Developed Countries

Special Report

HighlightsU.S. inflation is on a structural uptrend. Monetary and fiscal policy, populism, and demographics will tend to push inflation higher over the coming decade.How can investors protect portfolios against inflation risk? We look at periods of rising inflation to determine which assets were the best inflation hedge.We find that the level of inflation is very important in determining which assets work best.When inflation is rising and high, or very high, the best inflation hedges at the asset class level are commodities and U.S. TIPS.When inflation is very high, gold is the best commodity to hold and defensive sectors will minimize losses in an equity portfolio.However, hedges have a cost. Allocating a large percentage of a portfolio to inflation hedges will be a drag on returns. Investors should opt for a low allocation to hedges now, and increase to a medium level when inflation rises further.FeatureSome 38 years have passed since the last time the U.S. suffered from double-digit inflation. The Federal Reserve reform of 1979, championed by Paul Volcker, changed the way the Fed approached monetary policy by putting a focus on controlling money growth.1 The reform gave way to almost four decades of relatively controlled inflation, which persists today.But times are changing. While most of today’s investors have never experienced anything other than periods of tame inflation, BCA expects that rising inflation will be a major driving force of asset returns over the coming decade.2 The main reasons behind this view are the following:A rethink in the monetary policy framework: At its most recent meeting, the FOMC openly discussed the idea of a price-level target, implying that it would be open to the economy running hot to compensate for the past 10 years of below-target inflation (Chart I-1A, top panel).Procyclical fiscal policy: The U.S. is conducting expansionary fiscal policy while the economy is at near-full employment (Chart I-1A, middle panel). The last time this happened in the U.S., during the 1960s, high inflation followed, as the fiscal boost made the economy run substantially above capacity.Waning Fed independence: President Trump has openly questioned the hiking campaign undertaken by the Fed. Moreover, he has tried to nominate Fed governors with dovish tendencies. Historically around the world, a lack of central bank independence has often led to higher inflation rates (Chart I-1A, bottom panel).Peak in globalization: Globalization accelerated significantly in the 1990s and 2000s, flooding the global economy with cheap labor (Chart I-1B, top panel). However, we believe that globalization has peaked. Instead, populism and protectionism will be the dominant paradigms for years to come, reducing the cheap pool of workers and goods previously available.Demographics: The population in the U.S. is set to age in coming years (Chart I-1B, middle panel). As the percentage of U.S. retirees increases, the number of spenders relative to savers will begin to rise (Chart I-1B, bottom panel). Higher spending and lower savings in the economy should create upward pressure on inflation. Chart I-1AStructural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I)  Chart I-1BStructural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (II) If our view is correct, how should investors allocate their money?We attempt to answer this question by evaluating the performance of five major asset classes during periods when inflation was rising. Furthermore, we look into sub-asset class performance to determine how investors should position themselves within each asset class to take advantage of an inflationary environment.In our asset-class analysis, we use a data sample starting in 1973 and we limit ourselves to five publicly traded assets that have adequate history: global equities, U.S. Treasuries, U.S. real estate (REITs), U.S. inflation-linked bonds,3 and commodities. We compare asset classes according to their Sharpe ratios: average annualized excess returns divided by annualized volatilities.4 BCA expects that rising inflation will be a major driving force of asset returns over the coming decade.In our sub-asset class analysis, we analyze global equity sectors, international vs U.S. equities, and individual commodities. In some of the sections in our sub-asset class analysis, our sample is slightly reduced due to lack of historical data. Moreover, since in some instances all sectors have negative returns, we compare sub-asset classes according to their excess returns only.We base our analysis on the U.S. Consumer Price Index, given that most of the assets in our sample are U.S. based. We opt for this measure because it tends to track the living expenses for most U.S. citizens and it is the preferred measure to index defined-benefit payments.Finally, we decompose the periods of rising inflation into four quartiles in order to examine whether the level of inflation has any impact on the performance of each asset. Chart I-2 and Table I-1 show the different ranges we use for our analysis as well as a description of the typical economic and monetary policy environments in each of them.Summary Of ResultsTable I-2 shows the summary of our results. For a detailed explanation on how each asset class and sub-asset class behaves as inflation rises, please see the Asset Class section and the Sub-Asset Class section below.Which assets perform best when inflation is rising?Rising inflation affects assets very differently, and is especially dependent on how high inflation is.Global equities performed positively when inflation was rising and low or mild, but they were one of the worst-performing assets when inflation was rising and high or very high. Importantly, equities underperformed U.S. Treasuries in periods of both high and very high inflation.Commodities and U.S. TIPS were the best performers when inflation was high or very high.U.S. REITs were not a good inflation hedge.Which global equity sectors perform best when inflation is rising?Energy and materials outperformed when inflation was high.Every single sector had negative excess returns when inflation was very high, but defensive sectors such as utilities, healthcare, and telecommunications5 minimized losses.Which commodities perform best when inflation is rising?With the exception of energy, most commodities had subpar excess returns when inflation was in the first two quartiles.Industrial metals outperformed when inflation was high.Gold and silver outperformed when inflation was very high. Additionally, gold had consistent returns and low volatility.What is the cost of inflation hedging?To answer this question, we construct four portfolios with different levels of inflation hedging:Benchmark (no inflation hedging): 60% equities / 40% bonds.Low Inflation Hedging: 50% equities / 40% bonds / 5% TIPS / 5% commoditiesMedium Inflation Hedging: 40% equities / 30% bonds / 15% TIPS / 15 % commoditiesPure Inflation Hedging: 50% TIPS / 50% commodities. At the asset-class level, investors should allocate to commodities and U.S. TIPS to hedge inflation. Chart I-3Inflation Hedging Comes At A Cost While increased inflation hedging provides better performance when inflation is high and rising, these hedges are costly to hold when inflation is at lower ranges or when it is falling (Chart I-3, panels 1 & 2). However, adding moderate inflation hedging (low or medium) to a portfolio achieved the right balance between cost and protection, and ultimately improved risk-adjusted returns over the whole sample (Chart I-3, panel 3).What about absolute returns? The benchmark outperformed over the whole sample. However, the low and medium inflation hedging did not lag far behind, while avoiding the big drawdowns of high inflation periods (Chart I-3, panel 4).Investment ImplicationsHigh inflation may return to the U.S. over the next decade. Therefore, inflation hedging should be a key consideration when constructing a portfolio. Based on our results, our recommendations are the following:1.  At the asset-class level, investors should allocate to commodities and U.S. TIPS to hedge inflation.2.  However, these hedges are costly to hold as they will create a drag on returns in periods when inflation is not high or very high. Therefore, a low allocation to inflation hedges is warranted now.3.  Inflation will probably start to pick up in the 2020s. A medium allocation to inflation hedges will then be appropriate.4.  When inflation is high (3.3%-4.9%), investors should overweight energy and materials in their equity portfolios. Likewise, they should overweight industrial metals and energy within a commodity portfolio.5.  When inflation is very high (4.9% or more), investors should overweight defensive sectors in their equity portfolio to minimize losses. Moreover, investors should overweight gold within a commodity portfolio.Asset ClassesGlobal EquitiesThe relationship between equity returns and rising inflation depends on how high inflation is, with outstanding performance when inflation is rising but low or mild, and poor performance as it gets higher (Chart II-1, top panel).This relationship can be explained by the interaction between interest rates, inflation, earnings, and valuations:Earnings growth was usually slightly negative when inflation was recovering from low levels. However, given that interest rates were very low in this environment and growth expectations were high, multiple expansion boosted equity returns (Chart II-1, bottom panel).When inflation was mild, the Fed typically started to raise rates, resulting in a declining multiple. However, equities had the best performance in this range thanks to very high earnings growth – a result of the economy growing strongly due to a healthy level of inflation.When inflation climbed into the high or very high range, earnings growth was usually positive but beginning to slow, as high inflation weighed on growth. Meanwhile the multiple started to decline rapidly due to rising interest rates and declining growth expectations.With the exception of the mild inflation range, the return profile of equities during inflationary periods was similar to its normal profile: negative skew and excess kurtosis (Table II-1). However, the consistency of returns decreased at higher levels of inflation, with only 45% of months with positive returns when inflation was rising and in its highest quartile.U.S. TreasuriesU.S. Treasuries reacted in a similar fashion to equities when inflation was rising (Chart II-2). However, while Treasuries underperformed equities when inflation was low or mild, they actually outperformed equities when inflation was high or very high. This was in part due to the fact that at higher inflation ranges, U.S. Treasuries offer a higher coupon return when rates are high, at least partially counteracting losses from falling prices.The steady stream of cash flows from the coupons helped Treasuries achieve positive returns roughly two-thirds of the time at the highest levels of inflation (Table II-2). However, this consistency in returns came at a cost: very high inflation resulted in negative skew and high excess kurtosis. Therefore, while Treasuries provided frequent positive returns when inflation was very high, they were prone to violent selloffs.U.S. REITsWhile REITs had high risk-adjusted returns when inflation was rising but mild, much like equities they had subpar performance in every other quartile and particularly poor performance when inflation was high or very high (Chart II-3). These results confirm our previous research showing that REITs performance is very similar to that of equities.6The return consistency for REITs was generally poor in inflationary periods, with the second-lowest percentage of positive return of any asset class (Table II-3). Moreover, REIT returns had excess kurtosis and negative skew throughout all inflation quartiles.Commodity FuturesCommodities performed positively in every quartile, and did particularly well when inflation was mild (Chart II-4, top panel). However, total return and price return were very different due to the behavior of the roll and collateral return:Total risk-adjusted returns were lower than spot risk-adjusted returns when inflation was low and rising. This happened because during these periods, commodity supply was high relative to demand, as the economy was recovering from a deflationary shock. Thus, there was an incentive for producers to conserve inventories, making the futures curve upward-sloping (contango). Thus, roll return was negative (Chart II-4, bottom panel).When inflation was in the upper two quartiles, total risk-adjusted returns were much higher than risk-adjusted spot returns. This was because high inflation was the product of supply shocks. These supply shocks resulted in a downward-sloping futures curve (backwardation), which, in turn, resulted in a positive roll return. Additionally, high rates during these regimes contributed to a high collateral return.Commodities provided good return consistency during inflationary periods, with roughly 60% of positive return months in the upper two inflation quartiles (Table II-4). The skew of returns was neutral or positive in the top two quartiles. This means that although volatility was high for commodities, extreme return movements were normally positive.U.S. Inflation-Protected BondsWhile inflation-protected bonds provided meager returns when inflation was rising but in the mild range, they provided excellent performance at the highest levels of inflation (Chart II-5). Moreover, this high Sharpe ratio was not just simply the result of low volatility, since U.S. TIPS had excess returns of 4.6% when inflation was high and 5.7% when inflation was very high.7The return profile of inflation-protected bonds during inflationary periods was also attractive in our testing period. Average skew was positive, while kurtosis was relatively low (Table II-5). The percentage of positive months across all quartiles was also the highest of all asset classes, with a particularly high share of positive returns in the periods of highest inflation.Sub-Asset ClassesGlobal Equity SectorsFor the sector analysis, we looked at information technology, financials, energy, materials, utilities, healthcare, and telecommunications. We excluded industrials, consumer discretionary, and consumer staples given that they do not have adequate back data.Once again, we separate rising inflation periods into four quartiles, arriving at the following results:When inflation was low, information technology had the best excess returns while utilities had the worst (Chart III-1, panel 1). This matches our observations at the asset class level, as IT is highly responsive to changes in the valuation multiple.When inflation was mild, energy had the best performance, followed by information technology (Chart III-1, panel 2). Meanwhile, financials had the worst performance, as rates were normally rising in these periods.When inflation was high, sectors highly correlated with commodity prices such as energy and materials outperformed. Meanwhile, IT was the worst performer (Chart III-1, panel 3).When inflation was very high, every sector had negative excess returns. Overall, investing in energy minimized losses (Chart III-1, panel 4). However, this performance was in part attributable to the oil spikes of the 1970s. Alternatively, defensive sectors such as utilities, telecommunications, and healthcare also minimized losses. International vs U.S. EquitiesHow do equities outside of the U.S. behave when inflation is rising? While the high share of U.S. equities in the global index causes U.S. equities to be the main driver of global stock prices, is it possible to improve returns in inflationary environments by overweighting international equities?The answer once again depends on the level of inflation. When inflation was rising but low, U.S. stocks outperformed global ex-U.S. equities in both common currency and local currency terms (Chart III-2, panel 1). This was in part due to the inherent tech bias in U.S. stocks. Additionally, the low level of inflation was often accompanied by slowing global growth in our sample, helping the U.S. dollar.When inflation was mild, U.S. stocks once again outperformed international stocks in both local and common currency terms, though to a lesser degree (Chart III-2, panel 2). The dollar was roughly flat in this environmentU.S. stocks started to have negative excess returns when inflation was high (Chart III-2, panel 3). On the other hand international equities had positive excess returns in dollar terms, partly because of their energy and material bias and partly because the dollar was generally weak in this period.U.S. equities outperformed global ex-U.S. equities by a small margin when inflation was very high, given that defensive sectors such as telecommunication were over-represented in the U.S. index (Chart III-2, panel 4). The dollar was roughly flat in this period. Individual CommoditiesOur analysis above confirmed that commodities were one of the best assets to hold when inflation was rising. However, which commodity performed best?8Total return for every commodity was lower than spot return when inflation was low (Chart III-3, panel 1). This was due to the upward-sloping term structure of the futures curve (contango), resulting in a negative roll yield. In this range, energy had the best performance, followed by industrial metals. Precious metals had negative excess returns.When inflation was mild, energy had the best performance of any commodity by far (Chart III-3, panel 2). Precious and industrial metals had low but positive excess returns in this period.When inflation was high, industrial metals had the highest excess returns, followed by energy (Chart III-3, panel 3).We omit energy for the last quartile since there is not enough data available. Overall, when inflation was very high, both gold and silver had the highest excess returns (Chart III-3, panel 4). However, gold’s return volatility was much lower, while it also had positive returns  64% of the time compared to 52% for silver.Other AssetsU.S. Direct Real Estate Chart IV-1Direct Real Estate Is A Good Inflation Hedge Our asset-class analysis confirmed that public real estate (REITs) as an asset class offered poor risk-adjusted returns during inflationary periods. But how did direct real estate perform?We analyzed direct real estate separately from all other assets because of a couple of issues:Our return dataset is available only on a quarterly basis, versus a monthly basis for the rest of the assets in our sample. Even when annualized, volatility is not directly comparable when using data with different frequencies.The NCREIF Real Estate Index that we used is a broad aggregate, which is not investable. Individual property prices might differ from this aggregate.Finally, real estate returns are measured on an appraisal basis. Appraisal-based indices are not reflective of real transactions. Moreover, prices tend to be sticky. To attenuate this issue we unsmoothed the capital returns by removing return autocorrelation.Overall, the Sharpe ratio of direct real estate was solid throughout the first three quartiles of rising inflation (Chart IV-1, top panel). There is not enough data available for the fourth quartile. However, judging by the performance of U.S. housing in the 1970s from OECD, risk-adjusted returns when inflation was very high was likely positive (Chart IV-1, bottom panel). Cash Chart IV-2Very High Inflation Erodes The Value Of Cash Cash (investing in a 3-month U.S. Treasury bill) outperformed inflation over our sample. (Chart IV-2, top panel). Moreover, cash provided positive real returns when inflation was mild, or high, or when it was decreasing (Chart IV-2, bottom panel). However, cash was not a good inflation hedge at the highest inflation quartile, with an average annualized real loss of almost 2%. Juan Manuel Correa OssaSenior Analystjuanc@bcaresearch.com Footnotes1      Please see Carl E. Walsh, “October 6, 1979,” FRSBF Economic Letter, 2004:35, (December 3, 2004).2      Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “1970s-Style Inflation: Could it Happen Again? (Part 1), ” dated August 10, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “1970s-Style Inflation: Could it Happen Again? (Part 2),” dated August 24, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.3      We use a synthetic TIPS series for data prior to 1997. For details on the methodology, please see: Kothari, S.P. and Shanken, Jay A., “Asset Allocation with Inflation-Protected Bonds,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 54-70, January/February 2004. Jay A., “Asset Allocation with Inflation-Protected Bonds,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 54-70, January/February 2004.4      Excess returns are defined as asset return relative to a 3-month Treasury bill.5      Sector classification does not take into account GICS changes prior to December 2018. 6      Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report "REITS Vs Direct: How To Get Exposure To Real Estate," dated September 15, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.7      It is important to note that the synthetic TIPS series does not completely match actual TIPS series for the periods where they overlap. Specifically, volatility is significantly higher in the synthetic series. Thus, results should be taken as approximations.8      We decompose the returns into the same 4 quartiles to answer this question. However, due to lower data availability, we start our sample in 1978 instead of 1973. Moreover, our sample for energy is smaller beginning in 1983. This mainly reduces the amount of data available at the upper quartile.       

Neutral In a report late last month, we noted that our overweight recommendation on S&P homebuilders had generated alpha in excess of 10% for our portfolio, despite being offside early. However, we further noted a softening in some housing related data that gave us pause, particularly in the context of a trade that had provided outstanding gains, and we added a downgrade alert and set a stop sell order at the 10% relative return mark. That mark was breached on Monday; accordingly, and in a continuation of our progressive derisking of the portfolio, we have lowered our recommendation on the S&P homebuilders index to neutral. We continue to fear that if a generalized risk-off phase materializes, yields will fall but homebuilders will not participate in the bond rally. That is not to say we have grown negative on U.S. housing in general; on the contrary, we continue to explore a bullish housing view via our long S&P homebuilders/short S&P home improvement retailers pair trade. Clients should look forward to next week’s Weekly Report for an update on the latter of these sectors. Bottom Line: Downgrade S&P homebuilders to neutral, crystalizing gains of 10%. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOME – LEN, DHI, PHM.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Macro headwinds, deficient demand along with rising chemicals stockpiles that have dealt a blow to industry pricing power warn that chemicals stocks are on the verge of a breakdown. Downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. At the margin deteriorating domestic conditions, along with a sustained softness in global growth indicators that are prone to an additional setback given the rising trade policy uncertainty suggest that it is prudent to move to the sidelines on the long materials/short utilities pair trade. Recent Changes Downgrade the S&P chemicals index to underweight, today. This also pushes the S&P materials sector’s weight back down to neutral. Close the long S&P materials/short S&P utilities pair trade, today. Table 1 Feature The SPX suffered its first 5% pullback for the year early last week, and now that President Trump has opened Pandora’s Box, there are high odds that equities will continue to seesaw, at least, until the late-June G20 meeting when the heads of states meet again. Since early-March we have been, and remain, cautious on the short-term equity market outlook as a slew of our tactical indicators have soured. Chart 1 shows three additional non-confirming equity market breakout indicators that are exerting downward pull on the SPX. Stock correlations have increased (shown inverted, top panel, Chart 1), junk spreads have widened (shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 1) and the NYSE’s FANG+ Index has run out of steam (bottom panel, Chart 1). Now the risk is, as we first highlighted in the middle of last week, that the back half of the year global growth reacceleration phase goes on hiatus as this trade policy uncertainty further shatters CEO confidence and global exports remain downbeat (Chart 2). Chart 1Non-Confirming Indicators   Chart 2Stalled Export Engine Worrisomely, a number of our cyclical indicators are also firing warning shots. Not only did the ISM’s manufacturing new orders-to-inventories ratio breach parity, but also BCA’s boom/bust indicator took a turn for the worse (Chart 3). Importantly, while a lot of ink is spent on how the U.S. economy is beyond full employment, labor markets are tight and the output gap has closed, resource utilization has petered out – interestingly at a lower high compared with the previous two peaks. This backdrop points to more stock market turmoil in the coming months, similar to the mid-2015 message (Chart 4). Chart 3Cyclical Trouble Brewing   Chart 4No Tightness Here Tack on China’s cresting credit impulse and factors are falling into place for a tumultuous back half of the year (bottom panel, Chart 3). Keep in mind that the two ultimate “risk off” indicators we track remain tame and underscore that investor complacency remains elevated: the TED spread is at 16bps and the Japanese yen has barely budged of late. This is worrying and suggests that investors expect a positive U.S./China trade resolution (USD/JPY shown inverted, Chart 5). Chart 5No Real Risk Off Phase Yet Were the equity markets to spin out of control however, the “Fed put” remains in place and would save the day. While the Fed has taken down the median dots and projects no hikes for the rest of the year and a single hike next year, the message from the bond market is diametrically opposite. Thus, we are de-risking our portfolio and this week we are downgrading a deep cyclical sector to neutral and also closing an explicit cyclical/defensive pair trade. Chart 6 shows that over 40bps of cuts are priced in by May 2020, according to the OIS curve. Historically, this has been an excellent leading indicator of the annual delta in the fed funds rate. Our takeaway is that the Fed remains the only game in town and were another mini-riot point to occur, then the Fed would not hesitate to step in and put a floor under the equity market. Chart 6The Bond Market Has The Stock Market’s Back In sum, the risks are rising for a prolonged consolidation phase in equities on the back of a trade war escalation that pushes out the global growth recovery to early-2020. Thus, we are de-risking our portfolio and this week we are downgrading a deep cyclical sector to neutral and also closing an explicit cyclical/defensive pair trade. Chemical Reaction We have been on the sidelines on the heavyweight S&P chemicals index of late (it comprises 74% of the S&P materials sector), but factors have now fallen into place and warrant a below benchmark allocation. First, global macro headwinds will continue to weigh on this deep cyclical index as the risk of a full blown trade war will likely take a bite out of final demand. Chemical producers garner 60% of their revenues from abroad (a full 20 percentage points higher than the SPX) and thus are extremely sensitive to the ebbs and flows of emerging markets economic growth in general and China in particular. Adding it all up, macro headwinds, deficient demand along with rising chemicals stockpiles that have dealt a blow to industry pricing power warn that chemicals stocks are on the verge of a breakdown. Chart 7 shows that U.S. chemical products exports are contracting and if the greenback sustains its recent upward trajectory given heightened global trade policy uncertainty, further global market share losses are likely at a time when the overall chemicals market will be shrinking. With regard to China specifically, the recent drop in the credit impulse is far from reassuring (bottom panel, Chart 3) and, assuming that the Chinese authorities will await a riot point prior to really opening up the credit spigots, more pain lies ahead for U.S. chemical exports. Second, the picture is not brighter on the domestic front. Importantly, the American Chemical Council’s Chemical Activity Barometer is nil, warning that domestic end-demand is also ailing (Chart 8). Chart 7Hazard Warning Chart 8Toxic Profit Prospects Tack on a surprisingly persistent jump in industry headcount (bottom panel, Chart 9), and the implication is that waning productivity will slash chemicals profits (bottom panel, Chart 8). Finally, a number of other operating metrics are languishing. Chemicals railcar loads are outright contracting and the softening ISM manufacturing survey points to further downside in the coming months (middle panel, Chart 9). The chemicals shipments-to-inventories ratio is also in contraction territory as this downbeat demand has been met with a buildup in inventories both at the wholesale and manufacturing levels. As a result, a liquidation phase has ensued and chemicals selling prices have sunk into the deflation zone (middle & bottom panels, Chart 10). Chart 9Deficient Demand Chart 10Liquidation Phase Adding it all up, macro headwinds, deficient demand along with rising chemicals stockpiles that have dealt a blow to industry pricing power warn that chemicals stocks are on the verge of a breakdown. Bottom Line: Trim the S&P chemicals index to underweight. Given the 74% weight chemicals stock have in the S&P materials sector, this move also pushes the S&P materials sector’s (Chart 11) weight to neutral from overweight, and we crystalize modest losses of 5.2% in this niche deep cyclical sector. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P chemicals index are: BLBG: S5CHEM – DWDP, ECL, SHW, PPG, IFF, CE, ALB, LIN, APD, DOW, LYB, FMC, CF, MOS, EMN. Chart 11Trim Materials Back Down To Neutral Materials/Utilities: Move To The Sidelines While we were early in identifying a reflationary impulse from the Chinese authorities and put on an explicit cyclicals/defensives pair trade to capitalize on this opportunity at the end of January, the long materials/short utilities pair trade has failed to live up to its expectations, and today we recommend moving to the sidelines. Such a move is part of our de-risking of the portfolio given the rising global macro headwinds on the horizon we identified earlier. More specifically on the domestic front, our Economic Impulse Indicator (EII) suggests that beneath the surface some cracks are appearing in the U.S. economy. The EII encapsulates six parts of the U.S. economy and on a second derivative basis, softness is apparent (top panel, Chart 12). The ISM manufacturing survey corroborates this message and is also flirting with the boom/bust 50 line, signaling that it is prudent to take some risk off the table (bottom panel, Chart 12). The bond market is sniffing out this deteriorating domestic backdrop and the recent 25bs drop in the 10-year Treasury yield has breathed life into utilities and sucked the oxygen out of materials. Fixed income proxies are also benefiting from the drubbing in Citi’s Economic Surprise Index to the detriment of growth-sensitive deep cyclicals. The melting stock-to-bond ratio reflects all these domestic forces and warns against preferring materials to utilities stocks (Chart 13). Chart 12Move To The Sidelines Chart 13Mushrooming Domestic… The specter of a re-escalation in the trade war will not only continue to weigh on some domestic indicators, but gauges monitoring the health of the global economy will also suffer a setback. Already, our Global Activity Indicator has lost its spark, underscoring that global export volumes will continue to contract. King Dollar is also flexing its muscles, especially versus vulnerable twin deficit emerging market countries which saps economic growth. Tack on the derivative deflationary effect the appreciating greenback has on the commodity complex and materials stocks are at a great disadvantage versus domestic focused utilities (Chart 14). A number of additional global growth indicators are waning and signal that relative profitability will move in favor of utilities and at the expense of materials in the coming months. BCA’s global synchronicity indicator, which gauges the number of countries with a PMI above versus below 50 is sinking like a stone. In fact, the overall global manufacturing PMI is just barely above the expansion/contraction line and global industrial production is decelerating. All of this is a net negative for the deep cyclical materials sector, but a net positive for defensive utilities stocks that sport nil foreign sales exposure (Chart 15). Chart 14…And Global Growth… Chart 15…Worries But before getting outright bearish on this pair, there is a powerful offset. Likely, most of the bad news is reflected in bombed out relative valuations and oversold technicals. This actually also prevents us from fully reversing the trade and buying utilities at the expense of materials. A move to the sidelines is more appropriate (Chart 16). At the margin deteriorating domestic conditions, along with a sustained softness in global growth indicators that are prone to an additional setback given the rising trade policy uncertainty suggest that it is prudent to move to the sidelines on the long materials/short utilities pair trade. Bottom Line: Book losses of 5.3% in the long S&P materials/short S&P utilities pair trade and move to the sidelines.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Chart 16Saving Grace   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights Global financial markets are currently dealing with a fresh round of uncertainty related to U.S.-China trade tensions. Yet while equities and government bond yields have fallen in response to the U.S. imposition of tariffs and escalation of the trade war with China, corporate bond markets in the developed economies have been relatively well-behaved (so far). Credit spreads have only widened modestly, which perhaps should not be surprising given central bankers’ increasingly dovish bias combined with early signs of a cyclical global growth rebound (Chart 1). Feature Chart 1Global Corporates: Shifting To A Friendlier Growth Backdrop? With that in mind, this week we are presenting the latest update of our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) Chartbook. The CHMs are composite indicators of balance sheet and income statement ratios (using both top-down and bottom-up data) that are designed to assess the financial well-being of the overall non-financial corporate sectors in the major developed economies. A brief overview of the methodology is presented in Appendix 1 on page 15. The main conclusion from the latest readings on our CHMs is that slower economic growth over the past year has resulted in some erosion of overall global credit quality. The deterioration was most pronounced in the more economically fragile regions that have suffered the deepest pullbacks in growth: Europe and Japan. The CHMs are currently giving an overall “neutral” signal in the U.S., although there are some worrying trends developing within the sub-components like interest coverage and short-term liquidity. Meanwhile, the CHMs in the U.K. and Canada are showing modest cyclical deterioration from very strong levels. Broadly speaking, the CHMs support our main global corporate bond market investment recommendations: a tactical aggregate overweight versus global government bonds, with a regional bias favoring the U.S. over Europe, and a quality bias tilted towards U.S. high-yield (HY) over investment grade (IG). Renewed U.S.-China trade hostilities represent a threat to that pro-cyclical fixed income asset allocation, although we expect more aggressive responses from policymakers on both sides (more fiscal and monetary stimulus in China, a more dovish bias from the Fed) to offset any tariff-induced weakness in growth. U.S. Corporate Health Monitors: Cyclically OK, But Longer-Term Problems Are Brewing Our top-down U.S. CHM is sending a neutral message on credit quality, sitting right on the threshold separating “deteriorating health” from “improving health” (Chart 2). The indicator, however, has been trending in a direction showing improving credit metrics over the past year. From a fundamental perspective, the top-down U.S. CHM suggests that the U.S. credit cycle is being extended by the stubborn endurance of the U.S. business cycle.  The resilience of the U.S. economy, combined with the positive impact on U.S. profitability from the Trump corporate tax cuts, has put U.S. companies in a cyclically healthier position, even with relatively high leverage. The ratios directly related to corporate profits that go into the top-down CHM – return on capital, profit margins and interest coverage – have all gone up over the past year, generating the bulk of the directional improvement in the top-down CHM. From a fundamental perspective, the top-down U.S. CHM suggests that the U.S. credit cycle is being extended by the stubborn endurance of the U.S. business cycle. In other words, there are no immediate domestic pressures on U.S. corporate finances that should require significantly wider credit spreads to compensate for rising downgrade/default risk. That does not mean that all the news is good, however. The short-term liquidity ratio has fallen sharply and is now at levels last seen in the years leading up to the 2008 Financial Crisis. Similar deteriorations can be seen in the short-term liquidity ratios within the bottom-up versions of our U.S. CHMs for IG corporates (Chart 3) and HY companies (Chart 4). Coming at a time when interest coverage ratios have been steadily declining for IG, and are already at low levels for HY, declining short-term liquidity would leave U.S. corporates highly vulnerable during the next economic downturn. Chart 2Top-Down U.S. CHM: A Neutral Reading Chart 3Bottom-Up U.S. IG CHM: Modest Deterioration With Worrying Trends We see no reason yet to exit our tactical overweight stance on U.S. IG and HY corporates versus both U.S. Treasuries and non-U.S. corporates. For now, however, the message from our bottom-up U.S. CHMs is the same as that from our top-down U.S. CHM, with all hovering near the zero line suggesting no major deterioration in overall credit quality. We see no reason yet to exit our tactical overweight stance on U.S. IG and HY corporates versus both U.S. Treasuries and non-U.S. corporates (Chart 5). Our favored indicators continue to point to a rebound in global growth in the latter half of 2019, and the Fed currently has no desire to push the funds rate into restrictive territory, so the risk/reward over the next six months still favors staying overweight U.S. corporates. The medium-term outlook, however, is far more challenging given the growing body of evidence pointing to the advanced age of the U.S. credit cycle, such as falling interest coverage and liquidity. Chart 4Bottom-Up U.S. HY CHM: A Cyclical Improvement, Nothing More Chart 5U.S. Corporates: Stay Tactically Overweight IG & HY One final point – in Appendix 2 starting on page 17, we present bottom-up CHMs for the main industry sector groupings of companies that go into our overall U.S. IG CHM. Most of the sector CHMs are hovering near the zero line, but two industry groupings stand out as having a rising CHM that is now well within “deteriorating health” territory – Consumer Staples and Utilities. Euro Corporate Health Monitors: Worsened By Weaker Growth The message from our bottom-up CHMs for the euro area shows that there was some damage done to credit quality from last year’s growth slump, evidenced by lower profit margins and interest coverage ratios. Although overall credit quality remains fairly neutral (i.e. the CHMs remain near the zero line). For euro area IG, the gap between domestic and foreign issuers in the euro area corporate bond market continues to widen, with the former now slightly in the “deteriorating health” zone (Chart 6). Profit margins have fallen far more sharply for domestic issuers, reflecting the very rapid slowing of euro area growth over the latter half of 2019. Interest coverage for domestic issuers is also lower than for foreign issuers, while short-term liquidity ratios have weakened for both over the past year. For euro area HY, the signal from the bottom-up CHM is more consistently positive between domestic and foreign issuers (Chart 7). Leverage has declined, but profit-based metrics have worsened for both sets of issuers. Interest/debt coverage and liquidity, however, are far worse for domestic issuers. Chart 6Bottom-Up Euro Area IG CHMs: Weaker Growth Hitting Domestic Issuers Chart 7Bottom-Up Euro Area HY CHMs: Healthier Through Lower Leverage Within the euro area, our bottom-up IG CHMs for Core and Periphery countries have worsened over the past year, from healthy levels, and are now hovering just above the zero line (Chart 8). Interest coverage is considerably stronger for Core issuers, although profitability metrics are remarkably similar. Short-term liquidity ratios have also fallen for both regional groups over the past year. The spread tightening already seen in euro area credit is too extreme relative to the still sluggish pace of economic growth in the region. Despite the lack of a major overall negative signal from the euro area CHMs, we are only maintaining a neutral allocation to euro area corporates, even within our current overweight stance on overall global corporates (Chart 9). The spread tightening already seen in euro area credit is too extreme relative to the still sluggish pace of economic growth in the region. This will inhibit the ability for spreads to tighten further in the event of a pickup in growth, while also leaving spreads vulnerable to widening pressures if euro area growth continues to languish. Chart 8Bottom-Up Euro Area Regional IG CHMs: Trending In The Wrong Direction Chart 9Euro Area Corporates: Stay Tactically Neutral IG & HY Chart 10Relative Bottom-Up CHMs: Continue To Favor U.S. Over Europe In addition, we are sticking with our preference to favor U.S. corporates – both IG and HY – over euro area equivalents for two important reasons: stronger U.S. growth and better U.S. corporate health. The gap between the combined IG/HY bottom-up CHMs for the U.S. and euro area has been strongly correlated to the difference in credit spreads between euro area and U.S. issuers (Chart 10).1 The latest trends show a narrowing of the gap between the U.S. and euro area CHMs, suggesting relative corporate health favors U.S. names (middle panel). At the same time, the relatively stronger performance of the U.S. economy continues to support U.S. corporate performance versus euro area equivalents (bottom panel). U.K. Corporate Health Monitor: Brexit Uncertainty Is Not Helping Our top-down U.K. CHM remains in the “improving health” zone, although the indicator has been drifting towards “deteriorating health” over the past two years. Almost all of the components of the U.K. CHM have contributed to this worsening trend (Chart 11), with only short-term liquidity remaining in a powerful multi-year uptrend. Most worryingly, the interest and debt coverage ratios remain historically depressed, even as the Bank of England has keep interest rates at extraordinarily low levels for the past several years. The cyclical deterioration in the U.K. CHM components can be traced to the sluggish performance of the U.K. economy and corporate profits.   The cyclical deterioration in the U.K. CHM components can be traced to the sluggish performance of the U.K. economy and corporate profits. The persistent uncertainty from Brexit has weighed on business confidence and investment spending by U.K. firms, keeping growth at a below-trend pace. While the immediate deadline of “Brexit Day” came and went back in March, there is still a high degree of uncertainty over the U.K.’s future economic relationship with the European Union. With Prime Minister Theresa May now set to step down, an election will extend the period of politically-driven uncertainty in the U.K. We have maintained a moderate underweight recommendation on U.K. corporates in our model bond portfolio over the past year, despite the lack of an obvious negative signal from our U.K. CHM. Spread widening in 2018 has been followed by spread tightening in 2019 (Chart 12), but the latter has been driven by the global rally in risk assets rather than diminished perceptions of U.K. political risk. Chart 11U.K. Top-Down CHM: Modest Pullback From Healthy Levels Chart 12U.K. Corporates: Stay Modestly Underweight Although there has been some improvement in U.K. economic data of late, leading economic indicators continue to trend lower. In addition, the Bank of England continues to hint that any positive resolution to the Brexit uncertainty could result in a tightening of monetary policy (although that is less of a threat given the synchronized dovish turn by global central bankers over the past few months). Given all the uncertainties, the risk/reward balance continues to favor a modest underweight in U.K. corporates, particularly at current tight spread levels to Gilts. Japan Corporate Health Monitor: A Modest Cyclical Deterioration Our bottom-up Japan CHM has shown a worsening trend over the past year and now sits in the “deteriorating health” zone (Chart 13).2 Interestingly, all of the individual components have contributed to that move in the CHM, and not just the cyclical components (profit margins, return on capital, interest coverage) that reflect the recent slowing of economic growth in Japan. Leverage has increased (albeit from very low levels), while short-term liquidity has also weakened (albeit from very high levels). Strictly looking at the overall level of all the Japan CHM components, the message does not signal a major deterioration in Japanese corporate credit quality. Leverage, defined here as the ratio of total debt to the book value of equity, is still below 100%, well below the 100-140% range seen between 2006 and 2015. The same story applies to the return on capital, which at 5% is still high versus Japan’s history (although very low by global standards). Interest coverage and short-term liquidity both remain high relative to the past decade. The absolute level of Japanese corporate health remains solid, but there has been marginal deterioration from weaker economic growth. On that front, the cyclical momentum in Japan’s economy is not improving. According to the latest Tankan survey, Japanese firms reported that their business outlook was worse than previously expected. Declining confidence has damaged capital spending, as shown by the falling growth of domestic machinery and machine tool orders. Japan’s economy remains highly levered to global growth and export demand and their economy has taken a hit from the slower pace of global trade over the past year. Wage growth has also weakened after finally seeing some positive momentum in 2018, which is weighing on consumer confidence and spending. Japan’s corporate spread has widened slightly (+5bps) since the beginning of this year (Chart 14), in contrast to the spread tightening seen in other major developed economy corporate bond markets (the Bloomberg Barclays Global Corporates index spread has tightened by -33bps year-to-date). This is a sign that the markets have responded to the slowing growth momentum in Japan with a bit of a wider risk premium. Yet despite that widening, Japanese corporates with small positive yields continue to generate positive excess returns versus Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) with yields held near zero by the Bank of Japan’s Yield Curve Control policy. Thus, we continue to recommend an overweight stance on Japanese corporates vs JGBs as a buy-and-hold carry trade, even with the softening in our Japan CHM. Chart 13Japan Bottom-Up CHM: Cyclical Deterioration Chart 14Japan Corporates: Stay Overweight Vs JGBs For Carry Canada Corporate Health Monitor: Still In Decent Shape Our top-down and bottom-up Canadian CHMs indicate an improving trend in Canadian corporate health, with both remaining in the “improving health” area over the past few years (Chart 15). The marginal moves have shown some modest deterioration in the cyclically-sensitive components (most notably, return on capital and profit margins for the top-down Canadian CHM). This should not be surprising given how rapidly Canadian economic growth slowed in the final quarter of 2018. There has also been some deterioration in the non-cyclical components. Leverage is high and rising, while the absolute levels of return on capital and debt/interest coverage are historically low. This may be building up risks for the next major Canadian economic downturn, but for now, Canadian companies look in decent shape. With so much of Canada’s economy (and its financial markets) geared to the performance of the energy sector, the recent recovery in global oil prices is a significant boost for the overall Canadian corporate market. Our commodity strategists see additional upside in oil prices over the next six months, which will further underpin the health of Canadian oil companies – and should also help support Canadian corporate bond performance. The Bank of Canada is now taking an extended pause from its rate-hiking cycle, with policy rates well below the central bank’s own estimate of neutral (2.25-3.25%). Accommodative monetary conditions and relatively low Canadian interest rates will continue to make Canadian corporates attractive, in an environment of decent growth and firm corporate health. Chart 15Canada CHMs: Still Healthy, Despite Slower Growth Chart 16Canadian Corporates: Stay Overweight Vs Canadian Govt. Debt We continue recommending an overweight position in Canadian corporate debt relative to Canadian government bonds as a carry trade. Spreads have been in a very stable range since the 2009 recession (Chart 16), ranging between 100-200bps even during periods when our CHMs were indicating worsening corporate health. To break out of that range to the upside, we would need to see a prolonged deterioration of Canadian economic growth or sharp monetary tightening from the Bank of Canada – neither outcome is likely over the next 6-12 months.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com   Appendix 1: An Overview Of The BCA Corporate Health Monitors The BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a composite indicator designed to assess the underlying financial strength of the corporate sector for a country. The Monitor is an average of six financial ratios inspired by those used by credit rating agencies to evaluate individual companies. However, we calculate our ratios using top-down (national accounts) data for profits, interest expense, debt levels, etc. The idea is to treat the entire corporate sector as if it were one big company, and then look at the credit metrics that would be used to assign a credit rating to it. Importantly, only data for the non-financial corporate sector is used in the CHM, as the measures that would be used to measure the underlying health of banks and other financial firms are different than those for the typical company. The six ratios used in the CHM are shown in Table 1 below. To construct the CHM, the individual ratios are standardized, added together, and then shown as a deviation from the medium-term trend. That last part is important, as it introduces more cyclicality into the CHM and allows it to better capture major turning points in corporate well-being. Largely because of this construction, the CHM has a very good track record at heralding trend changes in corporate credit spreads (both for Investment Grade and High-Yield) over many cycles. Table 1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs Top-down CHMs are now available for the U.S., euro area, the U.K. and Canada. The CHM methodology was extended in 2016 to look at corporate health by industry and by credit quality.3 The financial data of a broad set of individual U.S. and euro area companies was used to construct individual “bottom-up” CHMs using the same procedure as the more familiar top-down CHM. Some of the ratios differ from those used in the top-down CHM (see Table 1), largely due to definitional differences in data presented in national income accounts versus those from actual individual company financial statements. The bottom-up CHMs analyze the health of individual sectors, and can be aggregated up into broad CHMs for Investment Grade and High-Yield groupings to compare with credit spreads. In 2018, we introduced bottom-up CHMs for Japan and Canada. With the country expansion of our CHM universe, we now have coverage for 92% of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Corporate Bond Index (Appendix Chart 1). Appendix 2: U.S. Bottom-Up CHMs For Selected Sectors       Footnotes 1 We only use the CHMs for euro area domestic issuers in this aggregate bottom-up CHM, as this is most reflective of uniquely European corporate credits. This also eliminates double-counting from U.S. companies that issue in the euro area market that are part of our U.S. CHMs. 2 We do not currently have a top-down CHM for Japan given the lack of consistent government data sources for all the necessary components. 3 Please see Section II of The Bank Credit Analyst, “U.S. Corporate Health Gets A Failing Grade”, dated February 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns