, or a combination of the two has to occur to equalize prices across borders. This concept originated from the School Of Salamanca in 16th century Spain, and still applies to this day in the form of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). Risk factor: Exchange rates are not government bonds in that few treasury departments and central banks can guarantee a par value on them. Ergo, the ebb and flow of risk aversion will have an impact on the Norwegian krone as well as the yen. Gauging the balance of forces for this risk is important. For all countries, the variables are highly statistically significant and of the expected signs. These models help us understand in which direction fundamentals are pushing the currency. We hereto refer to these as Fundamental Intermediate-Term Models (FITM). Including the momentum variable helps fine-tune the models. Real rate differentials, junk spreads and commodity prices remain statistically significant and of the correct sign.  A final adjustment is one for momentum. Including a 52-week moving average for each cross helps fine-tune the models for trend. Real rate differentials, junk spreads and commodity prices remain statistically very significant and of the correct sign. They are therefore trend- and risk-appetite adjusted UIP-deviation models. These models are more useful as timing indicators on a three- to nine-month basis, as their error terms revert to zero much faster. We refer to these as Intermediate-Term Timing Models (ITTM). For the most part, our models have worked like a charm. On a risk-adjusted return basis, a dynamic hedging strategy based on our ITTMs has outperformed all static hedging strategies for all investors with six different home currencies since 2001.2 Even in the very long run of 41 years – from August 1976 – a simple momentum-based dynamic hedging strategy outperforms static ones for investors with five home currencies, with only the AUD portfolio being worse off. These results give us confidence to continue running these models as a sanity check for our ever-shifting currency biases. The U.S. Dollar Chart 2No Major Mispricing In The U.S. Dollar Chart 3More Upside Is Possible The approach for modelling the U.S. dollar was twofold. First, we estimated the fair value of each of the DXY constituents, and reconstructed an index based on DXY weights – a bottom-up fair-value DXY, if you will. Second, we ran our three variables against the DXY index. Averaging both approaches gave us similar results to begin with. The dollar is currently sitting in a neutral zone, with two opposing forces holding it in stalemate. The Federal Reserve’s dovish shift is moving real interest rate differentials against the dollar, but budding risk aversion judging from the combination of junk bond spreads and commodity prices are keeping the dollar bid. The call on the dollar will be critical for currency strategy, and our bias is that a breakdown is imminent based on the bond-to-gold ratio. That said, the breakdown will require the final pillars of dollar support to crack, which would come from a nascent rebound in global growth and/or an easing in the dollar liquidity shortage. We will be watching these developments like hawks. The Euro Chart 4No Major Mispricing In The Euro Chart 5EUR/USD Is Not Particularly Cheap The model results for the euro are the mirror image of the dollar, with no evidence of mispricing. What is interesting about the euro, however, is that the biggest buy signal was generated in 2015, and since then the fair value has exhibited a series of higher-lows and higher-highs. In short, it appears the euro has been in a low-conviction bull market since 2015. The Treasury-bund spread is the widest it has been in decades, and it is fair to say that some measure of mean reversion is due. The standard dilemma for the euro zone is that interest rates have always been too low for the most productive nation, Germany, but too expensive for others such as Spain and Italy. As such, the euro has typically been caught in a tug-of-war between a rising equilibrium rate of interest for Germany, but a very low neutral rate for the peripheral countries. The silver lining is that the European Central Bank has now finally lowered domestic interest rates and eased policy to the point where they are accommodative for almost all euro zone countries. The drop in the euro since 2018 has also eased financial conditions and made euro zone companies more competitive. This is a tailwind for European stocks. Fortunately for investors, European equities, especially those in the periphery, remain unloved, given they are trading at some of the cheapest cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings multiples in the developed world. Earlier this year, analysts began aggressively revising up their earnings estimates for euro zone equities relative to the U.S. If they are right, this could lead to powerful inflows into the euro over the next nine to 12 months.  The Japanese Yen Chart 6Rate Differentials Have Helped The Yen Chart 7JPY Is Slightly Expensive The yen’s fair value has benefitted tremendously from the plunge in global bond yields, which made rock-bottom Japanese rates relatively attractive from a momentum standpoint. That said, relatively subdued risk aversion has constrained upside in the fair value. The message from our ITTM is a moderate sell on the yen, which stands in contrast to our tactically short USD/JPY position. With the BoJ owning 46% of outstanding JGBs, about 75% of ETFs and almost 5% of JREITs, the supply side obviously puts a serious limitation on how much more stimulus the central bank can provide. Total annual asset purchases by the Bank of Japan are currently running at under ¥30 trillion, while JGB purchases are running at ¥20 trillion. This is a far cry from the central bank’s soft target of ¥80 trillion, and unlikely to change anytime soon, given 10-year government bond yields are six points away from the 20 basis-point floor. It looks like the end of the Heisei era has brought forward a well-known quandary for the central bank, which is that additional monetary policy options are hard to come by, since there have been diminishing economic returns to additional stimulus. This puts short USD/JPY bets in an enviable “heads I win, tails I do not lose too much” position.  The British Pound Chart 8Cable Is At Equilibrium Chart 9Political Risk Could Lead To An Undershoot The selloff in the pound since 2015 has been quick and violent, and triggered our stop loss at 1.25 this week. Interestingly, our ITTM does not show any mispricing in the pound’s fair value at the moment, suggesting momentum could shift either way rather quickly. For longer-term investors, there is fundamental support for holding the pound. For one, the pound is below where it was after the 2016 referendum results, yet more people are now in favor of staying in the union. Yes, incoming data in the U.K. has softened, but employment growth has been holding up very well, wages are inflecting higher and the average U.K. consumer appears in decent shape. This suggests that gilt yields should be higher than current levels, solely on the basis of domestic fundamentals. Our bulletin last week3 provided an ERM roadmap for the pound, and the conclusion is that we could be quite close to a floor. That said, valuation confirmation from our ITTM would have been a nice catalyst, which is not currently the case. As such, we are standing aside on the pound for now. The Canadian Dollar Chart 10Loonie Is Trading At A Discount Chart 11A Rise In Crude Oil Will Be Bullish USD/CAD is slightly overvalued from a fundamental perspective, but our ITTM is squarely sitting close to neutral. Going forward, movements in the Canadian dollar will be largely dictated by interest rate differentials and crude oil prices, which for now remain supportive. Canadian data has been firing on all cylinders of late, so it was no surprise that Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz decided to keep interest rates on hold this week. Risks from the slowdown in global trade remain elevated, but easier monetary policy around the world should help. Developments in the oil patch should also be increasingly favorable as mandatory production curtailments in Alberta are eased. Notably, Canadian exports to the U.S. are near record highs. Housing developments have been uneven, with Halifax, Montreal and Ottawa seeing robust housing markets versus softer data elsewhere. That said, solid gains in labor income should sustain housing investment and growth. As for the loonie, the tailwinds remain favorable because 1) the Fed is expected to be more dovish over the next 12 months, which should tilt interest rate differentials in favor of the loonie, and 2) crude oil prices should remain well anchored in the near term on the back of geopolitical tensions, which will favor the loonie. The