Asset Allocation

Highlights Chart 1The 2003 SARS Roadmap The 2003 SARS Roadmap The 2003 SARS Roadmap The bond market impact from the coronavirus has already been substantial. The 10-year Treasury yield has fallen back to 1.51%, below the fed funds rate. Meanwhile, the investment grade corporate bond index spread is back above 100 bps, from a January low of 93 bps. The 2003 SARS crisis is the best roadmap we can apply to the current situation. Back then, Treasury yields also fell sharply but then rebounded just as quickly when the number of SARS cases peaked (Chart 1). The impact on corporate bond excess returns was more short-lived (Chart 1, bottom panel). Like in 2003, we expect that bond yields will rise once the number of coronavirus cases peaks, but it is difficult to put a timeframe on how long that will take. The economic impact from the virus could also weigh on global PMI surveys during the next few months, delaying the move higher in Treasury yields we anticipated earlier this year. In short, we continue to expect higher bond yields and tighter credit spreads in 2020, but those moves will be delayed until markets are confident that the virus has stopped spreading. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 80 basis points in January. The sector actually outpaced the Treasury benchmark by 7 bps until January 21 when the impact of the coronavirus started to push spreads wider. As stated on page 1, we expect the impact of the coronavirus on corporate spreads to be short lived. Beyond that, low inflation expectations will keep monetary conditions accommodative. This in turn will encourage banks to ease credit supply, keeping defaults at bay and providing a strong tailwind for corporate bond returns.1 Yesterday’s Fed Senior Loan Officer survey showed a slight easing of C&I lending standards in Q4 2019, reversing the tightening that occurred in the third quarter (Chart 2). We expect that accommodative Fed policy will lead to continued easing of C&I lending standards for the remainder of the year. Despite the positive tailwind from accommodative Fed policy and easing bank lending standards, investment grade corporate bond spreads are quite expensive. Spreads for all credit tiers are below our targets (panels 2 & 3).2 As a result, we advise only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds. We also recommend increasing exposure to Agency MBS in place of corporate bonds rated A or higher (see page 7). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Contagion Contagion Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Contagion Contagion High-Yield Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 111 basis points in January. Junk outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 30 bps until January 21 when the coronavirus outbreak sent spreads sharply wider. Once the negative impact of the coronavirus passes, junk spreads will have plenty of room to tighten in 2020. In fact, the junk index spread is now at 390 bps, 154 bps above our target (Chart 3).3 While spreads for all junk credit tiers are currently above our targets, Caa-rated bonds look particularly cheap. We analyzed the divergence between Caa and the rest of the junk index in a recent report and came to two conclusions.4 First, the historical data show that 12-month periods of overall junk bond outperformance are more likely to be followed by underperformance if Caa is the worst performing credit tier. Second, we can identify several reasons for 2019’s Caa spread widening that make us inclined to downplay any negative signal. Specifically, we note that the Caa credit tier’s exposure to the shale oil sector is responsible for the bulk of 2019’s underperformance (bottom panel). Absent significant further declines in the oil price, this sector now has room to recover.   MBS: Overweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 53 basis points in January. The sector was only lagging the Treasury benchmark by 7 bps as of January 21, when the coronavirus outbreak sent spreads wider. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread widened 8 bps in January, driven by a 7 bps widening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) and a 1 bp increase in expected prepayment losses (aka option cost). The fact that expected prepayment losses only rose by a single basis point even though the 30-year mortgage rate fell by 23 bps is notable. It speaks to the high level of refi burnout in the mortgage market, which is a key reason why we prefer mortgage-backed securities over investment grade corporate bonds in our portfolio. Essentially, most homeowners have already had at least one opportunity to refinance during the past few years, so prepayment risk is low even if rates fall further. Competitive expected compensation is another reason to move into Agency MBS. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS is 49 bps, only 7 bps below the spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds (Chart 4). Also, spreads for all investment grade corporate bond credit tiers are below our cyclical targets. Risk-adjusted compensation favors MBS even more strongly. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency MBS plot well to the right of investment grade corporates. This means that the sector is less likely to see losses versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in January. The index was up 2 bps versus the Treasury benchmark until January 21, when the coronavirus outbreak hit. Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 99 bps on the month, and Foreign Agencies underperformed by 28 bps. Local Authorities, however, bested the Treasury benchmark by 60 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed Treasuries by 2 bps in January, while Supranationals outperformed by 2 bps. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated sovereign bonds, given that spreads remain expensive compared to US corporate credit (Chart 5). However, we noted in a recent report that Mexican and Saudi Arabian sovereigns look attractive on a risk/reward basis.5 This is also true for Local Authorities and Foreign Agencies, as shown in the Bond Map in Appendix C. Our Emerging Markets Strategy service also thinks that worries about Mexico’s fiscal position are overblown, and that bond yields embed too high of a risk premium (bottom panel).6  Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 33 basis points in January (before adjusting for the tax advantage). They were up 39 bps versus the Treasury index before the coronavirus outbreak hit on January 21. The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio swung around during the month, but settled close to where it began at 77% (Chart 6). We upgraded municipal bonds in early October, as yield ratios had become significantly more attractive, especially at the long-end of the Aaa curve (panel 2).7 Yield ratios have tightened a lot since then, but value remains at long maturities. Specifically, the 2-year, 5-year and 10-year M/T yield ratios are all below average pre-crisis levels at 62%, 65% and 78%, respectively. But 20-year and 30-year yield ratios stand at 89% and 93%, respectively, above average pre-crisis levels. Fundamentally, state and local balance sheets remain solid. Our Municipal Health Monitor is in “improving health” territory and state & local government interest coverage has improved considerably in recent quarters (bottom panel). Both of these trends are consistent with muni ratings upgrades continuing to outpace downgrades going forward. Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened dramatically in January. Treasury yields declined across the curve, and the 2/10 slope flattened from 34 bps to 18 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened from 70 bps to 67 bps. Despite the significant flattening, the 2/10 slope remains near the middle of our target 0 – 50 bps range for 2020, and we anticipate some bear-steepening once the coronavirus is contained.8 The front-end of the curve also moved in January to price-in 57 bps of Fed rate cuts during the next 12 months (Chart 7). At the beginning of the year the curve was priced for only 14 bps of rate cuts. We expect that the Fed would respond with rate cuts if the coronavirus epidemic worsens, leading to inversion of the 2/10 yield curve. However, for the time being the safer bet is that the virus will be contained relatively quickly and the Fed will remain on hold for all of 2020. Based on this view, we continue to recommend holding a barbelled Treasury portfolio. Specifically, we favor holding a 2/30 barbell versus the 5-year bullet, in duration-matched terms. The position offers positive carry and looks attractive on our yield curve models (see Appendix B).9  TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 75 basis points in January. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 12 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.66%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 16 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.71%. Both rates remain well below the 2.3%-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s target. The divergence between the actual inflation data and inflation expectations remains stark. Trimmed mean PCE inflation has been fluctuating around the Fed’s target since mid-2018 (Chart 8). However, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain stubbornly low. It takes time for expectations to adapt to a changing macro environment, but even accounting for those long lags, our Adaptive Expectations Model pegs the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate as 31 bps too low (panel 4).10 It is highly likely that the Fed will have to tolerate some overshoot of its 2% inflation target in order to re-anchor long-term inflation expectations. As a result, the actual inflation data will lead expectations higher, causing the TIPS breakeven inflation curve to flatten.11 ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 32 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 14 bps on the month. It currently sits at 26 bps, below its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). Our Excess Return Bond Map (see Appendix C) shows that Aaa-rated consumer ABS ranks among the most defensive US spread products. This explains why the sector performed so well in January when other spread sectors struggled. ABS also offer higher expected returns than other low-risk sectors such as Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals. However, we remain wary of allocating too much to consumer ABS because credit trends are slowly shifting in the wrong direction. The consumer credit delinquency rate remains low, but has put in a clear bottom. This is also true for the household interest expense ratio (panel 3). Senior Loan Officers also continue to tighten lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising delinquencies (bottom panel). Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 43 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency CMBS tightened 6 bps on the month. It currently sits at 67 bps, below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). In last week’s Special Report, we explored how low interest rates have boosted commercial real estate (CRE) prices this cycle, and concluded that a sharp drawdown in CRE prices is likely only when inflation starts to pick up steam.12 In that report we also mentioned that non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS spreads look attractive relative to US corporate bonds from a risk/reward perspective (see our Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C), and that the macro environment is only slightly unfavorable for CMBS spreads. Specifically, CRE bank lending standards are just in “net tightening” territory. But both lending standards and loan demand are very close to neutral (bottom 2 panels). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 34 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 4 bps on the month to reach 54 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer a compelling risk/reward trade-off. An overweight allocation to this 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 US 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. At present, the market is priced for 57 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate a flat fed funds rate over that time horizon, and therefore anticipate that below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will profit. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record 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. Contagion Contagion Contagion Contagion Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations 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: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US 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 January 31, 2020) Contagion Contagion 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 January 31, 2020) Contagion Contagion 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 33 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 33 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) Contagion Contagion 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 US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Excess Return Bond Map (As Of January 31, 2020) Contagion Contagion ​​​​​​​ Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2  For details on how we calculate our spread targets please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3  For details on how we calculate our spread targets please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Perspective On Risk And Reward”, dated October 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Country Insights: Malaysia, Mexico & Central Europe”, dated October 31, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For further details on our recommended yield curve trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best Spot On The Yield Curve”, dated January 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 For further details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11  Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12  Please see US Investment Strategy / US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Commercial Real Estate And US Financial Stability”, dated January 27, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

  Feature Everyone’s asset-allocation plans for the year have been disrupted by the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Our view is that, while the virus is serious and will hurt the Chinese and global economy in the short term, it does not change the 12-month structural outlook for financial markets. Once the epidemic is under control (which it is not yet), there will be an excellent buying opportunity for risk assets and for the most affected asset classes. Many commentators have pointed to the lessons from SARS in 2003. Markets bottomed around the time that new cases of the disease peaked (Chart 1). But there are risks with such a simplistic comparison. The US invasion of Iraq happened at the same time – between 19 March and 1 May 2003 – with arguably a bigger impact on global markets. The Chinese economy was much less significant: China represented only 4% of global nominal GDP in 2003 (versus 17% now), 7% of global car sales (35% now), and 10-20% of commodity demand (50-60%). And it is still unclear how similar 2019-nCoV is to SARS: it appears to be spreading more rapidly (Chart 2) but (so far, at least) is less deadly, with a mortality rate of about 2%, compared to 10% for SARS. Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral Chart 1The Lesson From Sars The Lesson From Sars The Lesson From Sars Chart 2But Is Novel Coronavirus Different? Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral     Nonetheless, the basic theory that markets should bottom around the time that new cases and deaths peak is likely to prove correct. With the number of deaths still growing, however, that is not yet the case. Our advice to investors would be not to sell at this point. The hedges we have in our portfolio (overweight cash and gold) should help to cushion any further downside. But, within a few weeks, assets such as EM equities, airline stocks, commodities, or the Australian dollar should look very attractive again (Chart 3). For the next few months, economic data, particularly from China, will be hard to interpret. In 2003, Chinese GDP was reduced by 1.1% because of SARS, according to estimates by the Brookings Institute.1 The global economy is likely to be more heavily impacted this time, given today’s closely integrated supply chains. On the other hand, most academic research shows that consumption and production lost during an epidemic are later made up. Additionally, the Chinese government is likely to respond with easier fiscal and monetary policy. Once the air clears, we think our thesis that the manufacturing cycle bottomed in late 2019 will remain intact. The data over the past few weeks supports this. In Asia, in particular, PMIs for the major emerging economies are back above 50 (Chart 4). Europe’s rebound has lagged a little but, in the key German economy, indicators of business and investor sentiment have bottomed. Demand in the auto sector, crucial for Europe and Japan, is clearly starting to recover. Data in Europe and EM have generally surprised to the upside recently (Chart 5). Chart 3Some Assets May Soon Look Attractive Some Assets May Soon Look Attractive Some Assets May Soon Look Attractive   Chart 4Asian And European Data Picking Up Asian And European Data Picking Up Asian And European Data Picking Up Chart 5Positive Surprises Positive Surprises Positive Surprises The theory that markets should bottom around the time that new cases and deaths peak is likely to prove correct. To a degree, the new virus gave investors an excuse to take profits in some over-bought markets. The US equity market, in particular, looked expensive at the start of the year, with a forward PE of 19x. But we would dismiss the common view that investors had become too optimistic. The bull-bear ratio is not elevated (Chart 6), with only 37% of US individual investors at the start of January believing that the stock market would go up over the next six months, not particularly high by historical standards – it has fallen now to 32%. Last year, investors took money out of equity funds, despite strong returns from stocks. In the past – for example 2012 and 2016 – when this happened, it was followed by further gains for equities, as investors belatedly bought into the rally (Chart 7).   Chart 6Retail Investors Aren't So Bullish... Retail Investors Aren't So Bullish... Retail Investors Aren't So Bullish... Chart 7...Indeed, They Have Been Selling Stocks ...Indeed, They Have Been Selling Stocks ...Indeed, They Have Been Selling Stocks     On a 12-month investment horizon, therefore, we remain overweight risk assets such as equities and credit, albeit with some hedges. The upside to global growth remains underestimated: the economists’ consensus is for only 1.8% GDP growth in the US and 1.0% in the euro area this year. A combination of accelerating global growth and central banks that will stay dovish should allow equities to outperform bonds over the next 12 months (Chart 8). Chart 8If PMIs Pick Up, Equities Will Outperform If PMIs Pick Up, Equities Will Outperform If PMIs Pick Up, Equities Will Outperform   Chart 9First Signs Of US Equity Underperformance? First Signs Of US Equity Underperformance? First Signs Of US Equity Underperformance? Equities:  In December, we moved underweight US equities and recommended shifting into more cyclical markets: overweight the euro zone, and neutral on EM, the UK, and Australia. Before the outbreak of 2019-nCoV, this had worked in EM, but less well in Europe (Chart 9). Once the effects of the virus have cleared, we still believe this allocation will outperform as the global manufacturing cycle picks up. But we have a couple of concerns. (1) The recent US/China trade deal will require China to increase imports from the US by a highly unrealistic 83% year-on-year in 2020 (Chart 10). Our China strategists don’t expect this target to be fully met, but think any increase will come from substitution.2 This would hurt exporters in Europe and Asia. (2) The outperformance of euro area equities is very much determined by how banks fare. The headwinds against them continue: the ECB recently decreed that six major banks fall below required capital ratios; loan growth to corporates in the euro area has fallen to 3.2% year-on-year. Much, though, depends on the yield curve (Chart 11). If it steepens, as a result of stronger growth this year, as we expect, bank stocks should outperform, especially since they remain very cheap (the average price/book ratio of euro area banks is currently only 0.65).   Chart 10China’s Import Targets Are Unrealistic Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral Chart 11Bank Performance Depends On The Yield Curve Bank Performance Depends On The Yield Curve Bank Performance Depends On The Yield Curve Once the air clears, we think our thesis that the manufacturing cycle bottomed in late 2019 will remain intact. Fixed Income: Government bond yields have fallen in recent weeks as investors sought cover, with the US Treasury 10-year yield dropping to 1.55%. While it may test last September’s low of 1.46%, we do not see much further room for global yields to fall. They tend to be highly correlated with manufacturing PMIs, which we expect to rise over the next 12 months (Chart 12). Also, we see the Fed staying on hold this year, not cutting rates twice, as the market is now pricing in. This mildly hawkish surprise should push up rates (Chart 13). We continue to prefer credit over government bonds. Our global fixed-income strategists consider that, from a valuation standpoint, US high yield, and UK investment grade and high yield are the most attractive (Chart 14).3 Chart 12Rates Move In Line With PMIs Rates Move In Line With PMIs Rates Move In Line With PMIs Chart 13What If The Fed Doesn't Cut Rates? What If The Fed Doesn't Cut Rates? What If The Fed Doesn't Cut Rates? Chart 14US Junk Looks Most Attractive Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral Currencies:  Defensive currencies such as the yen, Swiss franc, and US dollar have benefitted from the recent risk-off move. We see this as temporary. Once investors refocus on growth, the US dollar should start to depreciate again (the DXY index did fall by 3% between September and early January). The dollar is a counter-cyclical currency. It is 15% overvalued relative to PPP (Chart 15). It is also very momentum-driven – and, since December, momentum has pointed to depreciation and continues to do so (Chart 16).  Chart 15Dollar Is 15% Overvalued... Dollar Is 15% Overvalued... Dollar Is 15% Overvalued... Chart 16...And Momentum Has Moved Against USD ...And Momentum Has Moved Against USD ...And Momentum Has Moved Against USD Commodities: Industrial metals prices had started to pick up over the past few months, reflecting the stabilization of Chinese growth (Chart 17). How they fare from now will depend on: (1) how sharply Chinese growth slows as a result of 2019nCoV, and (2) how much stimulus the Chinese government rolls out to offset this. Given the degree of decline in some commodity prices (zinc down by 16% since mid-January, and copper by 9%, for example), there should be an attractive buying opportunity in these assets over coming weeks. Gold has proved to be a handy hedge against geopolitical risks (Iran) and unexpected tail risks (the coronavirus), rising by 4% year-to-date. We continue to believe it has a useful place in investors’ portfolios as a diversifier and hedge, particularly in a world of very low interest rates where cash is unattractive (Chart 18). The oil price has been hit by the disruption to air travel in January, but supply remains tight (and OPEC is likely to cut supply further in response to the demand shock).4 As long as economic growth picks up later this year, we see the crude oil price recovering over the coming months. Chart 17Metals Reflect Chinese Growth Chinese Slowdown Will Weigh On Metal Prices Metals Reflect Chinese Growth Chinese Slowdown Will Weigh On Metal Prices Metals Reflect Chinese Growth Chart 18Gold Attractive With Bond Yields So Low Gold Attractive With Bond Yields So Low Gold Attractive With Bond Yields So Low Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Globalization and Disease: The Case Of SARS, Jong-Wha Lee and Warwick J. McKibbin, Brookings Discussion Paper No. 156, available at https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20040203-1.pdf 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Managing Expectations,” dated 22 January 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report “How To Find Value In Corporate Bonds,” dated 21 January 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock,” dated 30 January 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation  

Highlights Portfolio Strategy China’s monetary easing, the resilient US dollar, weak operating industry metrics and a looming margin squeeze all signal that an underweight stance is still warranted in the S&P chemicals index.    Lofty valuations, overbought technicals, declining capex and weak operating metrics, are all warning that an earnings-led underperformance period is in store for the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. Recent Changes Trim the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index to underweight, today. Table 1 Crosscurrents Crosscurrents Feature The S&P 500 fell for a second straight week and has now given back almost all of the year-to-date gains. While the coronavirus has served as an excuse to sell as we warned last week,1 we are nowhere near in unwinding the extreme overbought conditions in the broad equity market. We are no epidemiology experts, however, what concerns us most is when the news will eventually hit that coronavirus deaths are sprucing up outside of China’s borders. This will likely catalyze more equity selling and a capitulation point will subsequently ensue. Importantly, beneath the surface macro divergences remain wide. The yield curve peaked at the turn of the year. Similarly, the real 10-year Treasury yield crested around the same time and so did the hyper growth sensitive AUD/CHF cross rate all predating the coronavirus epidemic news (Chart 1). Our sense is that the bond market in particular is likely reflecting Bernie Sander’s rise in the polls along with persistently soft economic data.   Other indicators we track confirm that the handoff from liquidity-to-growth we have all been waiting for remains on hold. The oil-to-gold and copper-to-gold ratios have no pulse, warning that growth remains elusive (third & bottom panels, Chart 2). Chart 1Souring Macro Predates Coronavirus Souring Macro Predates Coronavirus Souring Macro Predates Coronavirus Chart 2Watch Gold Closely Watch Gold Closely Watch Gold Closely Moreover, in our January 13 report we highlighted that gold was sniffing out two or three fed cuts in 2020, leading the fed funds futures market, as it did in the spring of 2019.2 Since our last update, the fed funds discounter in the coming 12 months has sunk from negative 20bps to negative 42bps (year-on-year change in the fed funds rate shown inverted, second panel, Chart 2). It is disconcerting that despite the sloshing liquidity and de-escalation in the US/China trade war, CEOs remain on the sidelines. The Q4 GDP release showed that non-residential investment is now contracting on a year-over-year (yoy) basis (bottom panel, Chart 3) and has been subtracting from real output growth for three consecutive quarters. Hard data continues to warn that the manufacturing recession is not over as the 15% yoy contraction in non-defense durable goods orders revealed last week (third panel, Chart 3). Equity market internals also warn that the SPX is skating on thin ice. Worrisomely, the Philly semiconductors index (SOX) peaked versus the NASDAQ 100 last year and has been losing steam of late. The equally- versus market cap-weighted S&P 500 and NASDAQ 100 ratios remain near multi-year lows, and small caps are still stalling versus large caps (Chart 4). The implication is that, at least, an indigestion period looms for the broad equity market. Chart 3Ongoing Manufacturing Recession Ongoing Manufacturing Recession Ongoing Manufacturing Recession Chart 4Weak Market Internals Weak Market Internals Weak Market Internals Netting it all out, there are high odds that the coronavirus epidemic may serve as a catalyst and short-circuit the already frail handoff from liquidity-to-growth, warning that equity market caution is warranted at this juncture. This week we are trimming a key tech subgroup to underweight, and updating a heavyweight basic materials sub-index. To Infinity And Beyond? While we have been neutral the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index and thus participating in the monster rally over the past year, the time is ripe to downgrade exposure to below benchmark. Undoubtedly, relative share prices are extremely extended. The second panel of Chart 5 shows that the relative share price ratio is at the highest level as a percentage of its 200-day moving average since the late-1990s. Shown as a z-score, this technical indicator is stretched to the tune of two standard deviations above the historical mean (third panel, Chart 5). The last three times technical conditions were so overbought, it marked a multi-year peak in relative performance (top panel, Chart 5). Importantly, the forward multiple explains all of the return in this tech sub-group’s stellar relative performance since the 2018 Christmas Eve lows (Chart 6). In fact, stagnant-to-lower relative profit growth subtracted from relative returns over the same time period (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Up, Up And Away? Up, Up And Away? Up, Up And Away? Moreover, the parabolic move in the forward P/E ratio that climbed from a 25% discount to the SPX to a 15% premium (i.e. a 53% multiple jump), was because the 10-year US Treasury yield plunged by 175 basis points from peak to trough (10-year US Treasury yield shown inverted, Chart 7). Chart 6EPS Have To Do The Heavy Lifting EPS Have To Do The Heavy Lifting EPS Have To Do The Heavy Lifting Chart 7Multiple Expansion Phase Has Run Its Course Multiple Expansion Phase Has Run Its Course Multiple Expansion Phase Has Run Its Course Such enormous easing in financial conditions is unlikely to repeat in the coming twelve months in order to push the forward multiple even higher and sustain the “goldilocks” conditions for the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. In contrast, BCA’s higher interest rate view is a harbinger of a multiple contraction phase and compels us to trim exposure on this high-flying tech sub group to underweight. Another market narrative substantiating the multiple expansion phase is that heavyweight AAPL is now a services oriented company and rightly so commands a sky-high multiple similar to the cloud and software stocks. While there is some truth to the push into services, the iphone and other hardware still dominates AAPL’s sales and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future especially on the eve of a 5G smartphone rollout. Turning over to the macro backdrop, this still mostly manufacturing-based industry moves with the ebbs and flows of the ISM manufacturing survey. Overall business investment is contracting and so is industry capex. Worrisomely, most of the ISM manufacturing subcomponents remain below the boom/bust line warning that investment will remain soft in the coming months, despite the Sino-American trade détente (middle panel, Chart 8). CEO confidence in capital spending remains downbeat and corroborates that at least a wait and see attitude toward greenfield expansion plans is a high probability outcome (bottom panel, Chart 8). Moreover, global export expectations continue to plumb cyclical lows. Similarly, the Emerging Asian (a key tech manufacturing hub) leading economic indicator broke below the GFC lows warning that industry exports are at risk of a further collapse (second & third panels, Chart 9). Chart 8Something’s Gotta Give Something’s Gotta Give Something’s Gotta Give Chart 9Weak Operating Metrics Weak Operating Metrics Weak Operating Metrics Chart 10Soft Pricing Power… Soft Pricing Power… Soft Pricing Power… Chart 11…Will Continue To Weigh On Margins …Will Continue To Weigh On Margins …Will Continue To Weigh On Margins Beyond soft exports, industry new orders are also contracting (bottom panel, Chart 9). This deficient demand backdrop will continue to weigh on industry sales, owing to the recent drubbing in pricing power (third panel, Chart 10).\ Deflating selling prices are also negative for profit margins. The wide gap between industry and SPX margins is clearly unsustainable (Chart 11). Already there is tentative evidence that S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals margins have peaked and will remain under downward pressure, especially given our expectation of underwhelming profit growth in the coming months. In sum, lofty valuations, overbought technicals, declining capex and weak operating metrics are all warning that an earnings-led underperformance period is in store for the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. Nevertheless, there is one risk that is worth monitoring: the US consumer. A tight labor market should continue to bid up the price of labor and sustains wage gains which means more money in consumers’ wallets. As a result, brisk consumer outlays on computers & peripherals could reverse the ongoing industry sales deceleration (bottom panel, Chart 12). In sum, lofty valuations, overbought technicals, declining capex and weak operating metrics are all warning that an earnings-led underperformance period is in store for the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5CMPE – AAPL, HPQ, WDC, HPE, STX, NTAP, XRX. Chart 12Risk To Bearish View Risk To Bearish View Risk To Bearish View Hazardous Chemicals The S&P chemicals bear market has entered its third year and we remain underweight this capital intensive basic materials subgroup. Relative share prices have broken below the GFC lows and it would not surprise us if they would retest the 2006 lows (Chart 13). Now that the chemicals M&A activity dust has settled for good, China dominates the direction of chemical equities. Chinese authorities are still easing monetary policy and are injecting liquidity in the banking system by slashing the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). The recent coronavirus epidemic almost guarantees further easing via the RRR channel. Such a monetary setting should eventually stabilize the economy. However, until a turnaround is evident, US chemical stocks will continue to follow down the path of the Chinese RRR (top panel, Chart 13). The Australian currency, which is hyper-sensitive to China’s growth, corroborates that Chinese economic activity remains soft (second panel, Chart 13). Broad-based US dollar strength also confirms that global growth has yet to stage a durable comeback. The implication is that US chemical exports will continue to lose market share, weighing on industry profits (third panel, Chart 13). Chart 13China Leads The Way China Leads The Way China Leads The Way In fact, sell-side analysts are expecting a relative profit growth acceleration phase, but a decline in relative revenue prospects. This suggests that already uncharacteristically high chemical profit margins will continue to outpace the broad market (bottom panel, Chart 13). Our indicators suggest that it pays to lean against such relative EPS and profit margin euphoria. Importantly, our chemicals profit margin proxy is sinking, warning that a profit margin squeeze looms. Not only are selling prices deflating, but also the industry’s wage bill is gaining steam (bottom panel, Chart 14). Adding it up, China’s monetary easing, the resilient US dollar, weak operating industry metrics and a looming margin squeeze all signal that an underweight stance is still warranted in the S&P chemicals index. Moreover, chemical railcar loads are contracting at a time when the ISM manufacturing survey remains squarely below the boom/bust line (middle panel, Chart 14). This deficient chemical demand backdrop is deflationary (second panel, Chart 15) and will eat into industry profit margins. Chart 14Downbeat Demand Backdrop Downbeat Demand Backdrop Downbeat Demand Backdrop Chart 15Deflation Getting Entrenched Deflation Getting Entrenched Deflation Getting Entrenched On the operating front, our chemicals industry productivity proxy (industrial production/employment) is also in negative territory, underscoring that profits will likely surprise to the downside (third panel, Chart 15). Chemical industrial production is contracting at an accelerating pace and industry shipments are in retreat, warnings that the risk is high of an inventory liquidation phase (bottom panel, Chart 15). While we remain bearish on chemical stocks on a cyclical horizon, there are two key risks we are closely monitoring that would push our view offside. The global reflation handoff to actual growth is the key risk. If the global economy enters a V-shaped recovery, global bond yields will immediately reflect such a growth backdrop and push interest rates higher. This would put downward pressure on the greenback and significantly reflate chemical earnings (middle panel, Chart 16). Finally, chemical stocks are cheap and trade at a steep discount to the broad market. When our relative valuation indicator has plunged to such depressed levels in the past fifteen years, bottom-fishing buyers have come back in the market and added chemical stock exposure to their portfolios (bottom panel, Chart 16). Adding it up, China’s monetary easing, the resilient US dollar, weak operating industry metrics and a looming margin squeeze all signal that an underweight stance is still warranted in the S&P chemicals index. Bottom Line: Stay underweight the S&P chemicals index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5CHEM – LIN, APD, ECL, SHW, DD, DOW, PPG, CTVA, LYB, IFF, CE, FMC, EMN, CF, ALB, MOS. Chart 16Two Risks To Monitor Two Risks To Monitor Two Risks To Monitor     Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Music Stops...” dated January 27, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Three EPS Scenarios” dated January 13, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of January 31, 2020.  The model made a significant change in its allocation this month. The allocation to the US is now overweight from neutral previously. Japan, the UK and France remain the three largest underweight countries, as shown in Table 1.  Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark in January by 9 bps, driven by the outperformance from the Level 2 mode (21 bps). The Level 1 model also generated two basis points of outperformance. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 80 bps, with 297 bps of outperformance by Level 2 model, offset by 55 bps of underperformance from Level 1. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA US Vs. Non US Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1)   Chart 3GAA Non US Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) For more on historical performance, please refer to our website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered as well when making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of January 31, 2019. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance The model’s relative tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. The global growth proxies used in our model continue providing positive signals. This in turn led the model to maintain its overweight on multiple cyclical sectors. The valuation component remains muted across all sectors except Energy. Global central bankers will continue to keep monetary policy accommodative, leading the model to favor a mixed bag of cyclical and defensive sectors. The model is now overweight four sectors in total, three cyclical sectors versus one defensive sector. These are Consumer Discretionary, Information Technology, Communication Services, and Health Care. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model”, dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates”, dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Table 3Overall Model Performance GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Table 4Current Model Allocations GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates   Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com  

Highlights Collective market signals suggest a low but non-negligible probability of a dollar spike due to the coronavirus. Stay long the yen as a portfolio hedge. Short CHF/JPY bets also make sense.  Our limit sell on the gold/silver ratio was triggered at 90. Place a stop at 95, with an initial target of 80. Feature Chart I-1Watching Market Signals Watching Market Signals Watching Market Signals Investors can generally be classified in two camps. There are those who are predisposed to being risk averse. As such, capital preservation trumps the desire for outsized returns. For such investors, defensive equities such as staples and utility stocks, fixed-income assets, or even gold tend to be the favored vehicles over time. At the opposite end of the spectrum are the investors who desire hopping on and riding the next growth unicorn. Their favored investment universe can include technology and biotech concerns, but can also span industries such as automotive and food. The key, however, is that their inherent disposition is to multiply returns rather than preserve capital. There is a crucial difference between this bias and a risk-on/risk-off environment. For example, in a risk-on environment, the more prudent investor might choose high-yielding government bonds, while the high flyer will be in the S&P 500 or private equity. In the currency world, the “preservationist” might choose the euro as an anti-dollar play despite negative yields, while the “high flyer” would rather be in the New Zealand dollar or the Norwegian krone. The oscillation between these two bipolar universes can be measured in various ways, but one that has been prescient in gauging the direction for currency markets is the ratio between the S&P 500 index and gold prices. In general, whenever the S&P 500 has been outperforming gold, the dollar has tended to soar, and vice versa (Chart I-1). As a closed economy, US markets are generally more defensive. So even in a risk-off environment, this ratio can capture the preference for capital preservation versus growth. The collective signals from financial markets suggest there is a low probability of a dollar spike. The SPX/Gold ratio hit a peak of 2.5 in the last quarter of 2018 and has since been exhibiting a bearish pattern of lower highs, with the latest rise peaking a nudge below 2.2. Our belief is that it is less a story of greed versus fear, and more an indication of a powerful underlying preference for investors being revealed in asset prices. Gauging FX Market Signals The coronavirus outbreak has been dominating market headlines in recent weeks. We are not infectious disease specialists, so cannot provide any insight on the potential impact on growth and/or the probability for the virus to become much more widespread. However, the collective signals from financial markets suggest there is a low probability of a dollar spike. The rise in the dollar has been relatively on par with the SARS experience of 2002 (Chart I-2A and Chart I-2B). Back then, the Chinese economy had a much smaller effect on global growth, and so far, the number of reported cases is outpacing the SARS experience. So, it is possible that given the dollar bull market of the last decade or so, there is a dearth of new buyers in the greenback. Chart I-2ARun Of The Mill Virus ? (1) Run Of The Mill Virus ? (1) Run Of The Mill Virus ? (1) Chart I-2BRun Of The Mill Virus ? (2) Run Of The Mill Virus ? (2) Run Of The Mill Virus ? (2) The most recent fall in the S&P 500 index versus gold is definitely a sign of risk aversion, but the much broader peak almost two years ago might be signaling an outright shift in the investment universe. In other words, capital preservation might now be best sought outside US bourses. If this is the case, cheap and unloved value stocks will provide better shelter compared to the growth champions of the last decade. It is interesting that emerging market cyclical stocks (where the epicenter of the crisis is) have not underperformed defensives in a meaningful way during the latest riot (Chart I-3). The typical narrative is that the dollar is now a high-yielding currency within the G10. That means it has now become the object of carry trades. Should the investment universe be shifting to one of prudence, it is plausible though not probable that the greenback will provide both functions. Chart I-3Mixed Message From Cyclicals Versus Defensives Mixed Message From Cyclicals Versus Defensives Mixed Message From Cyclicals Versus Defensives Chart I-4Correlation Break Down Or Unsustainable Gap? Correlation Break Down Or Unsustainable Gap? Correlation Break Down Or Unsustainable Gap? The absolute collapse in the gold-to-bond ratio further confirms that after almost a decade of underperformance, hard money might be coming back into favor versus yield plays (Chart I-4). Gold was a monetary aggregate for centuries, and continues to stand as a viable threat to dollar liabilities. This is not only visible in the rampant accumulation of gold by foreign central banks, notably Russia and China, but also by the breakout in gold in almost every currency, including safe-havens like the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen (Chart I-5). The absolute collapse in the gold-to-bond ratio further confirms that after almost a decade of underperformance, hard money might be coming back into favor. Data from the US Treasury confirms that foreign entities have been fleeing US bond markets at among the fastest pace in recent years. On a rolling 12-month total basis, the US saw an exodus of about US$250 billion in Treasurys from foreigners, one of the largest on record (Chart I-6). Foreign private investors are still net buyers of US Treasurys, but the downtrend in purchases in recent years is evident. In addition, this helps explain why gold has also outperformed Treasurys over this period. Chart I-5Soft Versus Hard ##br##Money Soft Versus Hard Money Soft Versus Hard Money Chart I-6Official Data Shows Less Preference For Treasurys Official Data Shows Less Preference For Treasurys Official Data Shows Less Preference For Treasurys The US dollar’s reserve status remains intact for now. But subtle shifts in this exorbitant privilege are worth monitoring. If balance-of-payment dynamics continue to head in the wrong direction, as  they are now, this will favor hard money and non-US assets, while accelerating divestment out of US Treasurys. This is irrespective of whether we enter a risk-on versus risk-off environment. A good proxy for whether the US government was prudent or profligate over the past four decades can be measured by the gap between unemployment relative to NAIRU (the so-called unemployment gap) and the corresponding budget deficit. In simple terms, full employment should be accompanied by balanced budgets, while governments can step in during recessions to put a floor under aggregate demand. Not surprisingly, using this simple rule, sound fiscal policies in the US were usually accompanied by a strong dollar, and vice versa. Chart I-7The Risk To Long Dollar Positions The Risk To Long Dollar Positions The Risk To Long Dollar Positions Over the next five years, the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the US budget deficit will swell to 4.6% of GDP. Assuming the current account deficit remains stable, this will pin the twin deficits at 7.2% of GDP. This assumes no recession, which would have the potential to boost the deficit even further. In the last forty years, there has not been any prolonged period where twin deficits in the US have been expanding while the dollar has been in a bull market (Chart I-7).  In a nutshell, even though the coronavirus is dominating headlines, the lack of a more pronounced greenback strength can be pinpointed to a rising number of negative market signals. Our bias is that when this eventually rolls over and global growth picks up in earnest, dollar bulls may be forced to capitulate. Bottom Line: We are not downplaying the potential impact of the coronavirus, but are skeptical of its ability to catapult the dollar higher. We are short the DXY index, with a target of 90 and a stop at 100. Stick with it. Bullish Both Gold And Silver, But Go Short The GSR If we are right, then both gold and silver will tend to rise in an environment where the dollar is falling. That said, the gold/silver ratio (GSR) hit a three-decade high of 93.3 last summer, opening up an arbitrage opportunity. The history of these reversals is that they tend to be powerful, quick, and extremely volatile (Chart I-8). This not only paves the way for an excellent entry point to short gold versus silver, but provides important information on the battleground between easing financial conditions and a pick-up in economic (or manufacturing) activity. The ratio of the velocity of money between the US and China has tended to track both the gold/silver ratio and the dollar closely.  Just like gold, silver benefits from low interest rates, plentiful liquidity, and the incentive for fiat money debasement. However, the gold/silver ratio is sitting near two standard deviations above its mean. Meanwhile, over the past century, the peak in GSR has been around 100. The gold/silver ratio tends to rally ahead of an economic slowdown, but then peaks when growth is still weak but liquidity conditions are plentiful enough to affect the outlook for future growth. This appears to be the case today. The simple reason is that silver has more industrial uses than gold (Chart I-9). Chart I-8GSR At A Speculative Extreme GSR At A Speculative Extreme GSR At A Speculative Extreme Chart I-9No Recession = Buy Silver No Recession = Buy Silver No Recession = Buy Silver The ratio of the velocity of money between the US and China has tended to track both the gold/silver ratio and the dollar closely (Chart I-10). A falling ratio signifies that the number of times money is changing hands in China is outpacing that number in the US. This also tends to coincide with a preference for US versus non-US assets, since animal spirits (as measured by money velocity) tend to be pronounced in places where returns on capital are higher.  Silver is a more volatile metal than gold. Part of the reason is that the silver market is thinner, with future open interest that is about one-third that of gold. As such, silver tends to rise faster than gold during precious metal bull markets (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Falling GSR = Rising Manufacturing Activity Falling GSR = Rising Manufacturing Activity Falling GSR = Rising Manufacturing Activity Chart I-11Silver Is More Volatile Than Gold Silver Is More Volatile Than Gold Silver Is More Volatile Than Gold This brings us to the sweet spot for silver. Even if global growth remains tepid over the next few months, due to a rise in infections from the coronavirus, a lot of the bad news is already reflected in a high GSR. This means the potential for upside will have to be nothing short of a deep recession. Relative speculative positioning favors gold, which is positive from a contrarian standpoint. Ditto for relative sentiment. More often than not, a positive signal from both these indicators has been a good timing tool for a selloff in the GSR. If global growth bottoms, then the rise in silver prices could be explosive. Silver fabrication demand benefits from new industries such as solar and a flourishing “cloud” industry that are capturing the new manufacturing landscape. Meanwhile, we are also entering a window where any pickup in demand could lead to a sizeable increase in the physical silver deficit. Bottom Line: A falling GSR provides important information about the battleground between easing financial conditions and a pickup in economic activity. We remain bullish on both gold and silver, but a trading opportunity has opened up for a short GSR position. Housekeeping Chart I-12AUD Will Follow Asian Currencies AUD Will Follow Asian Currencies AUD Will Follow Asian Currencies Our limit buy on the Australian dollar was triggered at 68 cents. We discussed the Aussie at length in our report dated  January 17.1 Place an initial target at 0.75 cents and a tight stop at 0.66. The near-term risk to this trade is any escalation in virus infections that will collectively send Asian currencies into a tailspin (Chart I-12).     Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "On AUD And CNY," dated January 17, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar   Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the US have been positive: The Markit manufacturing PMI fell to 51.7 while the services component increased to 53.2 in January. The Dallas Fed manufacturing index improved from -3.2 to -0.2 in January. Moreover, the Richmond Fed manufacturing index soared to 20 in January. Durable goods orders increased by 2.4% month-on-month in December. The trade deficit widened further to $68.3 billion from $63 billion in December. Annualized GDP growth was unchanged at 2.1% year-on-year in Q4. Initial jobless claims fell to 216K from 223K for the week ended January 24th. The DXY index appreciated by 0.1% this week. While the coronavirus spurred worries about a further slowdown in the global economy, the impact on the US remains to be seen. On Wednesday, the Fed committee voted unanimously to keep interest rates on hold at 1.75% and concluded that the current rate is appropriate to support sustained expansion of the US economy. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been mostly positive: The Markit manufacturing PMI jumped to 47.8 in January while the services PMI fell slightly to 52.2. The German IFO current assessment index increased to 99.1 from 98.8 in January, while expectations component fell to 92.9. The economic sentiment indicator increased to 102.8 from 101.3 in January. The unemployment rate fell further to 7.4% in December from 7.5% the prior month. The euro has been flat against the US dollar this week. Though the German IFO expectations component disappointed, the overall assessment has shown tentative signs of recovery. More importantly, changes in the manufacturing PMI indices, especially in Germany, are staging the V-shaped recovery we have been expecting. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been positive: Consumer confidence was unchanged at 39.1 in January. Services PPI increased by 2.1% year-on-year in December. Headline inflation increased to 0.8% year-on-year from 0.5% in December. Both manufacturing and services PMIs increased to 49.3 and 52.1, respectively in January. The Japanese yen appreciated by 0.6% against the US dollar this week. The flare up in risk aversion was a very potent catalyst, given the yen had become unloved and under owned. Persistent global risks, including Mid East tensions, and more recently, the spread of coronavirus, all warrant holding the Japanese yen as a portfolio hedge. Our last weekly report discussed why we prefer the Japanese yen to the Swiss franc as portfolio insurance. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Signposts For A Reversal In The Dollar Bull Market - November 1, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the UK have been solid: Both Markit manufacturing and services PMIs soared to 49.8 and 52.9 respectively in January. Nationwide housing prices increased by 1.9% year-on-year in January, compared with 1.4% the previous month. The saucer-shaped bottom in home prices is becoming more and more evident. The British pound has been flat against the US dollar this week. On Thursday, the BoE decided to leave interest rates unchanged at 0.75%. The fact that there were only two dissenters, in line with the previous month, suggests that rising bets for a rate cut were misplaced. The UK is due to leave the EU as of January 31st and enter a transition period that is supposed to last until December 31st 2020. The immediate aftermath of the exit will be business as usual. Trading strategy on the pound should be a buy on dips. We will continue to explore opportunities in GBP in upcoming reports. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been mixed: The NAB business conditions index fell to 3 from 4 in December. Moreover, the business confidence index decreased to -2 from 0. Headline inflation increased to 1.8% year-on-year from 1.7% in the fourth quarter. Import prices increased by 0.7% quarter-on-quarter, while export prices plunged by 5.2% quarter-on-quarter in Q4. The Australian dollar fell by 2.1% against the US dollar this week, triggering our limit buy position at AUD/USD 0.68. Despite temporary challenges from the bushfires and the coronavirus, we continue to hold our base case view that global growth is likely to rebound in the next 12-to-18 months, which is bullish for the Aussie dollar. Report Links: On AUD And CNY - January 17, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been positive: Headline inflation increased to 1.9% year-on-year in Q4, compared with 1.5% the previous quarter. It also beat expectations of 1.8%. The trade balance shifted to a surplus of NZ$547 million in December. Goods exports rose by 4.8% year-on-year to NZ$5.5 billion, while imports fell by 5.4% year-on-year to NZ$5 billion. Shortly after the rise along with inflation data, the New Zealand dollar fell by more than 2% this week, amid growing risk aversion. New Zealand, as a chief exporter of agricultural products, bore a good brunt of speculative selling. Assuming infections peak in the coming weeks, we remain positive on the kiwi as the Chinese government is likely to inject more stimulus into the economy. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been mostly positive: Retail sales increased by 0.9% month-on-month in November. The Bloomberg Nanos confidence index rose to 56.5 from 56.1 for the week ended January 24th. The Canadian dollar fell by 0.6% against the US dollar this week. As a petrocurrency, the risk of much reduced travel hit the loonie. We have written at length in various reports about the loonie, but the bottom line is that Canada benefits less than other petrocurrencies in oil bull markets. Ergo, the underperformance of short CAD/NOK and long AUD/CAD positions this week is expected. In other news, Trump has signed the new USMCA bill into law this week, leaving Canada the only member of the trilateral deal that has yet to ratify the agreement. Report Links: The Loonie: Upside Versus The Dollar, But Downside At The Crosses Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been mixed: The trade surplus narrowed for a fourth consecutive month in December, falling to CHF 2 billion. Real exports decreased by 3.4% month-on-month while real imports grew by 0.2% month-on-month. The ZEW expectations index fell to 8.3 from 12.5 in January. The KOF leading indicator jumped to 100.1 from 96.2 in January. The Swiss franc has been more or less flat against the US dollar this week. The fall in exports of chemical and pharmaceutical production was the main driver behind the decrease in the Swiss trade balance in December. The SNB is walking a fine line. The improvement in the KOF leading indicator, along with rising inflation and PMI data is definitely a source of comfort, but the surge in EUR/CHF will hurt competitiveness and warrant stealth intervention. Buy EUR/CHF at 1.06. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Notes On The SNB - October 4, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been negative: Retail sales fell by 2% month-on-month in December. The Norwegian krone fell by 1.9% against the US dollar this week. The WTI crude oil price plunged by 20% since the peak earlier this month, due to a combination of falling global travel demand, eased Iran tensions and a bearish EIA inventory report. That being said, our Commodity & Energy strategists continue to be bullish energy prices and expect the WTI crude oil price to reach $63/bbl in 2020, based on recovering global demand and supply constraints. This should eventually lift the Norwegian krone. OPEC is scheduled to meet early March, and plunging prices could be a catalyst for the cartel to cut production. Report Links: On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been mixed: Producer prices increased by 1.3% year-on-year in December. The trade surplus shrank to SEK 0.3 billion from SEK 2.7 billion in December. Retail sales grew by 3.4% year-on-year in December. Consumer confidence marginally fell to 92.6 from 94.7 in January, while business confidence jumped to 97.4 in January, the highest in seven months. The Swedish krona fell by 1.3% against the US dollar this week. Recent Swedish data has been disappointing given the steep decline during the trade war, but we are beginning to see second-derivative improvements. The trade surplus is rising on a year-on-year basis. Particularly noteworthy was the improvement in business confidence, which has historically led the Swedbank PMI index tick for tick. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights The liquidity-driven rally will soon be followed by an acceleration in global growth. The economic recovery will bump up expectations of long-term profit growth. The dollar has downside, but the euro will not benefit much. Overweight stocks relative to bonds and bet on traditional cyclical sectors and commodities. The potential for outperformance of value relative to growth favors European equities. The probability of a tech mania is escalating: how should investors factor an expanding bubble into their portfolios? Feature Chart I-1A Bull Market In Stocks And Volatility? A Bull Market In Stocks And Volatility? A Bull Market In Stocks And Volatility? Despite all odds, the nCoV-2019 outbreak is barely denting the S&P 500’s frenetic rally. Plentiful liquidity, thawing Sino-US trade relations and improving economic activity in Asia, all have created ideal conditions for risk assets to appreciate on a cyclical basis. Stocks may look increasingly expensive and are primed to correct, but the bubble will expand further. After lifting asset valuations, monetary policy easing will soon boost worldwide economic activity. Consequently, earnings in the US and Europe will improve. As long as central bankers remain unconcerned about inflation, investors will bid up stocks. Investors should remember we are in the final innings of a bull market. Stocks can deliver outsized returns during this period, but often at the cost of elevated volatility, and the options market is not pricing in this uncertainty (Chart I-1). Moreover, timing the ultimate end of the bubble is extremely difficult. Hence, we prefer to look for assets that can still benefit from easy monetary conditions and rebounding growth, but are not as expensive as equities. Industrial commodities fit that description, especially after their recent selloff. The dollar remains a crucial asset to gauge the path of least resistance for assets. If it refuses to swoon, then it will indicate that global growth is in a weaker state than we foresaw. The good news is that the broad trade-weighted dollar seems to have peaked. Accommodative Monetary Conditions Are Here To Stay Easy liquidity has been the lifeblood of the S&P 500’s rally. The surge in the index coincided with the lagged impact of the rise in our US Financial Liquidity Index (Chart I-2). Low rates have allowed stocks to climb higher, yet earnings expectations remain muted. For example, since November 26, 2018, the forward P/E ratio for the S&P 500 has increased from 15.2 to 18.7, while 10-year Treasury yields have collapsed from 3.1% to 1.6%. Meanwhile, expectations for long-term earnings annual growth extracted from equity multiples using a discounted cash flow model have dropped from 2.4% to 1.2%. Historically, easier monetary policy pushes asset prices higher before it lifts economic activity. Historically, easier monetary policy pushes asset prices higher before it lifts economic activity. Yet, stocks and risk assets normally continue to climb when the economy recovers. Even without any additional monetary easing, as long as policy remains accommodative, risk assets will generate positive returns. Expectations for stronger cash flow growth become the force driving asset prices higher. Policy will likely remain accommodative around the world. Within this framework, peak monetary easing is probably behind us, even though liquidity conditions remain extremely accommodative. Nominal interest rates remain very low, and real bond yields are still falling. Unlike in 2018 and 2019, dropping TIPs yields reflect rising inflation expectations (Chart I-3). Those factors together indicate that policy is reflationary, which is confirmed by the gold rally. Chart I-2A Liquidity Driven Rally A Liquidity Driven Rally A Liquidity Driven Rally Chart I-3Today, Lower TIPS Yields Are Reflationary Today, Lower TIPS Yields Are Reflationary Today, Lower TIPS Yields Are Reflationary   Chart I-4Economic Activity To Respond To Liquidity Economic Activity To Respond To Liquidity Economic Activity To Respond To Liquidity Based on the historical lags between monetary easing and manufacturing activity, the global industrial sector is set to mend (Chart I-4). Moreover, the liquidity-driven surge in stock prices, combined with low yields and compressed credit spreads, has eased financial conditions, which creates the catalyst for an industrial recovery. Where will the growth come from? First, worldwide inventory levels have collapsed after making negative contributions to growth since mid-2018 (Chart I-5). Thus, there is room for an inventory restocking. Secondly, auto sales in Europe and China have rebounded to 18.5% from -23% and to -0.1% from -16.4%, respectively. Thirdly, China’s credit and fiscal impulse has improved. The uptick in Chinese iron ore imports indicates that the pass-through from domestic reflation to global economic activity will materialize soon (Chart I-6). Finally, following the Phase One Sino-US trade deal, global business confidence is bottoming, as exemplified by Belgium’s business confidence, Switzerland KOF LEI, Korea's manufacturing business survey, or US CFO and CEO confidence measures. The increase in EM earnings revisions shows that US capex intentions should soon re-accelerate, which bodes well for investment both in the US and globally (Chart I-7). Chart I-5Room For Inventory Restocking Room For Inventory Restocking Room For Inventory Restocking Chart I-6China Points To Stronger Global Growth China Points To Stronger Global Growth China Points To Stronger Global Growth   Construction activity, a gauge of the monetary stance, is looking up across the advanced economies. In the US, housing starts – a leading indicator of domestic demand – have hit a 13-year high. A pullback in this volatile data series is likely, but it should be limited. Vacancies remain at a paltry 1.4%, household formation is solid and affordability is not demanding (Chart I-8). In Europe, construction activity has been relatively stable through the economic slowdown. Even in Canada and Australia, housing transactions have gathered steam quickly following declines in mortgage rates (Chart I-9). Chart I-7Capex Is Set To Recover Capex Is Set To Recover Capex Is Set To Recover Chart I-8US Housing Is Robust US Housing Is Robust US Housing Is Robust Chart I-9Even The Canadian And Australian Housing Markets Are Stabilizing Even The Canadian And Australian Housing Markets Are Stabilizing Even The Canadian And Australian Housing Markets Are Stabilizing Consumers will remain a source of strength for the global economy. The dichotomy between weak manufacturing PMIs and the stable service sector reflects a healthy consumer spending. December retail sales in Europe and the US corroborate this assessment. The stabilization in US business confidence suggests that household incomes are not in as much jeopardy as three months ago. As household net worth and credit growth improve further, a stable outlook for household income will underwrite greater gains in consumption. Policy will likely remain accommodative around the world. For the time being, US inflationary pressures are muted. The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge has rolled over, hourly earnings growth has moved back below 3%, our pipeline inflation indicator derived from the ISM is weak, and core producer prices are flagging (Chart I-10). This trend is not US-specific. In the OECD, core consumer price inflation is set to decelerate due to the lagged impact of the manufacturing slowdown. Central banks are also constrained to remain dovish by their own rhetoric. The Fed's statement this week was a testament to this reality. Central banks are increasingly looking to set symmetrical inflation targets. After a decade of missing their targets, a symmetric target would imply keeping policy easier for longer, even if realized inflation moves back above 2%. A rebound in global growth and weak inflation should create a poisonous environment for the US dollar. Finally, fiscal policy will make a small positive contribution to growth in most major advanced economies in 2020, particularly in Germany and the UK (Table I-1). Chart I-10Limited Inflation Will Allow The Fed To Remain Easy Limited Inflation Will Allow The Fed To Remain Easy Limited Inflation Will Allow The Fed To Remain Easy Table I-1Modest Fiscal Easing In 2020 February 2020 February 2020   The Dollar And The Sino-US Phase One Deal At first glance, a rebound in global growth and weak inflation should create a poisonous environment for the US dollar (Chart I-11). As we have often argued, the dollar’s defining characteristic is its pronounced counter-cyclicality. Chart I-11A Painful Backdrop For The Greenback February 2020 February 2020 Deteriorating dollar fundamentals make this risk particularly relevant. US interest rates are well above those in the rest of the G10, but the gap in short rates has significantly narrowed. Historically, the direction of rates differentials and not their levels has determined the trend in the USD (Chart I-12). Moreover, real differentials at the long end of the curve support the notion that the maximum tailwinds for the dollar are behind us (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Furthermore, now that the US Treasury has replenished its accounts at the Federal Reserve, the Fed’s addition of excess reserves in the system will likely become increasingly negative for the dollar, especially against EM currencies. Likewise, relative money supply trends between the US, Europe, Japan and China already predict a decline in the dollar (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Interest Rate Differentials Do Not Favor The Dollar... Interest Rate Differentials Do Not Favor The Dollar... Interest Rate Differentials Do Not Favor The Dollar... Chart I-13...Neither Do Money Supply Trends ...Neither Do Money Supply Trends ...Neither Do Money Supply Trends   Chart I-14The Phase One Deal Is Ambitious February 2020 February 2020 The recent Sino-US trade agreement obscures what appears to be a straightforward picture. According to the Phase One deal signed mid-January, China will increase its US imports by $200 billion in the next two years vis-à-vis the high-water mark of $186 billion reached in 2017. This is an extremely ambitious goal (Chart I-14). Politically, it is positive that China has committed to buy manufactured goods and services in addition to commodities. However, the scale of the increase in imports of US manufactured goods is large, at $77 billion. China cannot fulfill this obligation if domestic growth merely stabilizes or picks up just a little, especially now that the domestic economy is in the midst of a spreading illness. It will have to substitute some of its European and Japanese imports with US goods. A consequence of this trade deal is that the euro’s gains will probably lag those recorded in normal business cycle upswings. Historically, European growth outperforms the US when China’s monetary conditions are easing and its marginal propensity to consume is rising (Chart I-15). However, given the potential for China to substitute European goods in favor of US ones, China’s economic reacceleration probably will not benefit Europe as much as it normally does. China may not ultimately follow through with as big of US purchases as it has promised, but it is likely, at least initially, to show good faith in the agreement. The euro’s gains will probably lag those recorded in normal business cycle upswings. While the trade agreement is a headwind for the euro, it is a positive for the Chinese yuan. The US output gap stands at 0.1% of potential GDP and the US labor market is near full employment. The US industrial sector does not possess the required spare capacity to fulfill additional Chinese demand. To equilibrate the market for US goods, prices will have to adjust to become more favorable for Chinese purchasers. The simplest mechanism to achieve this outcome is for the RMB to appreciate. Meanwhile, the euro is trading 16% below its equilibrium, which will allow European producers to fulfill US domestic demand. A widening US trade deficit with Europe would undo improvements in the trade balance with China. The probability that US equities correct further in the short-term is elevated. The implication for the dollar is that the broad trade-weighted USD will likely outperform the Dollar Index (DXY). The euro represents 18.9% of the broad trade-weighted dollar versus 57.6% of the DXY. Asian currencies, EM currencies at large, the AUD and the NZD, all should benefit from their close correlation with the RMB (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Europe Normally Wins When China Recovers Europe Normally Wins When China Recovers Europe Normally Wins When China Recovers Chart I-16EM, Asian, And Antipodean Exchange Rates Love A Strong RMB EM, Asian, And Antipodean Exchange Rates Love A Strong RMB EM, Asian, And Antipodean Exchange Rates Love A Strong RMB   Obviously, before the RMB and the assets linked to it can appreciate further, the panic surrounding the coronavirus will have to dissipate. However, the economic damage created by SARS was short lived. This respiratory syndrome resulted in a 2.4% contraction Hong-Kong’s GDP in the second quarter of 2003. The economy of Hong Kong recovered that loss quickly afterward. Investment Forecasts BCA continues to forecast upside in safe-haven yields. Global interest rates remain well below equilibrium and a global economic recovery bodes poorly for bond prices (Chart I-17). However, inflation expectations and not real yields will drive nominal yield changes. The dovish slant of global central banks and the growing likelihood that symmetric inflation targets will become the norm is creating long-term upside risks for inflation. Moreover, if symmetric inflation targets imply lower real short rates in the future, then they also imply lower real long rates today. Investors should begin switching their risk assets into industrial commodity plays, especially after their recent selloff. Easy monetary conditions, decreased real rates and an improvement in economic activity are also consistent with an outperformance of assets with higher yields. High-yield bonds, which offer attractive breakeven spreads, will benefit from this backdrop (Chart I-18). Furthermore, carry trades will likely continue to perform well. In addition to low interest rates across most of the G10, the low currency volatility caused by an extended period of easy policy will continue to encourage carry-seeking strategies. Chart I-17Bonds Are Still Expensive Bonds Are Still Expensive Bonds Are Still Expensive Chart I-18Where Is The Value In Credit? Where Is The Value In Credit? Where Is The Value In Credit?   An environment in which growth is accelerating and monetary policy is accommodative argues in favor of stocks. Our profit growth model for the S&P 500 has finally moved back into positive territory. As earnings improve, investors will likely re-rate depressed long-term growth expectations for cash flows (Chart I-19). The flip side is that equity risk premia are elevated, especially outside the US (Chart I-19). Hence, as long as accelerating growth (but not tighter policy) drives up yields, equities should withstand rising borrowing costs. The use of passive investing and the prevalence of “closet indexers” accentuates the risk that a tech mania could blossom. The 400 point surge in the S&P 500 since early October complicates the picture. The probability that US equities correct further in the short-term is elevated, based on their short-term momentum and sentiment measures, such as the put/call ratio (Chart I-20). Foreign equities will continue to correct along US ones, even if they are cheaper. Chart I-19Elevated Stock Multiples Reflect Low Yields, Not Growth Exuberance Elevated Stock Multiples Reflect Low Yields, Not Growth Exuberance Elevated Stock Multiples Reflect Low Yields, Not Growth Exuberance Chart I-20Tactical Risks For Stocks Tactical Risks For Stocks Tactical Risks For Stocks   Chart I-21Buy Commodities/Sell Stocks? Buy Commodities / Sell Stocks? Buy Commodities / Sell Stocks? The coronavirus panic seems to be the catalyst for such a correction. When a market is overextended, any shock can cause a pullback in prices. Moreover, as of writing, medical professionals still have to ascertain the virus’s severity and potential mutations. Therefore, risk assets must embed a significant risk premium for such uncertainty, even if ultimately the infection turns out to be mild. However, that risk premium will likely prove to be short lived. During the SARS crisis in 2003, stocks bottomed when the number of reported new cases peaked. The tech sector has plentiful downside if the correction gathers strength. As indicated in BCA’s US Equity Sector Strategy, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook account for 18% of the US market capitalization, which is the highest market concentration since the late 1990s tech bubble. Investors should begin switching their risk assets into industrial commodity plays, especially after their recent selloff. Commodity prices are trading at a large discount to US equities. Moreover, the momentum of natural resource prices relative to stocks has begun to form a positive divergence with the price ratio of these two assets (Chart I-21). Technical divergences such as the one visible in the ratio of commodities to equities are often positive signals. Low real rates, an ample liquidity backdrop, a global economic recovery, a weak broad trade-weighted dollar and a strong RMB, all benefit commodities over equities. Tech stocks underperform commodities when the dollar weakens and growth strengthens. Moreover, our positive stance on the RMB justifies stronger prices for copper, oil and EM equities (Chart I-22). Chart I-22The Winners From A CNY Rebound February 2020 February 2020 Our US Equity Strategy Service has also reiterated its preference for industrials and energy stocks, and it recently upgraded materials stocks to neutral.1 All three sectors trade at significant valuation discounts to the broad market and to tech stocks in particular. They are also oversold in relative terms. Finally, their operating metrics are improving, a trend which will be magnified if global growth re-accelerates. Do not make these bets aggressively. A weakening broad trade-weighted dollar would allow for a rotation into foreign equities and an outperformance of value relative to growth stocks. The share of US equities in the MSCI All-Country World Index is a direct function of the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart I-23). Moreover, since 1971, the dollar and the relative performance of growth stocks versus value stocks have exhibited a positive correlation (Chart I-24). Thus, the dollar’s recent strength has been a key component behind the run enjoyed by tech stocks. Chart I-23Global Stocks Love A Soft Dollar Global Stocks Love A Soft Dollar Global Stocks Love A Soft Dollar Chart I-24Value Stocks Needs A Weaker Dollar To Outperform Growth Stocks Value Stocks Needs A Weaker Dollar To Outperform Growth Stocks Value Stocks Needs A Weaker Dollar To Outperform Growth Stocks Despite the risks to the euro discussed in the previous section, European equities could still outperform US equities. Such a move would be consistent with value stocks beating growth equities (Chart I-24, bottom panel). This correlation exists because the euro area has a combined 17.7% weighting to tech and healthcare stocks compared with a 37.1% allocation in US benchmarks. Moreover, a cheap euro should allow European industrials and materials to outperform their US counterparts. Finally, the recent uptick in the European credit impulse indicates that an acceleration in European profit growth is imminent, a view that is in line with our preference for European financials (Chart I-25).2 Chart I-25Euro Area Profits Should Improve Euro Area Profits Should Improve Euro Area Profits Should Improve Bottom Line: The current environment remains favorable for risk assets on a 12-month investment horizon. As such, we expect stocks and bond yields to continue to rise in 2020. Moreover, a pick-up in global growth, along with a fall in the broad trade-weighted dollar, should weigh on tech and growth stocks, and boost the attractiveness of commodity plays, industrial, energy and materials stocks, as well as European and EM equities. Forecast Meets Strategy Liquidity-driven rallies, such as the current one, can carry on regardless of the fundamentals. As Keynes noted 90 years ago: “Markets can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” The gap between forecast and strategy can be great. The use of passive investing and the prevalence of “closet indexers” accentuates the risk that a tech mania could blossom. We assign a substantial 30% probability to the risk of another tech mania. Outflows from equity ETFs and mutual funds have been large. Investors will be tempted to move back into those vehicles if stocks continue to rally on the back of plentiful liquidity and improving global growth (Chart I-26). In the process, the new inflows will prop up the over-represented, over-valued, and over-extended tech behemoths. Chart I-26Depressed Equity Flows Should Pick Up Depressed Equity Flows Should Pick Up Depressed Equity Flows Should Pick Up The current tech bubble can easily run a lot further. Based on current valuations, the NASDAQ trades at a P/E ratio of 31 compared with 68 in March 2000 (Chart I-27). Moreover, momentum is becoming increasingly favorable for the NASDAQ and other high-flying tech stocks. The NASDAQ is outperforming high-dividend stocks and after a period of consolidation, its relative performance is breaking out. Momentum often performs very well in liquidity-driven rallies. Chart I-27Where Is The Bubble? Where Is The Bubble? Where Is The Bubble? Chart I-28Debt Loads Are Already High Everywhere Debt Loads Are Already High Everywhere Debt Loads Are Already High Everywhere A full-fledged tech mania would make our overweight equities / underweight bonds a profitable call, but it would invalidate our sector and regional recommendations. Moreover, with a few exceptions in China and Taiwan, the major tech bellwethers are listed in the US. A tech bubble would most likely push our bearish dollar stance to the offside. Bubbles are dangerous: participating on the upside is easy, but cashing out is not. Moreover, financial bubbles tend to exacerbate the economic pain that follows the bust. During manic phases, capital is poorly invested and the economy becomes geared to the sectors that benefit from the financial excesses. These assets lose their value when the bubble deflates. Moreover, bubbles often result in growing private-sector indebtedness. Writing off or paying back this debt saps the economy’s vitality. Making matters worse, today overall indebtedness is unprecedented and central banks have little room to reflate the global economy once the bubble bursts (Chart I-28). Finally, US/Iran tensions will create additional risk in the years ahead. Matt Gertken, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategist, warns that the ratcheting down of tensions following Iran’s retaliation to General Soleimani’s assassination is temporary.3 As a result, the oil market remains a source of left-handed tail-risk. Section II discusses other potential black swans lurking in the geopolitical sphere. We continue to recommend that investors overweight industrials and energy, upgrade materials to neutral, Europe to overweight, and curtail their USD exposure as long as US inflation remains well behaved and the US inflation breakeven rate stays below the 2.3% to 2.5% range. However, do not make these bets aggressively. Moreover, some downside protection is merited. Due to our very negative view on bonds, we prefer garnering these hedges via a 15% allocation to gold and the yen. The yen is especially attractive because it is one of the few cheap, safe-haven plays (Chart I-29). Chart I-29The Yen Offers Cheap Portfolio Protection The Yen Offers Cheap Portfolio Protection The Yen Offers Cheap Portfolio Protection Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 30, 2020 Next Report: February 27, 2020   II. Five Black Swans In 2020 Our top five geopolitical “Black Swans” are risks that the market is seriously underpricing. With the “phase one” trade deal signed, Chinese policy could become less accommodative, resulting in a negative economic surprise. The trade deal may fall victim to domestic politics, raising the risk of a US-China military skirmish. A Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention or a Democratic takeover of the White House could trigger social unrest and violence in the US. A pickup in the flow of migrants to Europe would fundamentally undermine political stability there. Russia’s weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest, risking an escalation beyond the point of containment. Over the past four years, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service has started off each year with their top five geopolitical “Black Swans.” These are low-probability events whose market impact would be significant enough to matter for global investors. Unlike the great Byron Wien’s perennial list of market surprises, we do not assign these events a “better than 50% likelihood of happening.” We offer risks that the market is seriously underpricing by assigning them only single-digit probabilities when we think the reality is closer to 10%-15%, a level at which a risk premium ought to be assigned. Some of our risks below are so obscure that it is not clear how exactly to price them. We exclude issues that are fairly probable, such as flare-ups in Indo-Pakistani conflict. The two major risks of the year – discussed in our Geopolitical Strategy’s annual outlook – are that either US President Donald Trump or Chinese President Xi Jinping overreaches in a major way. But what would truly surprise the market would be a policy-induced relapse in Chinese growth or a direct military clash between the two great powers. That is how we begin. Other risks stem from domestic affairs in the US, Europe, and Russia. Black Swan 1: China’s Financial Crisis Begins Chart II-1A Crackdown On Financial Risk Could Cause China's Economy To Derail A Crackdown On Financial Risk Could Cause China's Economy To Derail A Crackdown On Financial Risk Could Cause China's Economy To Derail The risk of Xi Jinping’s concentration of power in his own person is that individuals can easily make mistakes, especially if unchecked by advisors or institutions. Lower officials will fear correcting or admonishing an all-powerful leader. Inconvenient information may not be relayed up the hierarchy. Such behavior was rampant in Chairman Mao Zedong’s time, leading to famine among other ills. Insofar as President Xi’s cult of personality successfully imitates Mao’s, it will be subject to similar errors. If President Xi overreaches and makes a policy mistake this year, it could occur in economic policy or other policies. We begin with economic policy, as we have charted the risks of Xi’s crackdown on the financial system since early 2017 (Chart II-1). This year is supposed to be the third and final year of Xi Jinping’s “three battles” against systemic risk, pollution, and poverty. The first battle actually focuses on financial risk, i.e. China’s money and credit bubble. The regime has compromised on this goal since mid-2018, allowing monetary easing to stabilize the economy amid the trade war. But with a “phase one” trade deal having been signed, there is an underrated risk that economic policy will return to its prior setting, i.e. become less accommodative (Chart II-2). When Xi launched the “deleveraging campaign” in 2017, we posited that the authorities would be willing to tolerate an annual GDP growth rate below 6%. This would not only cull excesses in the economy but also demonstrate that the administration means business when it says that China must prioritize quality rather than quantity of growth. While Chinese authorities are most likely targeting “around 6%” in 2020, it is entirely possible that the authorities will allow an undershoot in the 5.5%-5.9% range. They will argue that the GDP target for 2020 has already been met on a compound growth rate basis (Chart II-3), as astute clients have pointed out. They may see less need for stimulus than the market expects. Chart II-2Easing Of Trade Tensions May Re-Incentivize Tighter Policy Easing Of Trade Tensions May Re-Incentivize Tighter Policy Easing Of Trade Tensions May Re-Incentivize Tighter Policy Chart II-3Chinese Authorities Might Tolerate A Growth Undershoot In 2020 Chinese Authorities Might Tolerate A Growth Undershoot In 2020 Chinese Authorities Might Tolerate A Growth Undershoot In 2020   Similarly, while urban disposable income is ostensibly lagging its target of doubling 2010 levels by 2020, China’s 13th Five Year Plan, which concludes in 2020, conspicuously avoided treating urban and rural income targets separately. If the authorities focus only on general disposable income, then they are on track to meet their target (Chart II-4). This would reduce the impetus for greater economic support. The Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. There are already tentative signs that Chinese authorities are “satisfied” with the amount of stimulus they have injected: some indicators of money and credit have already peaked (Chart II-5). The crackdown on shadow banking has eased, but informal lending is still contracting. The regime is still pushing reforms that shake up state-owned enterprises. Chart II-4Lower Impetus For Economic Support Due To Improvements In National Income? Lower Impetus For Economic Support Due To Improvements In National Income? Lower Impetus For Economic Support Due To Improvements In National Income? Chart II-5Has China's Stimulus Peaked? chart 5 Has China's Stimulus Peaked? Has China's Stimulus Peaked?   An added headwind for the Chinese economy stems from the currency. The currency should track interest rate differentials. Beijing’s incremental monetary stimulus, in the form of cuts to bank reserve requirement ratios (RRRs), should also push the renminbi down over time (Chart II-6). However, an essential aspect of any trade deal with the Trump administration is the need to demonstrate that China is not competitively devaluing. Hence the CNY-USD could overshoot in the first half of the year. This is positive for global exports to China, but it tightens Chinese financial conditions at home. A stronger than otherwise justified renminbi would add to any negative economic surprises from less accommodative monetary and fiscal policy. Conventional wisdom says China will stimulate the economy ahead of two major political events: the centenary of the Communist Party in 2021 and the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022. The former is a highly symbolic anniversary, as Xi has reasserted the supremacy of the party in all things, while the latter is more significant for policy, as it is a leadership reshuffle that will usher in the sixth generation of China’s political elite. But conventional wisdom may be wrong – the Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. It would make sense to save dry powder for the next US or global recession. The obvious implication is that China’s economic rebound may lose steam as early as H2 – but the black swan risk is that negative surprises could cause a vicious spiral inside of China. This is a country with massive financial and economic imbalances, a declining potential growth profile, and persistent political obstacles to growth both at home and abroad. Corporate defaults have spiked sharply. While the default rate is lower than elsewhere, the market may be sniffing out a bigger problem as it charges a much higher premium for onshore Chinese bonds (Chart II-7). Chart II-6CNY/USD Overshoot Would Tighten Chinese Financial Conditions CNY-USD Overshoot Would Tighten Chinese Financial Conditions CNY-USD Overshoot Would Tighten Chinese Financial Conditions Chart II-7Is China's Bond Market Sniffing Out A Problem? Is China's Bond Market Sniffing Out A Problem? Is China's Bond Market Sniffing Out A Problem?   Bottom Line: Our view is that China’s authorities will remain accommodative in 2020 in order to ensure that growth bottoms and the labor market continues to improve. But Beijing has compromised its domestic economic discipline since 2018 in order to fight trade war. The risk now, with a “phase one” deal in hand, is that Xi Jinping returns to his three-year battle plan and underestimates the downward pressures on the economy. The result would be a huge negative surprise for the Chinese and global economy in 2020. Black Swan 2: The US And China Go To War In 2013, we predicted that US-China conflict was “more likely than you think.” This was not just an argument for trade conflict or general enmity that raises the temperature in the Asia-Pacific region – we included military conflict. At the time, the notion that a Sino-American armed conflict was the world’s greatest geopolitical threat seemed ludicrous to many of our clients. We published this analysis in October of that year, months after the Islamic State “Soldier’s Harvest” offensive into Iraq. Trying to direct investors to the budding rivalry between American and Chinese naval forces in the South China Sea amidst the Islamic State hysteria was challenging, to say the least. Chart II-8Americans’ Attitudes Toward China Plunged… February 2020 February 2020 The suggestion that an accidental skirmish between the US and China could descend into a full-blown conflict involved a stretch of the imagination because China was not yet perceived by the American public as a major threat. In 2014, only 19%of the US public saw China as the “greatest threat to the US in the future.” This came between Russia, at 23%, and Iran, at 16%. Today, China and Russia share the top spot with 24%. Furthermore, the share of Americans with an unfavorable view of China has increased from 52% to 60% in the six intervening years (Chart II-8). The level of enmity expressed by the US public toward China is still lower than that toward the Soviet Union at the onset of the Cold War in the 1950s (Chart II-9). However, the trajectory of distrust is clearly mounting. We expect this trend to continue: anti-China sentiment is one of the few sources of bipartisan agreement remaining in Washington, DC (Chart II-10). Chinese sentiment toward the United States has also darkened dramatically. The geopolitical rivalry is deepening for structural reasons: as China advances in size and sophistication, it seeks to alter the regional status quo in its favor, while the US grows fearful and seeks to contain China. Chart II-9…But Not Yet To War-Inducing Levels February 2020 February 2020 Chart II-10Distrust Of China Is Bipartisan February 2020 February 2020   Chart II-11Newfound American Concern For China’s Repression February 2020 February 2020 One example of rising enmity is the US public’s newfound concern for China’s domestic policies and human rights, specifically Beijing’s treatment of its Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. A Google Trends analysis of the term “Uyghur” or “Uyghur camps” shows a dramatic rise in mentions since Q2 of 2018, around the same time the trade war ramped up in a major way (Chart II-11). While startling revelations of re-education camps in Xinjiang emerged in recent years, the reality is that Beijing has used heavy-handed tactics against both militant groups and the wider Uyghur minority since at least 2008 – and much earlier than that. As such, the surge of interest by the general American public and legislators – culminating in the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019 – is a product of the renewed strategic tension between the two countries. The same can be said for Hong Kong: the US did not pass a Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2014, during the first round of mass protests, which prompted Beijing to take heavy-handed legal, legislative, and censorship actions. It passed the bill in 2019, after the climate in Washington had changed. Why does this matter for investors? There are two general risks that come with a greater public engagement in foreign policy. First, the “phase one” trade deal between China and the US could fall victim to domestic politics. This deal envisions a large step up in Sino-American economic cooperation. But if China is to import around $200 billion of additional US goods and services over the next two years – an almost inconceivable figure – the US and China will have to tamp down on public vitriol. This is notably the case if the Democratic Party takes over the White House, given its likely greater focus on liberal concerns such as human rights. And yet the latest bills became law under President Trump and a Republican Senate, and we fully expect a second Trump term to involve a re-escalation of trade tensions to ensure compliance with phase one and to try to gain greater structural concessions in phase two. Second, mounting nationalist sentiment will make it more difficult for US and Chinese policymakers to reduce tensions following a potential future military skirmish, accidental or otherwise. While our scenario of a military conflict in 2013 was cogent, the public backlash in the United States was probably manageable.3 Today we can no longer guarantee that this is the case. The “phase one” trade deal risks falling victim to domestic politics due to greater public engagement in foreign policy. China has greater control over the domestic narrative and public discourse, but the rise of the middle class and the government’s efforts to rebuild support for the single-party regime have combined to create an increase in nationalism. Thus it is also more difficult for Chinese policymakers to contain the popular backlash if conflict erupts. In short, the probability of a quick tamping down of public enmity is actively being reduced as American public vilification of China is closing the gap with China’s burgeoning nationalism at an alarming pace. Another of our black swan risks – Taiwan island – is inextricably bound up in this dangerous US-China dynamic. To be clear, Washington will tread carefully, as a conflict over Taiwan could become a major war. Nevertheless Taiwan’s election, as we expected, has injected new vitality into this already underrated geopolitical risk. It is not only that a high-turnout election (Chart II-12) gave President Tsai Ing-wen a greater mandate (Chart II-13), or that her Democratic Progressive Party retained its legislative majority (Chart II-14). It is not only that the trigger for this resounding victory was the revolt in Hong Kong and the Taiwanese people’s rejection of the “one country, two systems” formula for Taiwan. It is also that Tsai followed up with a repudiation of the mainland by declaring, “We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state. We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan.” Chart II-12Tsai Ing-Wen Enjoys A Greater Mandate On Higher Turnout… February 2020 February 2020 Chart II-13…Popular Support… February 2020 February 2020 Chart II-14…And A Legislative Majority February 2020 February 2020 This statement is not a minor rhetorical flourish but will be received as a major provocation in Beijing: the crystallization of a long-brewing clash between Beijing and Taipei. Additional punitive economic measures against Taiwan are now guaranteed. Saber-rattling could easily ignite in the coming year and beyond. Taiwan is the epicenter of the US-China strategic conflict. First, Beijing cannot compromise on its security or its political legitimacy and considers the “one China principle” to be inviolable. Second, the US maintains defense relations with Taiwan (and is in the process of delivering on a relatively large new package of arms). Third, the US’s true willingness to fight a war on Taiwan’s behalf is in doubt, which means that deterrence has eroded and there is greater room for miscalculation. Bottom Line: A US-China military skirmish has been our biggest black swan risk since we began writing the BCA Geopolitical Strategy. The difference between then and now, however, is that the American public is actually paying attention. Political ideology – the question of democracy and human rights – is clearly merging with trade, security, and other differences to provoke Americans of all stripes. This makes any skirmish more than just a temporary risk-off event, as it could lead to a string of incidents or even protracted military conflict. Black Swan 3: Social Unrest Erupts In America There are numerous lessons that one can learn from the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong, but perhaps the most cogent one is that Millennials and Generation Z are not as docile and feckless as their elders think. Images of university students and even teenagers throwing flying kicks and Molotov cocktails while clad in black body armor have shocked the world. Perhaps all those violent video games did have a lasting impact on the youth! What is surprising is that so few commentators have made the cognitive leap from the ultra-first world streets of Hong Kong to other developed economies. Perhaps what is clouding analysts’ minds is the idiosyncratic nature of the dispute in Hong Kong, the “one China” angle. However, Hong Kong youth are confronted with similar socio-economic challenges that their peers in other advanced economies face: overpriced real estate and a bifurcated service-sector labor market with few mid-tier jobs that pay a decent wage. There is a risk of rebellion from Trump’s most ardent supporters if he loses the White House. In the US, Millennials and Gen Z are also facing challenges unique to the US. First, their debt burden is much more toxic than that of the older cohorts, given that it is made up of student loans and credit card debt (Chart II-15). Second, they find themselves at odds – demographically and ideologically – with the older cohorts (Chart II-16). Chart II-15Younger American Cohorts Plagued By Toxic Debt February 2020 February 2020 Chart II-16Younger And Older Cohorts At Odds Demographically February 2020 February 2020   Chart II-17Massive Turnout To The 2016 Referendum On Trump February 2020 February 2020 The adage that the youth are apolitical and do not turn out to vote may have ended thanks to President Trump. The 2018 midterm election, which the Democratic Party successfully turned into a referendum on the president, saw the youth (18-29) turnout nearly double from 20% to 36% (the 30-44 year-old cohort also saw a jump in turnout from 35.6% to 48.8%). The election saw one of the highest turnouts in recent memory, with a 53.4% figure, just two points off the 2016 general election figure (Chart II-17). Despite the high turnout in 2018, the-most-definitely-not-Millennial Vice President Joe Biden continues to lead the Democratic Party in the polls. His probability of winning the nomination is not overwhelming, but it is the highest of any contender. In recent polls, Biden comes third place in Millennial/Gen-Z vote preferences (Chart II-18). Yet he is hardly out of contention, especially for the 30-44 year-old cohort. The view that “Uncle Joe” does not fit the Democratic Party zeitgeist has become so entrenched in the Democratic Party narrative that it became conventional wisdom last year, pulling oddsmakers and betting markets away from the clear frontrunner (Chart II-19). Chart II-18Biden Unpopular Among Young American Voters February 2020 February 2020 Chart II-19Bookies Pulled Down 'Uncle Joe’s' Odds, Capturing Democratic Party Zeitgeist February 2020 February 2020     As such, a Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 13-16 may come as an affront to the left-wing activists who will surely descend on the convention. This will particularly be the case if Biden wins despite the progressive candidates amassing a majority of overall delegates, which is possible judging by the combined progressive vote share in current polling (Chart II-20). He would arrive in Milwaukee without clearing the 1990 delegate count required to win on the first ballot. On the second ballot, his presidency would then receive a boost from “superdelegates” and those progressives who are unwilling to “rock the boat,” i.e. unify against an establishment candidate with the largest share of votes. This is also how Mayor Michael Bloomberg could pull off a surprise win. Chart II-20Progressives Come Closest To Victory February 2020 February 2020 Such a “brokered” – or contested – convention has not occurred since 1952. However, several Democratic Party conventions came close, including 1968, 1972, and 1984. The 1968 one in Chicago was notable for considerable violence and unrest. Even if the Milwaukee Democratic Party convention does not produce unrest, it could sow the seeds for unrest later in the year. First, a breakout Biden performance in the primaries is unlikely. As such, he will likely need to pledge a shift to the left at the convention, including by accepting a progressive vice-presidential candidate. Second, an actual progressive may win the primary. Chart II-21Zealots In Both Parties Perceive Each Other As A National Threat February 2020 February 2020 It is likely that either of the two options would be seen as an existential threat to many of Trump’s loyal supporters across the United States. President Trump’s rhetoric often paints the scenario of a Democratic takeover of the White House in apocalyptic terms. And data suggests that the zealots in both parties perceive each other as a “threat to the nation’s wellbeing” (Chart II-21). The American Civil War in the nineteenth century began with the election of a president. This is not just because Abraham Lincoln was a particularly reviled figure in the South, but because the states that ultimately formed the Confederacy saw in his election the demographic writing-on-the-wall. The election was an expression of a general will that, from that point onwards, was irreversible. Given demographic trends in the US today, it is possible that many would see in Trump’s loss a similar fait accompli. If one perceives progressive Democrats as an existential threat to the US constitution, rebellion is the obvious and rational response. Bottom Line: Year 2020 may be a particularly violent one for the US. First, left wing activists may be shocked and angered to learn that Joe Biden (or Bloomberg) is the nominee of the Democratic Party come July. With so much hype behind the progressive candidates throughout the campaign, Biden’s nomination could be seen as an affront to what was supposed to be “the big year” for left-wing candidates. Second, investors have to start thinking about what happens if Biden – or a progressive candidate – goes on to defeat President Trump in the general election. While liberal America took Trump’s election badly, it has demographics – and thus time – on its side. Trump’s most ardent supporters may conclude that his defeat means the end of America as they know it. Black Swan 4: Europe’s Migration Crisis Restarts It is a testament to Europe’s resilience that we do not have a Black Swan scenario based on an election or a political crisis set on the continent in 2020. Support for the common currency and the EU as a whole has rebounded to its highest since 2013. Even early elections in Germany and Italy are unlikely to produce geopolitical risk. The populists in the former are in no danger of outperforming whereas the populists in the latter barely deserve the designation. But what if one of the reasons for the surge in populism – unchecked illegal immigration – were to return in 2020? Chart II-22Decline In Illegal Immigration Dampened European Populism February 2020 February 2020 The data suggests that the risk of migrant flows has massively subsided. From its peak of over a million arrivals in 2015, the data shows that only 125,472 migrants crossed into Europe via land and sea routes in the Mediterranean last year (Chart II-22). Why? There are five reasons that we believe have checked the flow of migrants: Supply: The civil wars in Syria, Iraq, and Libya have largely subsided. Heterogenous regions, cities, and neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed and internal boundaries have largely ossified. It is unlikely that any future conflict will produce massive outflows of refugees as the displacement has already taken place. These countries are now largely divided into armed, ethnically homogenous, camps. Enforcement: The EU has stepped up border enforcement since 2015, pouring resources into the land border with Turkey and naval patrols across the Mediterranean. Individual member states – particularly Italy and Hungary – have also stepped up border enforcement policy. While most EU member states have publicly chided both for “draconian” policies, there is no impetus to force Rome and Budapest to change policy. Libyan Imbroglio: Conflict in Libya has flared up in 2019 with military warlord Khalifa Haftar looking to wrest control from the UN-backed Government of National Accord led by Fayez al-Serraj. The Islamic State has regrouped in the country as well. Ironically, the conflict is helping stem the flow of migrants as African migrants from sub-Saharan countries dare not cross into Libya as they did in 2015 when there was a brief lull in fighting. Turkish benevolence: Ankara is quick to point out that it is the only thing standing between Europe and a massive deluge of migrants. Turkey is said to host somewhere between two and four million refugees from various conflicts in the Middle East. Fear of the crossing: If crossing the Mediterranean was easy, Europe would have experienced a massive influx of migrants throughout the twentieth century. Not only is it not easy, it is costly and quite deadly, with thousands lost each year. Furthermore, most migrants are not welcomed when they arrive to Europe, many are held in terrible conditions in holding camps in Italy and Greece. Over time, migrants who made it into Europe have reported these dangers and conditions, reducing the overall demand for illegal migration. We do not foresee these five factors changing, at least not all at once. However, there are several reasons to worry about the flow of migrants in 2020. US-Iran tensions have sparked outright military action, while unrest is flaring up across Iran’s sphere of influence. Going forward, Iran could destabilize Iraq or fuel Shia unrest against US-backed regimes. Second, Afghanistan has been the source of most migrants to Europe via sea and land Mediterranean routes – 19.2%. The conflict in the country continues and may flare up with President Trump’s decision to formally withdraw most US troops from the country in 2020. Third, a break in fighting in Libya may encourage sub-Saharan migrants to revisit routes to Europe. Migrants from Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, and the Democratic Republic of Congo make up over 10% of migrants to Europe. Finally, Turkish relationship with the West could break up further in 2020, causing Ankara to ship migrants northward. We highly doubt that President Erdogan will risk such a break, given that 50% of Turkish exports go to Europe. A European embargo on Turkish exports – which would be a highly likely response to such an act – would crush the already decimated Turkish economy. Bottom Line: While we do not see a return to the 2015 level of migration in 2020, we flag this risk because it would fundamentally undermine political stability in Europe. Black Swan 5: Russia Faces A “Peasant Revolt” Our fifth and final black swan risk for the year stems from Russia. This risk may seem obvious, since the US election creates a dynamic that revives the inherent conflict in US-Russian relations. Russia could seek to accomplish foreign policy objectives – interfering in US elections, punishing regional adversaries. The Trump administration may be friendly toward Russia but Trump is unlikely to veto any sanctions passed by the House and Senate in an election year, should an occasion for new sanctions arise. Conversely Russia could anticipate greater US pressure if the Democrats win in November. Yet it is Russia’s domestic affairs that represent the real underrated risk. Putin’s fourth term as president has been characterized by increased focus on domestic political control and stability as opposed to foreign adventurism. The creation of a special National Guard in 2016, reporting directly to Putin and responsible for quelling domestic unrest, symbolizes the shift in focus. So too does Russia’s adherence to the OPEC 2.0 regime of production control to keep oil prices above their budget breakeven level. Meanwhile Putin’s courting of Europe for the Nordstream II pipeline, and his slight peacemaking efforts with Ukraine, has suggested a slightly more restrained international posture. Strategically it makes little sense for Russia to court negative attention at a time when the US and Europe are at odds over trade and the Middle East, the US is preoccupied with China and Iran, and Russia itself faces mounting domestic problems. The domestic problems are long in coming. The central bank has maintained a stringent monetary policy for the better part of the decade. Despite cutting interest rates recently, monetary and credit conditions are still tight, hurting domestic demand. Moscow has also imposed fiscal austerity, namely by cutting back on state pensions and hiking the value added tax. Real wage growth is weak (Chart II-23), retail sales are falling, and domestic demand looks to weaken further, as Andrija Vesic of BCA Emerging Markets Strategy observes in a recent Special Report. The effect of Russia’s policy austerity has been a drop in public approval of the administration (Chart II-24). Protests erupted in 2019 but were largely drowned out by the larger and more globally significant protests in Hong Kong. These were met by police suppression that has not removed their underlying cause. Putin’s first major decision of the new year was to reshuffle the government, entailing Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s transfer to a new post and the appointment of a new cabinet. This move reveals the need to show some accountability to reduce popular pressure. While Moscow now has room to cut interest rates and ease fiscal policy, it is behind the curve and the weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest. Chart II-23Sluggish Wage Growth Threatens Russian Stability Sluggish Wage Growth Threatens Russian Stability Sluggish Wage Growth Threatens Russian Stability Chart II-24Austerity Weighed On The Administration's Popularity In Russia Austerity Weighed On The Administration's Popularity In Russia Austerity Weighed On The Administration's Popularity In Russia   Meanwhile Putin’s efforts to alter the Russian constitution so he can stay in power beyond current term limits, effectively becoming emperor for life, like Xi Jinping, should not be dismissed merely because they are expected. They reflect a need to take advantage of Putin’s popular standing to consolidate domestic political power at a time when the ruling United Russia party and the federal government face discontent. They also ensure that strategic conflict with the United States will take on an ideological dimension. Russia's recent cabinet shakeup is positive from the point of view of economic reform. And the country's monetary and fiscal room provide a basis for remaining overweight equities within EM, as our Emerging Markets Strategy recommends. However, Russian equities have rallied hard and the political risk is understated. Chart II-25Russian Political Risk Is Unsustainably Low Russian Political Risk Is Unsustainably Low Russian Political Risk Is Unsustainably Low Bottom Line: It is never easy predicting Putin’s next international move. Our market-based indicators of Russian political risk have hit multi-year lows, but both the domestic and international context suggest that these lows will not be sustained (Chart II-25). A new bout of risk can emanate from Putin, or from changes in Washington, or from the Russian people themselves. What would take the world by surprise would be domestic unrest on a larger scale than Russia can easily suppress through the police force. Housekeeping We are closing our long European Union / short Chinese equities strategic trade with a 1.61% loss since inception on May 10, 2019. Dhaval Joshi of BCA’s European Investment Strategy downgraded the Eurostoxx 50 to underweight versus the S&P 500 and the Nikkei 225 this week. He makes the point that the Euro Area bond yield 6-month impulse hit 100 bps – a critical technical level – and will be a strong headwind to growth. We will look to reopen this trade at a later date when the euphoria over the “phase one” trade deal subsides, as we still favor European equities and DM bourses over EM. We will reinstitute our long Brent crude H2 2020 versus H2 2021 tactical position, which was stopped out on January 9, 2020. We remain bullish on oil fundamentals and expect Middle East instability to add a political risk premium. China's stimulus and the oil view also give reason for us to reinitiate our long Malaysian equities relative to EM as a tactical position. The Malaysian ringgit will benefit as oil prices move higher, helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power. Higher oil prices also correlate with higher equity prices, while China's stimulus and the US trade ceasefire will push the US dollar lower and help trade revive in the region. Marko Papic Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist   III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 rally looks increasingly vulnerable from a tactical perspective. The US benchmark is overbought, and the percentage of NYSE stocks above their 30-week and 10-week moving averages is rolling over at elevated levels. Additionally, the number of NYSE new highs minus new lows has moved in a parabolic fashion and has hit levels that in previous years have warned of an imminent correction. The spread of nCoV-2019 is likely to be the catalyst to a pullback that could cause the S&P 500 to retest its October 2019 breakout. An improving outlook for global growth, limited inflationary pressures and global central banks who maintain an accommodative monetary stance bode well for stocks. Therefore, the anticipated equity correction will not morph into a bear market. For now, our Monetary Indicator remains at extremely elevated levels. Furthermore, our Composite Technical Indicator has strengthened. Additionally, our BCA Composite Valuation index suggests that stocks are expensive, but not so much as to cancel out the supportive monetary and technical backdrop. Finally, our Speculation Indicator is elevated, but is not so high as to warn of an imminent market top. This somewhat muted level of speculation is congruent with the expectation of low long-term growth rates for profits embedded in equity prices. In contrast to our Revealed Preference Indicator, our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) is moving in accordance with our constructive cyclical stance for stocks. Indeed, the WTP for the US, Japan and Europe continues to improve. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. This broad-based improvement therefore bodes well for equities. Meanwhile, net earnings revisions appear to be forming a trough. 10-year Treasury yields remain extremely expensive. Moreover, according to our Composite Technical Indicator, T-Note prices are losing momentum. The fear surrounding the spread of the new coronavirus has cause bonds to rally again, but this is likely to be the last hurrah for the Treasury markets before a major reversal takes hold. The rising risk premia linked to the coronavirus is also helping the dollar right now, but signs that global growth is bottoming, such as the stabilization in the global PMIs, the pick-up in the German ZEW and Belgium’s Business Confidence surveys, or the improvement in Asia’s export growth, point to a worsening outlook for the counter-cyclical US dollar. Moreover, the dollar trades at a large premium of 24.5% relative to its purchasing-power parity equilibrium. Additionally, the negative divergence between the dollar and our Composite Momentum Indicator suggests that the dollar is technically vulnerable. In fact, the very modest pick-up in the dollar in response to the severe fears created by the spreading illness in China argues that dollar buying might have become exhausted. Finally, commodity prices have corrected meaningfully in response to the stronger dollar and the growth fears created by the spread of the coronavirus. However, they have not pulled back below the levels where they traded when they broke out in late 2019. Moreover, the advance/decline line of the Continuous Commodity Index remains at an elevated level, indicating underlying strength in the commodity complex. Natural resources prices will likely become the key beneficiaries of both the eventual pullback in virus-related fears and the weaker dollar.   EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Three EPS Scenarios," dated January 13, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com; US Equity Strategy Insight Report "Bombed Out Energy," dated January 8, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com; US Equity Strategy Special Report "Industrials: Start Your Engines," dated January 21, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "January 2020," dated December 20, 2019 available at bca.bcaresearch.com; The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "OUTLOOK 2020: Heading Into The End Game," dated November 22, 2019 available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy "A Reprieve Amid The Bull Market In Iran Tensions," dated January 8, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Observe how little attention the public paid to US-China saber-rattling around China’s announcement of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea that year.

Highlights The coronavirus scare is the catalyst for the recent correction, not the cause. The true cause is that the stock market had reached a point of groupthink-triggered instability and therefore needed the slightest catalyst to correct. Bond yields will stay depressed for (at least) the first half of 2020. Long-term investors should use corrections to overweight equities versus bonds, provided bond yields stay near or below current levels. The pound and UK-exposed investments will come under near-term pressure as UK/EU trade deal tensions ratchet up. But ultimately, UK-exposed investments will enjoy a major leg up later this year if both the UK and EU blink. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Next Up-Leg In The Pound And UK-Exposed Investments Will Occur Later In 2020 The Next Up-Leg In The Pound And UK-Exposed Investments Will Occur Later in 2020 The Next Up-Leg In The Pound And UK-Exposed Investments Will Occur Later in 2020 Corrections, Catalysts, And Coronavirus Markets have suffered a correction, begging the question: what caused it? The question is a good one, because identifying the cause can help to inform our response. Yet the danger is that the knee-jerk narrative pinpoints the catalyst rather than the true cause. In which case our response will be wrong too. For example, consider the following two narratives: Tree foliage collapses because of 40 mph winds. Tree foliage collapses because it is autumn. The first narrative is exciting, satisfying, and headline grabbing, but it only pinpoints the catalyst for the foliage collapse: the puff of wind. The second explanation is dull and less newsworthy, but it pinpoints the true cause: in autumn, tree foliage is unstable. Likewise, the coronavirus scare is the catalyst for the recent correction. The true cause is that the stock market had reached a point of groupthink-triggered instability and therefore needed the slightest catalyst to correct. The catalyst could have come from anywhere at any time. If it hadn’t been the coronavirus scare, it would have been the next worry… or the one after that. On January 9 in Markets Are Fractally Fragile we warned that usually cautious value investors had become momentum traders – undermining market liquidity and stability. When this happens, there is a two in three chance of a tactical reversal (Chart I-2). Chart I-2When Markets Are Fractally Fragile, There Is A 2 In 3 Chance Of A Tactical Reversal When Markets Are Fractally Fragile, There Is A 2 In 3 Chance Of A Tactical Reversal When Markets Are Fractally Fragile, There Is A 2 In 3 Chance Of A Tactical Reversal We also warned that the bond yield 6-month impulse – the change in the change – had recently become a severe 100 bps headwind to growth. At this severity of headwind, there is a nine in ten chance that bond yields have reached a near-term peak (Chart I-3). Chart I-3When The Bond Yield 6-Month Impulse Becomes A Severe Headwind, There Is A 9 In 10 Chance Of A Near-Term Peak In Yields When The Bond Yield 6-Month Impulse Becomes A Severe Headwind, There Is A 9 In 10 Chance Of A Near-Term Peak In Yields When The Bond Yield 6-Month Impulse Becomes A Severe Headwind, There Is A 9 In 10 Chance Of A Near-Term Peak In Yields In combination, we warned that equities would underperform bonds by about 4 percent on a tactical horizon. Now that this anticipated correction has happened, what next? Long-term investors should use corrections to overweight equities versus bonds.  First, irrespective of coronavirus – or any other catalyst – the recent severe headwind to growth from the bond yield impulse suggests that bond yields will stay depressed for (at least) the first half of 2020. Second, the good news is that the ultra-low bond yields justify and underpin the valuation of equities. Hence, at the current level of bond yields, long-term investors should use corrections to overweight equities versus bonds. Brexit Is “Done”. Or Is It? Rumour has it that Boris Johnson will banish the word Brexit from the UK government lexicon after January 31, because Brexit is now “done”. Good luck with that. When Britain wakes up bleary-eyed on Saturday February 1, what will have changed? Not a lot. The UK will have lost its voice and votes in the EU decision making institutions. Yet in practical terms nothing will have changed, because the UK and EU will enter an 11-month ‘standstill’ transition period in which existing arrangements will continue: the free movement of people, financial contributions, and full access to the single market without tariffs or customs checks. The Conservative government made a manifesto pledge not to extend the 11-month transition, so the more important question is: what will change when the standstill period ends on December 31? The answer depends on what sort of trade deal the UK and EU can negotiate in the limited space of 11 months. Or indeed whether they can negotiate a trade deal at all. Therein lies the problem. A free trade deal with the EU will require a mutual commitment to a ‘level playing field’. If the UK wants to diverge on food standards, environmental protection, labour rights, and state aid – as the Brexit purists yearn – then there is zero chance that the EU will agree to a free trade deal.  This leaves two options, neither of which is appealing. The first is for the UK to end the 11-month standstill period without a trade deal. Technically, this would not be ‘no deal’ because the withdrawal agreement would still bind both sides on citizens’ rights, financial contributions, and arrangements for Northern Ireland. A free trade deal with the EU will require a mutual commitment to a ‘level playing field’.  However, for UK companies, the option of ending the standstill period without a trade deal would constitute a painful dislocation from the single market involving tariffs and customs checks. It would also hurt the EU economies most exposed to the UK, notably Ireland and the Netherlands. Moreover, a full customs and tariff border in the Irish Sea would endanger the very existence of a ‘United’ Kingdom which included Northern Ireland.   The second option is for the UK to accept a trade deal on EU terms, recognising that the EU is the larger and more economically powerful party in the negotiation. The EU will offer the UK a tariff-free and quota-free trade deal conditional on strict level playing field conditions where the UK chooses to diverge from EU standards, combined with a mechanism to adjudicate on any level playing field disputes. Though economically better than no trade deal at all, the Brexit purists would claim it isn’t Brexit. Meanwhile, even without tariffs and quotas, UK companies whose just-in-time supply chains depended on the EU would still suffer disruption, as the level playing field was policed at every border crossing. So this option would satisfy nobody in the UK. The bigger practical problem is a lack of time to leave the EU regulatory orbit smoothly. Nobody believes that eleven months is enough time to implement a system in Northern Ireland that prevent a hard border in the Irish Sea; or indeed to implement a new UK immigration system if free movement were to end at the end of 2020. So what’s the resolution? The answer is the same as it has always been for Brexit – a gradual ratcheting up of tension ahead of a hard deadline to focus minds and force progress. Followed by a ‘fudged resolution’ at the eleventh hour in which both sides blink – because neither side is prepared to go over the cliff-edge. Recall that to get the withdrawal agreement over the line, the UK blinked by allowing Northern Ireland to be treated differently; but the EU also blinked by allowing the withdrawal agreement to be reopened. And once this happened, the pound and UK-exposed investments enjoyed a major leg up (Chart I-1 and Chart I-4-Chart I-7). Chart I-4The FTSE 250 Is A UK-Exposed ##br##Investment The FTSE 250 Is A UK-Exposed Investment The FTSE 250 Is A UK-Exposed Investment Chart I-5The FTSE 100 Is Not A UK-Exposed Investment The FTSE 100 Is Not A UK-Exposed Investment The FTSE 100 Is Not A UK-Exposed Investment Chart I-6UK General Retail Is A UK-Exposed Investment UK General Retail Is A UK-Exposed Investment UK General Retail Is A UK-Exposed Investment Chart I-7UK Clothing And Accessories Is Not A ##br##UK-Exposed Investment UK Clothing And Accessories Is Not A UK-Exposed Investment UK Clothing And Accessories Is Not A UK-Exposed Investment In the next fudged resolution, the UK could blink by retaining full regulatory alignment with the EU in most areas for a little while longer, and where it doesn’t the EU could blink by becoming flexible in its interpretation of ‘level playing field’. Obviously, nobody would call this an extension to the transition, but the UK would, in most practical terms, still be in the single market on January 1 2021. UK-exposed investments will enjoy their next major leg up later this year In this playbook, the pound and UK-exposed investments will come under near-term pressure, as UK/EU trade deal tensions ratchet up. But ultimately, UK-exposed investments will enjoy their next major leg up later this year if both the UK and the EU blink (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Pound Still Has A Brexit Discount The Pound Still Has A Brexit Discount The Pound Still Has A Brexit Discount Fractal Trading System* There are no new trades this week. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 62 percent. Chart I-9EUR/GBP EUR/GBP EUR/GBP 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. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated   December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights BCA’s “Golden Rule of Bond Investing” framework, which links developed economy government bond returns to central bank policy rate “surprises” versus market expectations, also works in China. The relationship between unexpected changes in China’s de facto short-term policy rate and government bond yields has been surprisingly strong over the past decade. Any additional easing by the PBoC this year is likely to be focused on reducing lending rates to the real economy, not interbank rates (which drive government bond yields). As such, yields at the short-end are likely to be flat until later this year at the earliest, whereas yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher, at most. The persistent historical gap between economic growth and bond yields in China makes it difficult to forecast the structural outlook for yields using conventional methods. To the extent that Chinese policymakers succeed at shifting the drivers of growth from investment to consumption, we believe that bond yields are more likely to structurally rise than fall. Over the coming 6-12 months, investors should underweight Chinese government bonds versus Chinese equities and onshore corporate bonds. Within a regional government bond portfolio, however, investors should overweight USD-hedged China versus US and developed markets ex-US, as well as in unhedged terms. Feature Last year’s inclusion of Chinese onshore government and policy bank bonds in the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index was a significant milestone of China’s journey to internationalize its capital markets. Other bond benchmark providers have since followed suit, highlighting that the trend of increased passive exposure to Chinese assets is likely to continue. Over the past year, the bulk of the market discussion concerning the addition of China to the major bond indices has focused on estimating the size of potential capital inflows that could be triggered and the related impact on onshore bond yields. By contrast, comparatively little work has been done to analyze the core drivers of Chinese government bond yields, and how they compare to the factors that influence yields in the developed markets that dominate the bond indices. This Special Report attempts to fill a hole in the analysis of Chinese bonds. This Special Report attempts to fill that hole in the analysis of Chinese bonds. We look at the predictability of China’s government bond market through the lens of BCA’s “golden rule” framework, and find a surprisingly strong relationship between changes in China’s de facto short-term policy rate and government bond yields. We then present our cyclical (6-12 month) and secular outlooks for government yields given this relationship, and conclude by presenting four specific investment recommendations pertaining to China’s fixed-income market with two audiences in mind: mainland/onshore investors who are focused on returns in unhedged RMB terms, and global fixed-income investors who are primarily focused on hedged US-dollar regional bond exposure. The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, With Chinese Characteristics In a July 2018 Special Report,1 BCA’s Chief US Bond Strategist, Ryan Swift, elegantly distilled the cyclical US government bond call into a simple question: During the next 12-months, will the Federal Reserve move interest rates by more or less than what is currently priced into the market? Chart 1The (US) Golden Rule Of Bond Investing In Practice The (US) Golden Rule Of Bond Investing In Practice The (US) Golden Rule Of Bond Investing In Practice Ryan argued that a predictive framework for US Treasury returns built around the answer to this question has historically worked so well that it should be referred to as the “Golden Rule of bond investing” (Chart 1). In a follow-up report, our Global Fixed Income Strategy service confirmed that the Golden Rule also largely works in non-US developed market economies, with the exception of Japan due to the absence of any meaningful fluctuation in policy rates over the past two decades.2 The Golden Rule provides a very strong framework to aid fixed-income investors with their cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) asset allocation decisions, by quantitatively linking government bond returns relative to cash – in other words, the excess return earned by taking duration risk - to policy rate “surprises” compared to what is discounted in shorter-term money markets. The practical application is that a decision to allocate to longer-maturity government bonds is reduced to a bet on whether a central bank will adjust policy rates by more or less than the market expects. The first question we address in this report is to what degree does the Golden Rule apply in China (in yield space rather than in return space), along with an explanation of any differences that may exist. However, we must first note why the Golden Rule of bond investing works, particularly in the US. The first reason is that there is a strong relationship between the US 3-month T-bill rate and Treasury yields of all other maturities. Conceptually, all fixed income investors have a choice when buying US government bonds: they can purchase a 3-month Treasury bill and simply perpetually roll over the position as it matures, or they can purchase a Treasury bond of a longer maturity. This means that yields on longer maturity Treasury bonds simply reflect investor expectations for the average 3-month T-bill rate over the life of the bond, plus some positive risk premium to compensate for the inherent uncertainty of the path and tendency of short-term yields. This helps explain the close link between cyclical changes in 3-month T-bill rates and yields on longer maturity Treasurys. Chart 2In The US, The 3-Month T-Bill Rate Perfectly Tracks The Fed Funds Rate In The US, The 3-Month T-Bill Rate Perfectly Tracks The Fed Funds Rate In The US, The 3-Month T-Bill Rate Perfectly Tracks The Fed Funds Rate The second reason for the Golden Rule’s success is that there is a very tight relationship between the effective Fed funds rate and the 3-month T-bill rate. While it is the (higher) discount rate that is the theoretical no-arbitrage ceiling for the 3-month rate, in practice T-bill rates trade extremely close to the Fed funds rate (Chart 2). This means that Fed funds rate “surprises” (relative to traded market expectations) are akin to surprises in the 3-month rate, which in turn strongly influence the expected future path of short-term interest rates and thus yields on longer maturity Treasurys. In China, we noted in a February 2018 Special Report3 that the 7-day interbank repo rate is now the de jure short-term policy rate in China following the establishment of an interest rate corridor system in 2015. Chart 3 presents our first test of the Golden Rule in China (in yield space rather than in return space), by plotting the annual change in the level of Chinese government bond yields alongside the 7-day repo rate “surprise” over the past year from 2010 to the present. Here, we use the first principal component of zero coupon Chinese government bond yields to represent the average level of yields (rather than selecting a particular maturity), and we use the 12-month RMB swap rate (versus 7-day repo) to represent market expectations for the policy rate. The chart highlights that the fit is good, as measured by a 50% R-squared between the two series. However, deviations in the relationship do exist, with the most notable exception having occurred in 2017: Chinese government bond yields rose considerably more than what the annual surprise in the 7-day repo rate would have suggested. Chart 3In China, The Golden Rule Works Decently Well Using 7-Day Repo... In China, The Golden Rule Works Decently Well Using 7-Day Repo... In China, The Golden Rule Works Decently Well Using 7-Day Repo... Chart 4...And Extremely Well Using 3-Month SHIBOR ...And Extremely Well Using 3-Month SHIBOR ...And Extremely Well Using 3-Month SHIBOR Chart 4 helps resolve a good portion of the 2017 discrepancy, and clarifies the link between Chinese monetary policy and government bond yields. Chart 4 is similar to Chart 3, except that it replaces the 7-day repo rate surprise with that of 3-month SHIBOR (which trades very closely to the 3-month repo rate). The chart illustrates an even closer fit between the two series (with an R-squared close to 80%), and shows that the 3-month SHIBOR surprise does a meaningfully better job at explaining the 2017 rise in Chinese government bond yields. The Golden Rule of bond investing works surprisingly well in China. The fact that the annual surprise in 3-month SHIBOR has done a better job at predicting changes in bond yields over the past decade underscores that the 3-month repo rate is the de facto short-term policy rate in China, a point that we have made in several previous reports. We have noted that the spike in the 3-month/7-day repo rate spread that occurred in late-2016 and lasted until mid-2018 happened because of China’s crackdown on shadow banking activity. This crackdown caused a funding squeeze for China’s small & medium banks, which caused a material rise in lending rates and government bond yields. This episode highlights that future changes in the 3-month repo rate are likely to reflect both underlying changes in net liquidity provided to large commercial banks (measured by the 7-day repo rate), and any dislocations in the interbank market that have the potential to push up lending rates and government bond yields. Bottom Line: BCA’s “Golden Rule” framework, which links developed economy government bond returns to central bank policy rate “surprises” versus market expectations, works for China as well – using the correct measure of the PBOC policy rate. This provides a useful investment framework for Chinese government bonds, which are now significant part of major global bond market benchmarks. The Cyclical Outlook For Chinese Government Bond Yields Given the establishment of the relationship between Chinese short-term interbank rates and government bond yields detailed above, we are now able to more precisely discuss the likely cyclical trajectory of Chinese government bond yields as a function of Chinese monetary policy. Two opposing forces have the potential to affect China’s government bond market this year. The first, a stabilization and modest rebound in Chinese economic activity, may exert upward pressure on yields due to expectations of eventual policy tightening. The second, continued attempts by the PBoC to ease corporate lending rates, may exert downward pressure on yields as it will reflect not just easy but easier monetary conditions. Yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher this year, at most. For investors, the raises the obvious question of whether Chinese government bond yields are likely to move up, down, or trend sideways this year. In our view, yields at the short-end are likely to be flat until later this year at the earliest, whereas yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher, at most. Yields at the short-end of China’s government bond curve are likely to stay flat for most of this year. There are two reasons why yields at the short-end of China’s government bond curve are likely to stay flat for most of this year. The first is that the PBoC is generally a reactive central bank and has historically lagged a pickup in economic activity, as illustrated in Chart 5. The chart shows the historical path of 3-month SHIBOR in the year following a bottom in economic activity in 2009, 2012, and 2015, and makes it clear that there has been no precedent for a significant rise in interbank rates in the first nine months of an economic recovery. The 2012 episode did see a very sharp rise in 3-month SHIBOR once the PBoC shifted into tightening mode, but we doubt that this experience will be repeated again unless economic growth accelerates much more aggressively than we expect. The second reason why we expect yields at the short-end of the curve to remain muted this year is because any additional easing by the PBoC is likely to be focused on reducing corporate lending rates, not interbank rates. Chart 6 highlights that while there is a strong correlation between changes in Chinese government bond yields and average lending rates in the economy, the former leads the latter. In the past, this relationship has existed because changes in interbank rates have coincided with reductions in the now obsolete benchmark lending rate, with the former usually occurring earlier than the latter. But in a scenario where the PBoC reduces the loan prime rate (LPR) and keeps net banking sector liquidity roughly constant, the extremely tight relationship shown in Chart 4 suggests that short-term bond yields are unlikely to be affected by a reduction in lending rates. Any meaningful decline in short-term yields below short-term interbank rates would simply prompt banks to stop buying these bonds. Chart 5The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank Chart 6Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Chart 7China's Yield Curve Is Generally Pro-Cyclical China's Yield Curve Is Generally Pro-Cyclical China's Yield Curve Is Generally Pro-Cyclical Additional easing by the PBoC does have the potential to impact the long-end of the government bond curve if investors view these actions as a sign that interbank rates will remain low for some time. This view is reinforced by the fact that China’s yield curve is not particularly flat, and thus has room to move lower. However, Chart 7 also shows that China’s yield curve, defined here as the second principal component of zero coupon Chinese government bond yields, is positively correlated with the relative performance of investable Chinese equities. This suggests that there is a procyclical element to the curve. We suspect that this procyclical element will dominate a potential decline in expectations for future short-term interest rates, but that yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher this year, at most. Bottom Line: Any additional easing by the PBoC this year is likely to be focused on reducing lending rates to the real economy, not interbank rates (which drive government bond yields). As such, yields at the short-end are likely to be flat until later this year at the earliest, whereas yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher, at most. The Secular Outlook For Chinese Government Bond Yields A common approach to forecasting the likely structural trend for nominal government bond yields is to estimate the trajectory of real long-term potential output growth and to add the monetary authority’s inflation target. This framework is based on the idea that interest rates are in equilibrium when the cost of borrowing is roughly equal to nominal income growth, a condition that results in no change in the burden to service existing debt. Chart 8China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... Based on this framework, we would expect Chinese government bond yields to trend down over time, or possibly flat if the PBoC were to tolerate higher inflation over the coming decade. Chart 8 illustrates the IMF’s forecast of falling real potential growth in China over the coming several years, which is consistent with a shift in the composition of growth from investment to consumption as well as China’s looming demographic crisis. But Chart 9highlights an obvious problem with applying this framework to forecast the secular trend in Chinese government bond yields: over the past decade, yields have persistently averaged below actual nominal GDP growth, both in China and in the developed world. In the latter case, it is an open question whether this will continue to be true in the future, but in China’s case it is clear that government bond yields have little connection (in magnitude) to the pace of GDP growth. This reflects the longstanding strategy of Chinese policymakers to promote investment via persistently low interest rates, as has occurred in other manufacturing and export-oriented Asian economies (Chart 10). Chart 9...But Bond Yields Are Well Below GDP Growth, Just Like In Developed Markets ...But Bond Yields Are Well Below GDP Growth, Just Like In Developed Markets ...But Bond Yields Are Well Below GDP Growth, Just Like In Developed Markets Chart 10In Industrial Asian Economies, Low Bond Yields Are A Policy Choice In Industrial Asian Economies, Low Bond Yields Are A Policy Choice In Industrial Asian Economies, Low Bond Yields Are A Policy Choice   The persistent historical gap between economic growth and bond yields in China makes it difficult to forecast the structural outlook for yields using conventional methods, and largely limits us to inference. To the extent that Chinese policymakers succeed at shifting the drivers of growth from investment to consumption, bond yields are more likely to rise than fall over time. This is because as long as interest rates remain well below the pace of income growth, the incentive to excessively borrow (and invest) is likely to persist. Chart 11China Needs Higher Interest Rates, But Only To A Point China Needs Higher Interest Rates, But Only To A Point China Needs Higher Interest Rates, But Only To A Point However, even in a scenario where Chinese government bond yields structurally trend higher, we expect the rise to be modest. Chart 11 highlights that China’s “private sector” debt service ratio is extremely elevated, underscoring that the country’s ability to tolerate significantly higher bond yields is not strong. In addition, since 2015, China’s debt service ratio has been mostly flat despite rising a rising debt-to-GDP ratio, which has been achieved through lower short-term interest rates. To the extent that policymakers fail to make meaningful progress in shifting China’s growth drivers away from investment over the coming few years, lower (potentially sharply lower) bond yields would appear to be all but inevitable to cope with what would become a permanently growing drag on economic activity from the servicing of debt. For now, we would characterize this scenario as a risk to our base case view, but it is a risk that we will be closely monitoring over the coming years. Bottom Line: The persistent gap between Chinese nominal GDP growth and government bond yields is likely contributing to the problem of excessive leveraging. To the extent that Chinese policymakers succeed at shifting the drivers of growth from investment to consumption, bond yields are more likely to structurally rise than fall. Investment Conclusions Our analysis above points to four recommendations for investors over the coming year: Overweight Chinese stocks versus Chinese government bonds in RMB and USD terms Overweight Chinese onshore corporate bonds versus duration-matched Chinese government bonds in RMB terms Overweight 7-10 year USD-hedged Chinese government bonds versus their US and developed market (DM) counterparts For offshore US dollar-based investors, long 7-10 year Chinese government bonds in unhedged terms Regarding the first two recommendations, our view that yields are likely to be flat at the short-end and modestly higher at the long-end suggests that investors can expect total returns on the order of 2-3% from Chinese government bonds this year. Barring a major and lasting economic slowdown from the 2019-nCoV outbreak, we expect Chinese domestic and investable equities to outperform government securities over the coming 6-12 months. Onshore corporate bonds have a similar outlook: onshore spreads are pricing in (massively) higher default losses than we believe is warranted, meaning that they will outperform duration-matched government equivalents without any changes in yield. Chart 12Within Global Fixed-Income, Hedged Chinese 10-Year Yields Are Relatively Attractive Within Global Fixed-Income, Hedged Chinese 10-Year Yields Are Relatively Attractive Within Global Fixed-Income, Hedged Chinese 10-Year Yields Are Relatively Attractive Chart 13Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus The US Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus The US Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus The US For global fixed-income investors, Charts 12-14 present USD-hedged 10-year Chinese government yields versus the US and DM/DM ex-US, along with the historical relative return profile of USD-hedged Chinese bonds versus hedged and unhedged returns. In hedged space, Chinese 10-year government bond yields are modestly attractive: 2.2% versus 1.6% in the US and 1.8% in DM ex-US. China’s historically low yield beta to the overall level of global 10-year bond yields (Chart 15) suggests that Chinese yields should perform well in 2020 – a year where we expect global bond yields to drift higher as economic growth rebounds. Combined with relatively attractive valuation, this bodes well for the relative performance of Chinese debt versus DM equivalents. A low yield beta against a backdrop of drifting higher global yields implies that longer-maturity Chinese government bonds will outperform their DM equivalents. Chart 14Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus DM Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus DM Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus DM Chart 15China's Yield Beta Has Been Rising, But Is Still Japan-Like China's Yield Beta Has Been Rising, But Is Still Japan-Like China's Yield Beta Has Been Rising, But Is Still Japan-Like   We would also recommend longer-maturity Chinese government bonds in unhedged terms versus a USD-hedged global government bond portfolio. Chart 16 highlights that the relative return of this trade is strongly (negatively) linked to USD-CNY, and we expect further (albeit more modest) gains in RMB over the cyclical horizon. Chart 16Modest Further RMB Upside Means Unhedged Chinese Bonds Will Outperform Modest Further RMB Upside Means Unhedged Chinese Bonds Will Outperform Modest Further RMB Upside Means Unhedged Chinese Bonds Will Outperform As a final point, investors should note that today’s report is part of a heightened focus on China’s fixed income market, in terms of both forecasting fixed income returns and analyzing the cyclical and structural implications of the increasing investability of China’s financial markets. More research on this topic is likely to come in 2020 and beyond: Stay Tuned!   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com         Footnotes 1    Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing," dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "The Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing," dated September 25, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com

Dear clients, Please note that in next week’s China Macro And Market Review, we will include a section explaining our view on the coronavirus outbreak and its economic as well as financial market implications. We maintain our overweight stance on both Chinese investable and A-share equities, over a tactical (0-3 months) and cyclical (6-12 months) time horizon. Please stay tuned. Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights BCA’s “Golden Rule of Bond Investing” framework, which links developed economy government bond returns to central bank policy rate “surprises” versus market expectations, also works in China. The relationship between unexpected changes in China’s de facto short-term policy rate and government bond yields has been surprisingly strong over the past decade. Any additional easing by the PBoC this year is likely to be focused on reducing lending rates to the real economy, not interbank rates (which drive government bond yields). As such, yields at the short-end are likely to be flat until later this year at the earliest, whereas yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher, at most. The persistent historical gap between economic growth and bond yields in China makes it difficult to forecast the structural outlook for yields using conventional methods. To the extent that Chinese policymakers succeed at shifting the drivers of growth from investment to consumption, we believe that bond yields are more likely to structurally rise than fall. Over the coming 6-12 months, investors should underweight Chinese government bonds versus Chinese equities and onshore corporate bonds. Within a regional government bond portfolio, however, investors should overweight USD-hedged China versus US and developed markets ex-US, as well as in unhedged terms. Feature Last year’s inclusion of Chinese onshore government and policy bank bonds in the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index was a significant milestone of China’s journey to internationalize its capital markets. Other bond benchmark providers have since followed suit, highlighting that the trend of increased passive exposure to Chinese assets is likely to continue. Over the past year, the bulk of the market discussion concerning the addition of China to the major bond indices has focused on estimating the size of potential capital inflows that could be triggered and the related impact on onshore bond yields. By contrast, comparatively little work has been done to analyze the core drivers of Chinese government bond yields, and how they compare to the factors that influence yields in the developed markets that dominate the bond indices. This Special Report attempts to fill a hole in the analysis of Chinese bonds. This Special Report attempts to fill that hole in the analysis of Chinese bonds. We look at the predictability of China’s government bond market through the lens of BCA’s “golden rule” framework, and find a surprisingly strong relationship between changes in China’s de facto short-term policy rate and government bond yields. We then present our cyclical (6-12 month) and secular outlooks for government yields given this relationship, and conclude by presenting four specific investment recommendations pertaining to China’s fixed-income market with two audiences in mind: mainland/onshore investors who are focused on returns in unhedged RMB terms, and global fixed-income investors who are primarily focused on hedged US-dollar regional bond exposure. The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, With Chinese Characteristics In a July 2018 Special Report,1 BCA’s Chief US Bond Strategist, Ryan Swift, elegantly distilled the cyclical US government bond call into a simple question: During the next 12-months, will the Federal Reserve move interest rates by more or less than what is currently priced into the market? Chart 1The (US) Golden Rule Of Bond Investing In Practice The (US) Golden Rule Of Bond Investing In Practice The (US) Golden Rule Of Bond Investing In Practice Ryan argued that a predictive framework for US Treasury returns built around the answer to this question has historically worked so well that it should be referred to as the “Golden Rule of bond investing” (Chart 1). In a follow-up report, our Global Fixed Income Strategy service confirmed that the Golden Rule also largely works in non-US developed market economies, with the exception of Japan due to the absence of any meaningful fluctuation in policy rates over the past two decades.2 The Golden Rule provides a very strong framework to aid fixed-income investors with their cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) asset allocation decisions, by quantitatively linking government bond returns relative to cash – in other words, the excess return earned by taking duration risk - to policy rate “surprises” compared to what is discounted in shorter-term money markets. The practical application is that a decision to allocate to longer-maturity government bonds is reduced to a bet on whether a central bank will adjust policy rates by more or less than the market expects. The first question we address in this report is to what degree does the Golden Rule apply in China (in yield space rather than in return space), along with an explanation of any differences that may exist. However, we must first note why the Golden Rule of bond investing works, particularly in the US. The first reason is that there is a strong relationship between the US 3-month T-bill rate and Treasury yields of all other maturities. Conceptually, all fixed income investors have a choice when buying US government bonds: they can purchase a 3-month Treasury bill and simply perpetually roll over the position as it matures, or they can purchase a Treasury bond of a longer maturity. This means that yields on longer maturity Treasury bonds simply reflect investor expectations for the average 3-month T-bill rate over the life of the bond, plus some positive risk premium to compensate for the inherent uncertainty of the path and tendency of short-term yields. This helps explain the close link between cyclical changes in 3-month T-bill rates and yields on longer maturity Treasurys. Chart 2In The US, The 3-Month T-Bill Rate Perfectly Tracks The Fed Funds Rate In The US, The 3-Month T-Bill Rate Perfectly Tracks The Fed Funds Rate In The US, The 3-Month T-Bill Rate Perfectly Tracks The Fed Funds Rate The second reason for the Golden Rule’s success is that there is a very tight relationship between the effective Fed funds rate and the 3-month T-bill rate. While it is the (higher) discount rate that is the theoretical no-arbitrage ceiling for the 3-month rate, in practice T-bill rates trade extremely close to the Fed funds rate (Chart 2). This means that Fed funds rate “surprises” (relative to traded market expectations) are akin to surprises in the 3-month rate, which in turn strongly influence the expected future path of short-term interest rates and thus yields on longer maturity Treasurys. In China, we noted in a February 2018 Special Report3 that the 7-day interbank repo rate is now the de jure short-term policy rate in China following the establishment of an interest rate corridor system in 2015. Chart 3 presents our first test of the Golden Rule in China (in yield space rather than in return space), by plotting the annual change in the level of Chinese government bond yields alongside the 7-day repo rate “surprise” over the past year from 2010 to the present. Here, we use the first principal component of zero coupon Chinese government bond yields to represent the average level of yields (rather than selecting a particular maturity), and we use the 12-month RMB swap rate (versus 7-day repo) to represent market expectations for the policy rate. The chart highlights that the fit is good, as measured by a 50% R-squared between the two series. However, deviations in the relationship do exist, with the most notable exception having occurred in 2017: Chinese government bond yields rose considerably more than what the annual surprise in the 7-day repo rate would have suggested. Chart 3In China, The Golden Rule Works Decently Well Using 7-Day Repo... In China, The Golden Rule Works Decently Well Using 7-Day Repo... In China, The Golden Rule Works Decently Well Using 7-Day Repo... Chart 4...And Extremely Well Using 3-Month SHIBOR ...And Extremely Well Using 3-Month SHIBOR ...And Extremely Well Using 3-Month SHIBOR Chart 4 helps resolve a good portion of the 2017 discrepancy, and clarifies the link between Chinese monetary policy and government bond yields. Chart 4 is similar to Chart 3, except that it replaces the 7-day repo rate surprise with that of 3-month SHIBOR (which trades very closely to the 3-month repo rate). The chart illustrates an even closer fit between the two series (with an R-squared close to 80%), and shows that the 3-month SHIBOR surprise does a meaningfully better job at explaining the 2017 rise in Chinese government bond yields. The Golden Rule of bond investing works surprisingly well in China. The fact that the annual surprise in 3-month SHIBOR has done a better job at predicting changes in bond yields over the past decade underscores that the 3-month repo rate is the de facto short-term policy rate in China, a point that we have made in several previous reports. We have noted that the spike in the 3-month/7-day repo rate spread that occurred in late-2016 and lasted until mid-2018 happened because of China’s crackdown on shadow banking activity. This crackdown caused a funding squeeze for China’s small & medium banks, which caused a material rise in lending rates and government bond yields. This episode highlights that future changes in the 3-month repo rate are likely to reflect both underlying changes in net liquidity provided to large commercial banks (measured by the 7-day repo rate), and any dislocations in the interbank market that have the potential to push up lending rates and government bond yields. Bottom Line: BCA’s “Golden Rule” framework, which links developed economy government bond returns to central bank policy rate “surprises” versus market expectations, works for China as well – using the correct measure of the PBOC policy rate. This provides a useful investment framework for Chinese government bonds, which are now significant part of major global bond market benchmarks. The Cyclical Outlook For Chinese Government Bond Yields Given the establishment of the relationship between Chinese short-term interbank rates and government bond yields detailed above, we are now able to more precisely discuss the likely cyclical trajectory of Chinese government bond yields as a function of Chinese monetary policy. Two opposing forces have the potential to affect China’s government bond market this year. The first, a stabilization and modest rebound in Chinese economic activity, may exert upward pressure on yields due to expectations of eventual policy tightening. The second, continued attempts by the PBoC to ease corporate lending rates, may exert downward pressure on yields as it will reflect not just easy but easier monetary conditions. Yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher this year, at most. For investors, the raises the obvious question of whether Chinese government bond yields are likely to move up, down, or trend sideways this year. In our view, yields at the short-end are likely to be flat until later this year at the earliest, whereas yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher, at most. Yields at the short-end of China’s government bond curve are likely to stay flat for most of this year. There are two reasons why yields at the short-end of China’s government bond curve are likely to stay flat for most of this year. The first is that the PBoC is generally a reactive central bank and has historically lagged a pickup in economic activity, as illustrated in Chart 5. The chart shows the historical path of 3-month SHIBOR in the year following a bottom in economic activity in 2009, 2012, and 2015, and makes it clear that there has been no precedent for a significant rise in interbank rates in the first nine months of an economic recovery. The 2012 episode did see a very sharp rise in 3-month SHIBOR once the PBoC shifted into tightening mode, but we doubt that this experience will be repeated again unless economic growth accelerates much more aggressively than we expect. The second reason why we expect yields at the short-end of the curve to remain muted this year is because any additional easing by the PBoC is likely to be focused on reducing corporate lending rates, not interbank rates. Chart 6 highlights that while there is a strong correlation between changes in Chinese government bond yields and average lending rates in the economy, the former leads the latter. In the past, this relationship has existed because changes in interbank rates have coincided with reductions in the now obsolete benchmark lending rate, with the former usually occurring earlier than the latter. But in a scenario where the PBoC reduces the loan prime rate (LPR) and keeps net banking sector liquidity roughly constant, the extremely tight relationship shown in Chart 4 suggests that short-term bond yields are unlikely to be affected by a reduction in lending rates. Any meaningful decline in short-term yields below short-term interbank rates would simply prompt banks to stop buying these bonds. Chart 5The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank Chart 6Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Chart 7China's Yield Curve Is Generally Pro-Cyclical China's Yield Curve Is Generally Pro-Cyclical China's Yield Curve Is Generally Pro-Cyclical Additional easing by the PBoC does have the potential to impact the long-end of the government bond curve if investors view these actions as a sign that interbank rates will remain low for some time. This view is reinforced by the fact that China’s yield curve is not particularly flat, and thus has room to move lower. However, Chart 7 also shows that China’s yield curve, defined here as the second principal component of zero coupon Chinese government bond yields, is positively correlated with the relative performance of investable Chinese equities. This suggests that there is a procyclical element to the curve. We suspect that this procyclical element will dominate a potential decline in expectations for future short-term interest rates, but that yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher this year, at most. Bottom Line: Any additional easing by the PBoC this year is likely to be focused on reducing lending rates to the real economy, not interbank rates (which drive government bond yields). As such, yields at the short-end are likely to be flat until later this year at the earliest, whereas yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher, at most. The Secular Outlook For Chinese Government Bond Yields A common approach to forecasting the likely structural trend for nominal government bond yields is to estimate the trajectory of real long-term potential output growth and to add the monetary authority’s inflation target. This framework is based on the idea that interest rates are in equilibrium when the cost of borrowing is roughly equal to nominal income growth, a condition that results in no change in the burden to service existing debt. Chart 8China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... Based on this framework, we would expect Chinese government bond yields to trend down over time, or possibly flat if the PBoC were to tolerate higher inflation over the coming decade. Chart 8 illustrates the IMF’s forecast of falling real potential growth in China over the coming several years, which is consistent with a shift in the composition of growth from investment to consumption as well as China’s looming demographic crisis. But Chart 9highlights an obvious problem with applying this framework to forecast the secular trend in Chinese government bond yields: over the past decade, yields have persistently averaged below actual nominal GDP growth, both in China and in the developed world. In the latter case, it is an open question whether this will continue to be true in the future, but in China’s case it is clear that government bond yields have little connection (in magnitude) to the pace of GDP growth. This reflects the longstanding strategy of Chinese policymakers to promote investment via persistently low interest rates, as has occurred in other manufacturing and export-oriented Asian economies (Chart 10). Chart 9...But Bond Yields Are Well Below GDP Growth, Just Like In Developed Markets ...But Bond Yields Are Well Below GDP Growth, Just Like In Developed Markets ...But Bond Yields Are Well Below GDP Growth, Just Like In Developed Markets Chart 10In Industrial Asian Economies, Low Bond Yields Are A Policy Choice In Industrial Asian Economies, Low Bond Yields Are A Policy Choice In Industrial Asian Economies, Low Bond Yields Are A Policy Choice   The persistent historical gap between economic growth and bond yields in China makes it difficult to forecast the structural outlook for yields using conventional methods, and largely limits us to inference. To the extent that Chinese policymakers succeed at shifting the drivers of growth from investment to consumption, bond yields are more likely to rise than fall over time. This is because as long as interest rates remain well below the pace of income growth, the incentive to excessively borrow (and invest) is likely to persist. Chart 11China Needs Higher Interest Rates, But Only To A Point China Needs Higher Interest Rates, But Only To A Point China Needs Higher Interest Rates, But Only To A Point However, even in a scenario where Chinese government bond yields structurally trend higher, we expect the rise to be modest. Chart 11 highlights that China’s “private sector” debt service ratio is extremely elevated, underscoring that the country’s ability to tolerate significantly higher bond yields is not strong. In addition, since 2015, China’s debt service ratio has been mostly flat despite rising a rising debt-to-GDP ratio, which has been achieved through lower short-term interest rates. To the extent that policymakers fail to make meaningful progress in shifting China’s growth drivers away from investment over the coming few years, lower (potentially sharply lower) bond yields would appear to be all but inevitable to cope with what would become a permanently growing drag on economic activity from the servicing of debt. For now, we would characterize this scenario as a risk to our base case view, but it is a risk that we will be closely monitoring over the coming years. Bottom Line: The persistent gap between Chinese nominal GDP growth and government bond yields is likely contributing to the problem of excessive leveraging. To the extent that Chinese policymakers succeed at shifting the drivers of growth from investment to consumption, bond yields are more likely to structurally rise than fall. Investment Conclusions Our analysis above points to four recommendations for investors over the coming year: Overweight Chinese stocks versus Chinese government bonds in RMB and USD terms Overweight Chinese onshore corporate bonds versus duration-matched Chinese government bonds in RMB terms Overweight 7-10 year USD-hedged Chinese government bonds versus their US and developed market (DM) counterparts For offshore US dollar-based investors, long 7-10 year Chinese government bonds in unhedged terms Regarding the first two recommendations, our view that yields are likely to be flat at the short-end and modestly higher at the long-end suggests that investors can expect total returns on the order of 2-3% from Chinese government bonds this year. Barring a major and lasting economic slowdown from the 2019-nCoV outbreak, we expect Chinese domestic and investable equities to outperform government securities over the coming 6-12 months. Onshore corporate bonds have a similar outlook: onshore spreads are pricing in (massively) higher default losses than we believe is warranted, meaning that they will outperform duration-matched government equivalents without any changes in yield. Chart 12Within Global Fixed-Income, Hedged Chinese 10-Year Yields Are Relatively Attractive Within Global Fixed-Income, Hedged Chinese 10-Year Yields Are Relatively Attractive Within Global Fixed-Income, Hedged Chinese 10-Year Yields Are Relatively Attractive Chart 13Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus The US Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus The US Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus The US For global fixed-income investors, Charts 12-14 present USD-hedged 10-year Chinese government yields versus the US and DM/DM ex-US, along with the historical relative return profile of USD-hedged Chinese bonds versus hedged and unhedged returns. In hedged space, Chinese 10-year government bond yields are modestly attractive: 2.2% versus 1.6% in the US and 1.8% in DM ex-US. China’s historically low yield beta to the overall level of global 10-year bond yields (Chart 15) suggests that Chinese yields should perform well in 2020 – a year where we expect global bond yields to drift higher as economic growth rebounds. Combined with relatively attractive valuation, this bodes well for the relative performance of Chinese debt versus DM equivalents. A low yield beta against a backdrop of drifting higher global yields implies that longer-maturity Chinese government bonds will outperform their DM equivalents. Chart 14Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus DM Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus DM Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus DM Chart 15China's Yield Beta Has Been Rising, But Is Still Japan-Like China's Yield Beta Has Been Rising, But Is Still Japan-Like China's Yield Beta Has Been Rising, But Is Still Japan-Like   We would also recommend longer-maturity Chinese government bonds in unhedged terms versus a USD-hedged global government bond portfolio. Chart 16 highlights that the relative return of this trade is strongly (negatively) linked to USD-CNY, and we expect further (albeit more modest) gains in RMB over the cyclical horizon. Chart 16Modest Further RMB Upside Means Unhedged Chinese Bonds Will Outperform Modest Further RMB Upside Means Unhedged Chinese Bonds Will Outperform Modest Further RMB Upside Means Unhedged Chinese Bonds Will Outperform As a final point, investors should note that today’s report is part of a heightened focus on China’s fixed income market, in terms of both forecasting fixed income returns and analyzing the cyclical and structural implications of the increasing investability of China’s financial markets. More research on this topic is likely to come in 2020 and beyond: Stay Tuned!   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com         Footnotes 1    Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing," dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "The Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing," dated September 25, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Historically, the stocks with the lowest volatility have outperformed the stocks with the highest volatility, a trend that defies some of the most fundamental theories in finance. The low-volatility factor has outperformed the market in absolute return terms, with a substantial reduction in downside risk, in every major equity market. Compensation structure, benchmarking, analyst bias, and the preference for lottery-like stocks are all plausible explanations for why the low-volatility anomaly persists. Shifting some exposure from bonds to minimum-volatility equities might be an attractive way to keep returns high while remaining hedged against downside risk in a world of low interest rates. Feature Chart 1The Low-Volatility Anomaly Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets Conventional wisdom suggests that achieving the right mix between risk and return requires a tradeoff: Take on too little risk, and returns will be subpar, but take on too much, and a large loss becomes likely. However, the empirical evidence shows that no such tradeoff exists in the equity market: Historically, the return of stocks with the lowest volatility has been better than the return of stocks with the highest volatility (Chart 1, top panel). Even when using a measure of systematic risk such as beta, there appears to be very little relationship between risk and return – a result that emphatically contradicts what is predicted by the CAPM (Chart 1, bottom panel). The success of low risk stocks – a well-documented phenomenon known as the low-volatility anomaly1  – challenges some of the most fundamental premises of finance and economics. After all, how could taking on less risk result in better returns? In this report, we dive into this anomaly, with the intent of answering the following questions: What kind of portfolios can exploit this anomaly? What are the risk/return characteristics to this factor and what sectors is it exposed to? Why does this factor work? How can investors use the low-volatility factor in their asset allocation process? To answer these questions we explore the historical performance of the MSCI minimum-volatility index. Additionally, we explore the academic research surrounding the low-volatility anomaly. Finally, we look into how low-volatility equities have performed as a hedge for a global equity portfolio when compared to government bonds. Low Volatility Vs. Minimum Volatility There are two types of portfolios that are generally used to exploit the low-volatility anomaly: Low-volatility portfolios are built first by sorting the stock universe according to the stocks' trailing standard deviation, and then by buying the stocks with the lowest standard deviation. Usually the index buys the bottom quintile of stocks ranked by volatility. Minimum-volatility portfolios are built through an optimization procedure, by which funds are allocated to the stock mix that would have minimized the historical volatility of a portfolio (subject to certain constraints). Chart 2No Dramatic Difference Between Low Vol And Min Vol No Dramatic Difference Between Low Vol And Min Vol No Dramatic Difference Between Low Vol And Min Vol The main advantage of minimum-volatility portfolios over low-volatility portfolios is that they do not consider only low-volatility stocks but also stocks with low covariance between each other. However, the construction of these portfolios also requires estimating large covariance matrices, which are prone to a significant degree of noise, and thus often have to be adjusted by statistical methods.2 That being said, there is little performance difference between these two methodologies in practice, though minimum-volatility portfolios do tend to be much more constrained than low-volatility portfolios (Chart 2). In this report we will focus on the more popular MSCI minimum-volatility portfolios, given that their historical data is more readily available.   Risk-Return Characteristics Of Minimum Volatility At the global level, minimum volatility has outperformed not only the market since 1990, but also the most popular equity factors, with the exception of momentum (Chart 3, top panel). The outperformance relative to the benchmark has proved to be robust, as minimum volatility has beaten the returns for the benchmark in the biggest developed markets as well as emerging markets for almost two decades (Chart 3, bottom panel). The most attractive feature of minimum volatility is the significant reduction in risk it provides. Since 1988, the annualized volatility of minimum volatility has been 10%, a considerable improvement vis-à-vis the market and relative to other popular equity factors (Chart 4, top panel). Meanwhile, even though return skew of minimum volatility has been more negative than the benchmark, minimum volatility achieved a substantial reduction in tail risk with a 10% conditional VaR of only 5% (Chart 4, middle and bottom panel). Chart