caveat is of course that global (and Canadian) growth bounces back by 2020 into 2021 as the BoC expects. The Swiss Franc Chart 12The Franc Value Is Fair Chart 13The Franc Has Been A Dormant Currency For most of the past decade, the Swiss franc has tended to be a dormant currency, interspersed by short bouts of intense volatility. That is reflected in the ITTM, which has not deviated much from zero over this time. The current message is that USD/CHF is slightly undervalued, a deviation that remains within the margin of error. A unifying theme for the franc is that it has tended to stage big moves near market riot points. That makes it attractive as a portfolio hedge, given no major evidence of mispricing today. With Swiss bond yields at already low levels, any downward pressure on global rates will boost the franc’s fair value. Meanwhile, Swiss prices are rising at a 0.6% annual rate, while U.S. prices are rising at a 1.6% clip, suggesting the franc is getting incrementally cheaper relative to its fair value. The message from Swiss National Bank Chair Thomas Jordan has been very clear: Interest rates could be lowered further, along with powerful intervention in the foreign exchange market, if necessary. This suggests that in the near term, the preference for the SNB is for a stable exchange rate. The issue is that market forces have occasionally dictated otherwise, especially during riot points. With the S&P 500 at record highs and corporate spreads both in the U.S. and euro area historically low, we may be approaching such a riot point soon, which will support the franc.  The Australian Dollar Chart 14AUD Trading Tightly With Fundamentals Chart 15No Major Mispricing In AUD Our ITTM for the Australian dollar sits notoriously close to fair value at most times, making opportunistic buys or sells in the Aussie rather difficult. The current message is that the AUD/USD is sitting squarely at fair value, meaning a move in either direction is fair game.  On the surface, most data points appear negative for the Aussie dollar. Typical reflation indicators such as commodity prices and industrial share prices are soft after a nascent upturn earlier this year. This suggests that so far, policy stimulus in China has not been sufficient to lift global growth, and/or the transmission mechanism towards higher growth is not working. That said, the latest Reserve Bank of Australia interest rate cut might be the ultimate insurance backstop needed to jumpstart the Australian economy. More importantly, fiscal policy is set to become decisively loose this year. The new government introduced income tax cuts this month. This is skewed towards lower-income households, meaning the fiscal multiplier may be larger than what the Australian economy is normally accustomed to. Infrastructure spending will also remain high, which will be very stimulative for growth in the short term. One bright spot for the Aussie dollar has been rising terms of trade. In recent months, both steel and iron ore prices have been soaring. Many commentators have attributed these increases to supply bottlenecks and/or seasonal demand. However, it is evident from both Chinese manufacturing data and the trend in prices that demand is also playing a role. We remain long AUD/USD with a tight stop at 68 cents.  The New Zealand Dollar Chart 16NZD Fair Value Has Been##br## Falling Chart 17NZD Cross Reflects Deteriorating Fundamentals Like the AUD, our ITTM for the NZD is sitting squarely at fair value. That said, we believe fundamentals are likely to shift against the NZD in the near-term. This warrants holding long AUD/NZD and SEK/NZD positions. Our bias is that failure to cut interest rates at the last policy meeting might have been a mistake by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand – one that will be reversed with more interest rate cuts down the line. Since 2015, the market has been significantly more dovish on Australia relative to New Zealand, in part due to a more accelerated downturn in house prices and a significant slowdown in China. The reality is that the downturn in Australia has allowed some cleansing of sorts, and brought it far along the adjustment path relative to New Zealand. We may now be entering a window where economic data in New Zealand converges to the downside relative to Australia, the catalyst being a foreign ban on domestic home purchases. The Norwegian Krone Chart 18NOK Is Cheap Chart 19A Rise In Crude Oil Will Be Bullish Our fundamental model for the Norwegian krone shows it as squarely undervalued. This favors long NOK positions, which we have implemented via multiple crosses in our bulletins. The Norges Bank is the most hawkish G10 central bank, which means interest rate differentials are likely to continue moving in favor of the krone. And with oil prices slated to rise towards year-end, this will also underpin NOK valuations. The Norwegian economy remains closely tied to oil, with the bottom in oil prices in 2016 having jumpstarted employment growth, business confidence and wage growth. With inflation near the central bank’s target and our expectation for oil prices to grind higher, we agree with the central bank’s assessment that the future path of interest rates is likely higher. Near $20/bbl, the discount between Western Canadian Select crude oil and Brent has narrowed, but remains wide. This has typically pinned the CAD/NOK lower. The NOK also tends to outperform the SEK when oil prices are rising, in addition to the benefit from a positive carry. The Swedish Krona Chart 20SEK Is Cheap Chart 21A Bounce In Global Growth Will Be Bullish Both our ITTM and FITM for the Swedish krona show the cross as cheap. Our high-conviction view is that the Swedish krona will be the biggest beneficiary from a rebound in global growth. For now, we are long SEK/NZD but are looking to add on to SEK positions once more evidence emerges that global growth has bottomed. The USD/SEK and NZD/SEK crosses tend to be highly correlated, since the SEK has a higher beta to global growth than the kiwi (Sweden exports 45% of its GDP versus 27% in New Zealand). On a relative basis, the Swedish economy appears to have bottomed relative to that of the U.S., making the SEK/NZD an attractive way to play USD downside. Meanwhile, the carry cost of being short NZD is lower compared to being short the U.S. dollar.    Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Tug Of War, With Gold As Umpire", dated March 29, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy / Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report titled, "Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? – A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors (Part II)", dated October 13, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and gaa.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading", dated July 5, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights Analysis on Indonesia starts below. The U.S. dollar is a counter-cyclical currency – it exhibits a negative correlation with the global business cycle. Ongoing weakness in the global economy – which is emanating from China/EM – will support the dollar in the coming months. Meanwhile, the greenback is only loosely correlated with U.S. interest rates. Thereby, the argument that lower U.S. rates will drive the value of the U.S. currency much lower is overemphasized. A new trade: Long gold / short equal amounts of copper and oil. Feature Chart I-1The Dollar's Technicals Are Still Positive As we argued in last Week’s Report, emerging markets are facing a make-it-or-break-it moment. The U.S. dollar will serve as a litmus test. If the dollar pushes higher, EM risk assets will sell off. Conversely, if the greenback breaks down, EM risk assets will stage a sustainable cyclical rally. The basis of why the dollar will be a litmus test for EM risk assets is because the greenback is a counter-cyclical currency. It appreciates when global growth is relapsing and depreciates when global growth is reviving. In contrast, EM risk assets are pro-cyclical.  Hence, the negative correlation between EM risk assets and the dollar stems from their opposite-reaction functions to the global business cycle. Notably, despite plunging U.S. interest rates and the risk-on mode in global financial markets, the dollar has so far held up relatively well. In particular, the dollar’s advance-decline has also been holding above its 200-day moving average (Chart I-1, top panel). Critically, our composite momentum indicator for the broad trade-weighted dollar has not declined below zero (Chart I-1, bottom panel). All of the above affirm the U.S. currency’s relative resilience. When a market exhibits resilience relative to the headwinds it is facing, it is often a bullish sign. Our EM strategy takes its cues from the fact that the greenback has softened but has not broken down. An upleg in the trade-weighted dollar is consistent with our view of a pending relapse in EM risk assets. The Dollar: Review Of Indicators There are a wide range of indicators that herald further U.S. dollar appreciation: Liquidity in the U.S. dollar interbank market has been tightening. The top panel of Chart I-2 demonstrates that the effective fed funds rate has exceeded the interest rate that the Fed pays to banks on excess reserves (IOER) for the first time since 2009 (herein the difference between the two is referred to as the spread). The bottom panel of the same chart illustrates that in the periods when this spread is rising, the dollar tends to appreciate, and when the spread is flat or falling (the shaded intervals), the greenback weakens. Notably, despite plunging U.S. interest rates and the risk-on mode in global financial markets, the dollar has so far held up relatively well. A positive, rising spread reflects a shrinking supply of U.S. dollar liquidity in the interbank market relative to demand. Notably, Chart I-3 illustrates that the dollar - inverted in this chart - is more strongly correlated with U.S. banks’ excess reserves at the Fed than with interest rates. This implies that the argument that lower rates will drive down the value of the greenback is exaggerated. Chart I-2Another Dollar Positive Factor Chart I-3Do U.S. Rates Drive The Dollar? Chart I-4Investors Are Long EM Currencies Vs. Dollar One of the oft-cited headwinds facing the dollar is positioning, yet there is a major discrepancy between positioning in DM and EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar. In aggregate, investors - asset managers and leverage funds - have neutral exposure to DM currencies, such as the Swiss franc, the euro, GBP, JPY, AUD, NZD and CAD versus the U.S. dollar, but they are massively long the liquid EM exchange rates such as the BRL, MXN, ZAR and RUB versus the greenback (Chart I-4). Remarkably, various emerging market currencies have rebounded to major technical resistance levels but have not yet broken out, despite a dramatic decline in U.S. interest rates and the risk-on phase in global financial markets (Chart I-5). It remains to be seen whether they can stage a decisive breakout. We have our doubts. Chart I-5AEM Currencies Have Not Yet Broken Out Chart I-5BEM Currencies Have Not Yet Broken Out   Finally, one aspect where we differ from the consensus is in terms of currency valuations. The U.S. dollar is not very expensive. According to unit labor costs based on the real effective exchange rate – the best currency valuation measure – the greenback is only one standard deviation above its fair value (Chart I-6). Often financial markets tend to overshoot to 1.5 or 2 standard deviations below or above their historical mean before reversing their trend. In aggregate, investors - asset managers and leverage funds - have neutral exposure to DM currencies, such as the Swiss franc, the euro, GBP, JPY, AUD, NZD and CAD versus the U.S. dollar, but they are massively long the liquid EM exchange rates such as the BRL, MXN, ZAR and RUB versus the greenback. Bottom Line: BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy service maintains that the path of least resistance for the dollar is still up. Global Growth Conditions Are Still Conducive For Dollar Strength As discussed previously, the U.S. dollar is a counter-cyclical currency – it exhibits a negative correlation with the global business cycle (Chart I-7). Meanwhile, it is only loosely correlated with U.S. interest rates, as shown in the bottom panel of Chart I-3 on page 3. Chart I-6The U.S. Dollar Is Only Moderately Expensive Chart I-7The U.S. Dollar Is Counter-Cyclical   The Fed will cut rates by more than what is currently priced in the market only in a scenario of a complete collapse in global growth. Yet, this scenario would be dollar bullish. In this case the dollar’s strong inverse relationship with global growth will outweigh its weak positive relationship with interest rates. The Fed will cut rates by more than what is currently priced in the market only in a scenario of a complete collapse in global growth. So far, neither economic data nor the performance of cyclical segments within financial markets are signaling a meaningful amelioration in the global business cycle: Global cyclical sectors’ relative performance against the global overall equity index is lingering close to its December lows (Chart I-8). This measure of global cyclicals is composed of equal-weighted share prices of global industrials, materials and semiconductors. Further, this global cyclical equity index has not outperformed 10-year U.S. Treasurys (Chart I-9). It is difficult to envision a looming global economic recovery when global cyclical equities are failing to outperform even government bonds. Chart I-8Global Cyclical Sectors Have Not Outperformed Chart I-9Global Cyclical Sectors Versus U.S. Bonds   The Chinese manufacturing PMI import sub-component – a leading indicator of Chinese imports – foreshadows renewed weakness in the EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan currencies (Chart I-10). In turn, the Korean won and Taiwanese dollar are also vulnerable as China is by far their largest export destination, and their shipments to the mainland continue to shrink rapidly. Further, odds are high that the RMB will depreciate, dragging down the KRW and TWD along with it. Japanese foreign machinery tool orders and German industrial orders are in deep contraction, and have not improved even on a rate-of-change basis (Chart I-11, top and middle panels). Meanwhile, China’s imports of capital goods are contracting at a double-digit pace (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Chart I-10Chinese Imports Are Key To EM Currencies Chart I-11Global Trade Is Shrinking At A Fast Rate   Chinese auto sales improved dramatically in June, but almost entirely due to hefty price discounts. Such bulky price discounts (up to 50% in certain cases) cannot go on indefinitely. Auto sales will soon tumble as these incentives to purchase expire. While U.S. growth has slowed, it is still holding up better than the rest of the world. Consistently, not only have U.S. large caps been outperforming their global counterparts, but America’s equal-weighted equity index has also been outpacing that of its global peers (Chart I-12). Broad-based U.S. equity outperformance in local currency terms versus the rest of the world denotes U.S. growth outperformance, and heralds another upleg in the greenback. Bottom Line: Persistent weakness in the global economy emanating from China/EM is positive for the dollar because the U.S. economy is the major economic block least exposed to a China/EM slowdown. We continue to recommend a short position in a basket of currencies such as ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR, PHP and KRW against the dollar. We believe gold has made a major breakout. The biggest risk to our dollar-bullish view is not the dollar’s fundamentals, but China’s decision to diversify away from U.S. dollars and U.S. President Donald Trump’s determination to weaken the greenback. We discussed the latter at great length in our August 30, 2018 Special Report, and will deliberate on the former below. Buy Gold / Short Copper And Oil Despite our positive view on the dollar, we believe gold has made a major breakout (Chart I-13). Pairing a long position in gold with shorts in copper and oil will likely deliver solid returns with low volatility in the next three to six months and beyond (Chart I-14). Chart I-12U.S. Equity Outperformance Heralds A Stronger Dollar Chart I-13Gold Is In A Bull Market   Chart I-14Go Long Gold / Short Copper And Oil The primary reason to buy gold is not global inflation. Rather, it is due to China’s decision to accumulate the yellow metal. Unhappy with U.S. pressures and import tariffs, Chinese authorities have decided to materially reduce the share of dollars in their foreign exchange reserves. The People’s Bank of China (PBoC) holds 62 million ounces of gold. Hence, gold holdings represent only 2.8% of the $3.1 trillion stockpile of the PBoC’s total foreign currency reserves (Chart I-15). In contrast, U.S. assets account for 52%. In this regard, the Russian experience could act as a roadmap for Chinese policymakers. Hit by U.S. and EU economic and financial sanctions following Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014, the country decided to accelerate its diversification away from U.S. dollars into gold. Since then, the Russian central bank has continuously boosted its gold holdings, with the yellow metal now accounting for 22% of its foreign currency assets (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Chinese Central Bank's Gold Holdings Chart I-16Russian Central Bank's Gold Holdings   Even if the PBoC accumulates gold at a slower pace than the Russian central bank, the former’s bullion purchases will exert considerable upward pressure on gold prices due to its sheer size. In short, odds are that China’s central bank will be buying gold on any dips. To accommodate such a large buyer, the gold price will need to surge to discourage potential demand from other buyers. In contrast to gold, China’s demand for copper and oil will be subdued from a cyclical perspective. Copper demand will be tame due to weak capital spending growth. Regarding oil, as we argued in our June 21, 2018 report titled, China’s Crude Oil Inventories: A Slippery Slope, the nation has been importing more oil and petroleum products than it has been consuming. As a result, its crude oil inventories have swelled (Chart I-17, top panel). Adding China’s aggregate crude oil inventories to the OECD’s commercial inventories reveals that global inventories have not really declined since 2017 (Chart I-17, bottom panel). Simply put, crude inventories have moved from the OECD to China. Going forward, given both underlying subdued oil demand and elevated crude inventories in China, its oil imports are likely to expand at a slower pace vs. the past five years (Chart I-18). This combined with high net long positions among global investors in crude oil makes us negative on oil prices. This downbeat view on oil differs from BCA’s house view, which is bullish on the commodity. Chart I-17Oil Inventories: China + OECD Chart I-18China's Oil Demand   While we cannot rule out the risk that geopolitical tensions could escalate in the Middle East, we believe the appropriate strategy for investors should be to sell oil on strength. Besides, pairing this strategy with a long position in gold reduces potential drawdowns in the event of an outburst in U.S.-Iran tensions. Bottom Line: We recommend investors initiate the following position: Long gold / short equal amounts of copper and oil. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Indonesia: Treading On Thin Ice Foreign investors have been rushing into Indonesian financial markets on expectations of the Fed cutting rates. As a result, Indonesian financial markets have been more resilient than we expected. While the Fed’s monetary policy is important for Indonesian financial assets, there are other critical drivers of the Indonesian economy and financial markets that investors should take heed of. Namely, global growth and domestic demand. Both factors are currently negative. Cracks are appearing in the Indonesian property market. Persisting exports contraction will keep the country’s current account deficit wide (Chart II-1). A wide current account deficit entails that the rupiah will remain heavily reliant on volatile foreign portfolio inflows. Lesser known but equally important, Indonesia’s domestic demand is anemic. Particularly, the marginal propensity to spend among businesses and consumers is diminishing (Chart II-2). Truck and passenger car sales are contracting, while motorcycle sales are edging closer to contraction (Chart II-3). Chart II-1Indonesian Exports: Double-Digit Contraction Chart II-2Indonesia: Domestic Spending Is Subdued   Critically, cracks are appearing in the Indonesian property market. Residential property prices are rising only by 2% from a year ago in local currency terms (Chart II-4). Additionally, domestic cement consumption is shrinking and revenues of two MSCI-listed real estate companies are also contracting.  Chart II-3Indonesia: Vehicle Sales Are Declining Chart II-4Cracks In Indonesia's Property Sector   Chart II-5Non-Bank Stocks Are Not Rallying Turning to the equity market, Indonesia’s stock market breadth is extremely narrow. The rally of the past several months has been almost entirely led by a few stocks, in particular by Bank Central Asia and Bank Rakyat Indonesia. In fact, these two banks - alone - now account for around 32% of the overall MSCI Indonesia market cap. Meanwhile, the performance of non-financial stocks has been extremely poor (Chart II-5, top panel). As for small cap stocks they are now below their 2016 lows (Chart II-5, bottom panel). This has occurred due to chronically weak profitability among non-financial companies. As for banks, in-line with ongoing deceleration in the real economy, their bad-loan provisions are now rising. Additionally, the aggregate banking system’s net interest margin is still falling. These will hurt banks’ profits. On the whole, the deepening growth slump in Indonesia warrants lower interest rates. Yet, reducing interest rates when faced with a wide current account deficit could trigger currency depreciation. At a certain point – when the frenzy about the Fed’s easing subsides, investors will realize the severity of the ongoing growth downturn in Indonesia and the need for lower rates. When this occurs, the rupiah will depreciate and the currency selloff will spread into equities and bonds. Bottom Line: The risk-reward profile of Indonesian markets is not attractive both in absolute term and relative to their EM peers. Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The onset of a down-oscillation in growth strongly suggests a rotation out of the growth-sensitive Industrials and Materials into the relatively defensive Healthcare sector. But if the sharpest move in bond yields has already happened, it also suggests that Banks might hold up versus other cyclical sectors. New recommendation 1: Overweight Banks versus Industrials. New recommendation 2: Overweight Eurostoxx50 versus Nikkei225. Remain overweight Eurostoxx50 versus Shanghai Composite and neutral versus the S&P500. Feature Chart of the WeekEuro Stoxx 50 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Banks In Euros Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Several decades ago, English football’s top division was a showcase for the top English and British footballers. But not anymore. This year, the top six footballers in the English Premier League hail from Argentina, the Netherlands, Belgium, Senegal, Portugal, plus a token Englishman. Nowadays, if you want to see English or British footballers you have to go to the lower divisions.1  The English Premier League provides a powerful analogy for the FTSE100. Many of the top companies in this blue-chip index have their origins and main businesses outside the U.K. The names say it all: Royal Dutch, Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, British American Tobacco, and so on. Just like in football, if you want stock market exposure to the U.K, you now have to go to the lower divisions: the FTSE250 or the FTSE Small Cap. A view on an economy does not necessarily translate into the same view on its mainstream stock market. The leading companies in the FTSE100 are multinationals, whose sales and profits have a minimal exposure to the economic fortunes of the U.K. This leads to a result which causes investors a great deal of cognitive dissonance: a view on an economy does not necessarily translate into the same view on its mainstream stock market. Picking Stock Markets The Right Way Royal Dutch is neither a Dutch company nor a U.K. company, it is a global company. And the same is true for the vast majority of companies in the FTSE100 and all other major indexes such as the Eurostoxx50, Nikkei225, and S&P500. However, Royal Dutch is most definitely an oil and gas company which moves in lockstep with the global energy sector. Hence, by far the most important performance differentiator for any mainstream equity index is the sector fingerprint that distinguishes the equity index from its peers. Each major stock market has a distinguishing ‘long’ sector in which it contains up to a quarter of its total market capitalisation, as well as a distinguishing ‘short’ sector in which it has a significant under-representation. The combination of this long sector and short sector gives each equity index its distinguishing fingerprint (Table 1): FTSE100 = long energy, short technology. Eurostoxx50 = long banks, short technology. Nikkei225 = long industrials, short banks and energy. S&P500 = long technology, short materials. MSCI Emerging Markets = long technology, short healthcare. Another important factor is the currency. Royal Dutch receives its revenues and incurs its costs in multiple major currencies, such as euros and dollars. In other words, Royal Dutch’s global business is currency neutral. But the Royal Dutch stock price is quoted in London in pounds. Hence, if the pound strengthens, the company’s multi-currency profits will decline in pound terms, weighing on the stock price. Conversely, if the pound weakens, it will lift the Royal Dutch stock price. This means that the domestic economy can impact its stock market through the currency channel. Albeit it is a counterintuitive relationship: a strong economy via a strong currency hinders the stock market; a weak economy via a weak currency helps the stock market. Be Careful With Valuation Comparisons Chart of the Week to Chart I-7 should prove beyond doubt that the sector plus currency effect is all that you need to get right to allocate between these four major regions. The charts show all the permutations of relative performances taken from the S&P500, Eurostoxx50, Nikkei225 and FTSE100 over the last decade. Chart I-2FTSE 100 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Energy In Pounds Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Chart I-3FTSE 100 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Energy In Pounds Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-4FTSE 100 Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 = Global Energy In Pounds Vs. Global Banks In Euros Chart I-5Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Banks In Euros Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Chart I-6Euro Stoxx 600 Vs. MSCI Emerging Markets = Global Healthcare In Euros Vs. Global Technology In Dollars Chart I-7S&P500 Vs. Nikkei225 = Global Tech In Dollars Vs. Global Industrials ##br##In Yen One important implication of sectors and currencies driving stock market allocation is that the head-to-head comparison of stock market valuations is meaningless. Two sectors with vastly different structural growth prospects – say, energy and technology – must necessarily trade on vastly different valuations. So the sector with the lower valuation is not necessarily the better-valued sector. By extension, the stock market with the lower valuation because of its sector fingerprint is not necessarily the better-valued stock market. Likewise, if investors anticipate the pound to ultimately strengthen – because they see that the pound is structurally cheap today – they might downgrade Royal Dutch’s multi-currency profit growth expectations in pound terms and trade the stock at an apparent discount. But allowing for the anticipated decline in other currencies versus the pound there is no discount. It follows that any multinational listed in Europe will give a false impression of cheapness if investors see European currencies as structurally undervalued. Another implication is that simple ‘value’ indexes may not actually offer value. In reality, they comprise a collection of sectors on the lowest head-to-head valuations which, to repeat, does not necessarily make them better-valued. The sector plus currency effect is all that you need to allocate between equity markets. Some people suggest comparing a valuation with its own history, and assessing how many ‘standard deviations’ it is above or below its norm. Unfortunately, the concept of a standard deviation is meaningful only if the underlying series is ‘stationary’ – meaning, it has no step changes through time. But sector valuations are ‘non-stationary’: they do undergo major step changes when they enter a vastly different economic climate. For example, the structural outlook for bank profits undergoes a step change when a credit boom ends. Therefore, comparing a bank valuation after a credit boom with the valuation during the credit boom is like comparing an apple with an orange! The Current Message Last week, we pointed out that current activity indicators are losing momentum, or outright rolling over. The reason being that “both the interest rate impulse and short-term credit impulses are now on the cusp of down-oscillations, which will bear on economies and financial markets in the second half of the year.” This week’s profit warning from BASF supports this analysis. To be clear, this is not a binary issue about recession or no recession. This is just a common or garden down-oscillation in European (and global) growth which tends to happen every 18 months or so with remarkable regularity. Nevertheless, the down-oscillation has a major bearing on sector allocation (Chart I-8) and, therefore, a major bearing on regional equity allocation. Chart I-8Switch Out Of Growth-Sensitives Into Healthcare Based on the major equity index ‘sector fingerprints’ we need to rank the attractiveness of six major global sectors: Materials, Energy, Industrials, Banks, Healthcare, and Technology. In the first half of the year, Industrials outperformed while Banks underperformed. Why? Because Industrials were following the up-oscillation in growth whereas Banks were tracking the bond yield down, as the flattening (or inverting) yield curve ate into their margins. Now, the onset of a down-oscillation in growth strongly suggests a rotation out of the growth-sensitive Industrials and Materials into the relatively defensive Healthcare sector (Chart I-8). But if the sharpest move in bond yields has already happened, it also suggests that Banks might hold up versus other cyclical sectors (Chart I-9 and Chart I-10). Meanwhile, for Energy and Technology we do not hold a high-conviction view. Hence, our ranking of the sectors is as follows: Chart I-9Banks Have Tracked The Bond Yield ##br##Down... Chart I-10...But If The Sharpest Move In Yields Is Over, Banks Can Outperform Other Cyclicals Healthcare Banks Energy and Technology Industrials and Materials On the basis of this ranking, and the major equity index sector fingerprints we are making two new recommendations. Overweight Banks versus Industrials. Overweight Eurostoxx50 versus Nikkei225. For completeness, remain overweight Eurostoxx50 versus Shanghai Composite and neutral versus the S&P500. A New Look To Our Recommendations Finally, from this week onwards we are changing the way we show our investment recommendations. Trades will refer to an investment horizon of 3 months or less, and these will mostly fall within the Fractal Trading System. Cyclical Recommendations will refer to an investment horizon usually between 3 months and a year, and will be sub-divided into asset allocation, equities, and bonds, rates and currencies. Structural Recommendations will refer to an investment horizon longer than a year, and will also be sub-divided into asset allocation, equities, and bonds, rates and currencies. We are changing the way we show our investment recommendations. We have also taken the opportunity to close long-standing stale positions. We hope you find the new look more user-friendly. Next week we will be publishing a jointly written round table discussion in which we debate and explore the interesting view differences within BCA. Absent a major development in the markets, this will replace the normal weekly report. Fractal Trading System* This week we note that the strong rally in the Australian stock market has reached a 65-day fractal dimension which has signalled previous countertrend reversals especially in relative terms. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short ASX 200 vs. FTSE100. The profit target is 2% with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, we are pleased to report that short euro area industrials vs. market achieved its profit target and is now closed. This leaves five open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The top six players are based on the six nominations for the 2019 PFA Footballer of the Year: Sergio Aguero (Argentina), Virgil Van Dijk (Netherlands), Eden Hazard (Belgium), Sadio Mane (Senegal), Bernardo Silva (Portugal), and Raheem Sterling (England). Virgil Van Dijk was the winner. Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Q2/2019 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -19bps in the second quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: Our below-benchmark overall duration stance expressed through country underweights in the U.S. (-25bps) and Italy (-10bps) hurt Q2 returns. This dwarfed the gains from U.S. corporate bond overweights (+14bps) and selective sovereign bond overweights in Germany, Australia and the U.K. Scenario Analysis For Next Six Months: We are adding credit exposure to our model portfolio, increasing spread product allocations in U.S. high-yield and European corporates. In our Base Case scenario, the Fed is likely to deliver some “insurance” rate cuts in the next few months, but by less than the markets are currently discounting, while global growth momentum will stabilize. The resulting price action will favor relative returns from spread product versus government debt. Feature The first half of 2019 produced a surprising result across the global fixed income universe – practically everything delivered a positive total return. From U.S. Treasuries to Italian BTPs to U.S. investment grade industrial corporates to emerging market hard currency sovereigns, all the year-to-date returns are colored green on your Bloomberg screen. Those returns have occurred despite all the uncertainties that investors have had to navigate during the past three months, from shock Trump tariff tweets to persistent weakness in global manufacturing data to swift dovish turns by global central bankers (rate cuts in Australia and New Zealand, the Fed hinting at easing and the ECB signaling a potential restart of asset purchases). In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the eventful second quarter of 2019. We also present our updated scenario analysis, and total return projections, for the portfolio over the next six months. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q2/2019 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Credit Overweights Help Limit Damage From Below-Benchmark Duration Chart of the WeekBelow-Benchmark Duration Overwhelms Credit Overweights In Q2/19 The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the second quarter was 2.8%, underperforming the custom benchmark index by -19bps (Chart of the Week).1 The bulk of the underperformance came from the government bond side of the portfolio (-33bps) - a function of our below-benchmark duration tilt and underweight stance on sovereign bonds, both occurring against a backdrop of rapidly falling bond yields (Table 1). Partially offsetting that was the outperformance from our recommended overweights in U.S. corporate debt, which helped the spread product side of our model portfolio outperform the benchmark by +14bps. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2019 Overall Return Attribution The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Overweight U.S. investment grade industrials (+5bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield Ba-rated (+4bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield B-rated (+4bps) Overweight U.S. investment grade financials (+2bps) Overweight German government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (+2bps) Biggest underperformers Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-10bps) Underweight Italy government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-6bps) Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-6bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity of 1-3 years (-5bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity of 3-8 years (-5bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q2/2019. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q2/2019 (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral).2 Ideally, we would look to see more blue bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Our underweight tilts on European Peripheral sovereign debt were our biggest “miss” in the quarter, as Spanish and Italian yields plunged after the ECB signaled future rate cuts and a potential return to bond purchases in order to boost flailing European growth. We had been viewing Spain and Italy as growth-focused credit stories rather than yield plays, leaving us to maintain a cautious stand on both markets given worsening economic momentum (but with an imbedded “long Spain/short Italy” tilt by having a smaller relative underweight in Spain). In terms of our best “hits” in the quarter, our overweight stance on U.S. investment grade corporates and Australian government bonds performed relatively well. We also avoided a big “miss” by upgrading emerging market U.S. dollar-denominated sovereign debt to neutral from underweight on April 30.3 We also avoided a bigger hit to the portfolio through tactical adjustments made in late May, when we added back some interest rate duration to the portfolio given the increasing uncertainties from slowing global growth and rising U.S. trade policy hawkishness.4 We also reduced our U.S. corporate bond overweights at the same time, but the additional duration exposure was the more important factor – without those changes, the portfolio would have lagged the benchmark index by another -8bps in Q2. In terms of our best “hits” in the quarter, our overweight stance on U.S. investment grade corporates and Australian government bonds performed relatively well. Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index in the second quarter of the year, with the drag on performance from underweight exposure to U.S. Treasuries and Italian BTPs overwhelming the gains from credit overweights in the U.S. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by two main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias and our overweight stance on global corporate debt versus government bonds. In terms of the specific high-level weightings in the model portfolio, we currently have a moderate overweight, equal to three percentage points, on spread product versus government debt (Chart 5). This reflects a more constructive view on future global growth, with early leading economic indicators starting to bottom out to the benefit of growth-sensitive assets like corporate debt. That faster growth backdrop will also benefit our below-benchmark duration stance through a rebound in government bond yields. This should happen only slowly, however, as global central bankers are likely to keep their newly-dovish policy bias in place for some time until there are more decisive signs of accelerating growth AND inflation. Chart 6Overall Portfolio Duration: Below-Benchmark We are maintaining our below-benchmark duration tilt (0.5 years short of the custom benchmark), but we recognize that the underperformance from duration seen in the first half of 2019 will only be clawed back slowly over the next six months (Chart 6). As for country allocation, we continue to favor regions where looser monetary policy is most likely (core Europe, Australia, Japan and the U.K.). We are staying underweight the U.S., however, as the market’s expectations for the Fed are too dovish, with -82bps of rate cuts now discounted over the next twelve months. We are also keeping our underweight stance on Italian government bonds, which we now see as overvalued after the recent rally. We are maintaining our below-benchmark duration tilt (0.5 years short of the custom benchmark), but we recognize that the underperformance from duration seen in the first half of 2019 will only be clawed back slowly over the next six months We are, however, making some adjustments to the portfolio allocations to reflect our expectation of less negative news on global growth and easier monetary policies from global central bankers facing uncertainty alongside too-low inflation expectations: Increasing the overweight to U.S. high-yield corporates, boosting the allocation to Ba-rated and B-rated credit tiers by one percentage point each. This is funded by reducing our U.S. Treasury allocation by two percentage points. Upgrading euro area corporates to overweight, increasing the allocation to both investment grade and high-yield by one percentage point each. This is funded by reducing our German government bond allocation by two percentage points. Upgrading U.K. investment grade corporates to neutral, funded by reducing U.K. Gilt exposure by 0.5 percentage points. Upgrading Spanish government bonds to neutral, funded by reducing German exposure by 0.3 percentage points. These changes will boost the overall spread product allocation to 50% of the portfolio (an overweight of seven percentage points versus the benchmark index). This will also boost the overall yield of the portfolio to 3.2%, +6bps greater than that of the benchmark. That relative yield advantage looks even better in U.S. dollar terms, with currency hedging adding an additional +16bps to the relative portfolio yield given the current powerful carry advantage of the greenback (Chart 7). Chart 7Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Chart 8Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious Even though we have decent-sized overall tilts on global duration and spread product allocation, our estimated tracking error (excess volatility of the portfolio versus its benchmark) remains low (Chart 8). We remain comfortable with a portfolio tracking error of 38bps, well below our self-imposed 100bps ceiling, as the internal weightings in the portfolio are helping keep overall portfolio volatility at a modest level. Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts In April 2018, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.5 For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis of projected returns for each asset class in the model bond portfolio by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. In Tables 3A & 3B, we present our three main scenarios for the next six months, defined by changes in the risk factors, and the expected performance of the model bond portfolio in each case. The scenarios, described below, are all driven by what we believe will be the most important driver of market returns over the rest of 2019 – the momentum of global growth and the path of U.S. monetary policy. Our Base Case: the Fed delivers -50bps of easing by the end of 2019, the U.S. dollar depreciates by -3%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index hovers around 15, and there is a mild bear-steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is a scenario where the Fed delivers a rate cut in July and one more “insurance cut” before year-end, while signaling that no other easing beyond that. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +57bps in this case. Global Growth Rebounds: the Fed stays on hold to year-end, the U.S. dollar is flat, oil prices increase +10%, the VIX index falls to 12 and there is a mild bear-flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is a scenario where improving economic data outside the U.S. diminishes the fears of a U.S. recession, allowing the Fed to stand pat and keep rates unchanged as financial market volatility stays muted. The model bond portfolio is expected to outperform the benchmark by +50bps here. Global Downturn Intensifies: the Fed cuts the funds rate by -75bps by year-end, the U.S. dollar falls by -5%, oil prices decline -15%, the VIX index increases to 30 and there is a bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is a scenario where U.S./global growth momentum continues to fade, prompting the Fed to deliver a series of curve-steepening rate cuts to try and stabilize elevated financial market volatility amid increasing recession risks. The model portfolio will severely underperform the benchmark by -41bps with this outcome. The scenario inputs for the four main risk factors (the fed funds rate, the price of oil, the U.S. dollar and the VIX index) are different than what was presented in our last model bond portfolio review in mid-April (Chart 9). Then, we were contemplating scenarios involving the Fed keeping rates stable and even potentially looking for an opportunity to deliver another rate hike by year-end. Now, given the Fed’s clear dovish shift after the downshift in global growth momentum, two of our three main scenarios involve rate cuts in the U.S. The only scenario where Treasury yields can fall further, however, is if the global economic downturn deepens – a scenario we view as more of a tail risk rather than a higher-probability possibility (Chart 10). Chart 9Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 10U.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis In terms of our conviction level among the main drivers of the model portfolio returns – duration allocation (across yield curves and countries) and asset allocation (credit versus government bonds) – we are most confident that credit returns will exceed those of sovereign debt over the next six months. In terms of our conviction level among the main drivers of the model portfolio returns – duration allocation (across yield curves and countries) and asset allocation (credit versus government bonds) – we are most confident that credit returns will exceed those of sovereign debt over the next six months. Bottom Line: We are adding credit exposure to our model portfolio, increasing spread product allocation in U.S. high-yield and European corporates. In our Base Case scenario, the Fed is likely to deliver some “insurance” rate cuts in the next few months, but by less than the markets are currently discounting, while global growth momentum will stabilize. The resulting price action will favor spread product over government bonds, helping boost the returns of our model portfolio.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q2/2019 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “It’s Time To Break Out The Fine China”, dated April 30, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Message From Low Bond Yields”, dated May 28, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start”, dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index ​​​​​​​ Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chart 1Looks Like 2016 & 1998 The Treasury market continues to price-in a recession-like outcome for the U.S. economy, embedding 83 basis points of Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months. But last week’s economic data challenge that narrative. First, the ISM Non-Manufacturing PMI held above 55 in June, even as its Manufacturing counterpart plunged toward the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 1). This divergence between a strong service sector and weak manufacturing sector is more reminiscent of prior mid-cycle slowdowns in 2016 and 1998 than of any pre-recession period. Second, nonfarm payrolls added 224k jobs in June, a strong rebound from the 72k added in May and enough to keep the 12-month growth rate at a healthy 1.5% (bottom panel). Still-low inflation expectations provide sufficient cover for the Fed to cut rates later this month, likely by 25 bps. But beyond that, continued strong economic data could prevent any further easing. Keep portfolio duration low and stay short the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 144 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +368 bps. We removed our recommendation to hedge near-term corporate credit exposure after the Fed’s clear dovish pivot at the June FOMC meeting.1  At that time, we also noted that the surging gold price, weakening trade-weighted dollar and outperformance of global industrial mining stocks were all signaling that corporate spreads have peaked (Chart 2). Of our “peak credit spread” indicators, only the CRB Raw Industrials index has yet to turn the corner. The macro environment supports tighter spreads. But in the investment grade space, value only looks attractive for Baa-rated securities. Baa spreads remain 7 bps above our target (panel 3), while Aa and A-rated spreads are 1 bp and 4 bps below, respectively (panel 4). Aaa bonds are even more expensive, with spreads 19 bps below target (not shown).2  Investors should focus their investment grade corporate bond exposure on Baa-rated securities. Our measure of gross leverage – total debt over pre-tax profits – jumped in Q1, as corporate debt grew at an annualized pace of 8.5% while corporate profits contracted by an annualized 18% (bottom panel). Leverage will likely rise again in Q2, as profit growth will almost certainly remain weak, but should then level-off as global growth recovers. High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 154 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +603 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 56 bps on the month. At 366 bps, it remains well above the cycle-low of 303 bps. As with investment grade credit, we removed our recommendation to hedge near-term exposure following the June FOMC meeting (see page 3). Further, we see the potential for much more spread tightening in high-yield than in investment grade. Within investment grade, only the Baa credit tier carries a spread above our target. In High-Yield, Ba-rated spreads are 42 bps above our target (Chart 3), B-rated spreads are 108 bps above our target (panel 3) and Caa-rated spreads are 263 bps above our target (not shown).3  Junk spreads also offer reasonable value relative to expected default losses. The current Moody’s baseline forecast calls for a default rate of 2.7% over the next 12 months, not far from our own projection.4 This would translate into 224 bps of excess spread in the High-Yield index, after adjusting for default losses (panel 4). This is comfortably above zero, and only just below the historical average of 250 bps. We will continue to monitor job cut announcements, which have moderated so far this year (bottom panel), and C&I lending standards, which remain in net easing territory, to assess whether our default expectations need to be revised. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -11 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread widened 1 bp on the month, as a 4 bps widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS) was partially offset by a 3 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). Falling mortgage rates hurt MBS in the first half of this year, as lower rates led to an increase in refi activity that drove MBS spreads wider (Chart 4). In fact, the conventional 30-year index OAS has risen all the way back to its average pre-crisis level (panel 3). However, as we noted in last week’s report, the nominal 30-year MBS spread remains very tight, at close to one standard deviation below its historical mean.5 The mixed valuation picture means we are not yet inclined to augment our recommended allocation to MBS, especially given the favorable environment for corporate bonds, where expected returns are higher. We are equally disinclined to downgrade MBS, given that refi activity could be close to peaking. All in all, we expect that the next move in the MBS/Treasury basis will be a tightening, as global growth improves and mortgage rates rise in the second half of the year. However, valuation is not sufficiently attractive to warrant more than a neutral allocation. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +133 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 208 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +419 bps. Local Authorities underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 6 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +213 bps. Meanwhile, Foreign Agencies underperformed by 26 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +103 bps. Domestic Agencies underperformed by 4 bps in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +25 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 1 bp on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +28 bps. Sovereign debt remains very expensive relative to equivalently rated U.S. corporate credit (Chart 5). While the sector would benefit if the Fed’s dovish pivot results in a weaker dollar, U.S. corporate bonds would still outperform in that scenario, given the more attractive starting point for spreads. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to Sovereigns. Unlike the debt of most other countries, Mexican sovereign bonds continue to trade cheap relative to U.S. corporates (bottom panel). While this remains an attractive option from a valuation perspective, the President’s on again/off again tariff threats make it a risky near-term proposition. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 73 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -44 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio rose 2% in June, and currently sits at 81% (Chart 6). The ratio is close to one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean, but exactly equal to the average that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Recent muni underperformance has been broad-based across the entire maturity spectrum, but long-end (20-year and 30-year) yield ratios continue to look attractive relative to the rest of the curve. 20-year and 30-year Aaa-rated yield ratios are more than one standard deviation above their respective pre-crisis averages. Meanwhile, 10-year, 5-year and 2-year Aaa yield ratios are very close to average pre-crisis levels. State & local government balance sheets are in decent shape and a material increase in ratings downgrades is unlikely (bottom panel). We therefore recommend an overweight allocation to municipal bonds, but with a preference for 20-year and 30-year Aaa-rated securities. We showed in a recent report that value declines sharply if you move into shorter maturities or lower credit tiers.6 Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-steepened in June, alongside a large drop in our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter from -75 bps to -90 bps (Chart 7). June’s bull-steepening was reversed last week, as the strong employment report caused our discounter to jump back up to -83 bps, resulting in a bear-flattening of the Treasury curve. All in all, the 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 6 bps in June, then flattened 8 bps in the first week of July. It currently sits comfortably above zero at 17 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 11 bps in June, then flattened 6 bps last week. It currently sits at 70 bps. In last week’s report we reviewed the case for barbelling your U.S. bond portfolio.7 That is, favoring the short and long ends of the yield curve while avoiding the 5-year and 7-year maturities. This positioning continues to make sense. Not only does the barbell increase the average yield of your portfolio, but our butterfly spread models all show that barbells are cheap relative to bullets (see Appendix B). The 5-year and 7-year yields will also rise more than long-end and short-end yields when the market eventually moves to price-in fewer Fed rate cuts. In addition to our recommended barbell positioning, we advocate keeping a short position in the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. That contract is currently priced for a fed funds rate of 1.69% next February, the equivalent of three 25 basis point rate cuts spread over the next five FOMC meetings. The Fed is unlikely to deliver that much easing. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 11 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +28 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 5 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.69% (Chart 8). The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 4 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.83%. As we have noted in recent research, FOMC members are monitoring long-dated inflation expectations and are committed to keeping policy easy enough to “re-anchor” them at levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% target.8 In the long-run, this will support a return of long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates (both 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward) to our 2.3% - 2.5% target range. However, for breakevens to move higher, investors will also need to see evidence that realized inflation can be sustained near 2%. On that note, the core PCE deflator grew at a healthy 2.3% (annualized) clip in May, following an even higher 3% (annualized) rate in April. However, it has only grown 1.6% during the past year. 12-month trimmed mean PCE is running almost exactly in line with the Fed’s target at 1.99%. In a recent report we noted that 12-month core PCE inflation has a track record of converging toward the trimmed mean.9   ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +51 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 9 bps on the month, moving back above its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). At 36 bps, the spread remains well below its pre-crisis mean of 64 bps. In addition to poor valuation, the sector’s credit fundamentals are shifting in a negative direction. Household interest payments continue to trend up, suggesting a higher delinquency rate going forward (panel 3). Meanwhile, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey revealed that average consumer lending standards tightened in Q1 for the second consecutive quarter. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising consumer delinquencies (bottom panel). Loan officers also reported slowing demand for credit cards for the fifth consecutive quarter, and slowing auto loan demand for the third consecutive quarter. Second quarter data will be made available in early August, but current trends are not promising. The combination of poor value and deteriorating credit quality leads us to recommend an underweight allocation to consumer ABS. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +191 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 2 bps on the month. It currently sits at 68 bps, below its average pre-crisis level but above levels seen in 2018 (Chart 10). The macro outlook for commercial real estate looks somewhat unfavorable, with lenders tightening standards (panel 4) amidst falling demand (bottom panel). However, on a positive note, commercial real estate prices recently accelerated and are now much more consistent with current CMBS spreads (panel 3). Despite the mixed fundamental picture, CMBS still offer excellent compensation relative to other similarly-rated fixed income sectors.10  Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +93 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 50 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector remains appropriate. Appendix A - The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 83 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We do not anticipate any rate cuts during this timeframe, and therefore recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B - Butterfly Strategy Valuation The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of July 5, 2019) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of July 5, 2019) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of +56 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 56 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C - Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Map employs volatility-adjusted breakeven spread analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Map does not incorporate any macroeconomic view. The horizontal axis of the Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps of excess return. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Got Your Back”, dated June 25, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For more details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Assessing Corporate Default Risk”, dated March 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Long Awkward Middle Phase”, dated July 2, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Full Speed Ahead”, dated April 16, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Long Awkward Middle Phase”, dated July 2, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Hedge Near-Term Credit Exposure”, dated May 28, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10  Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation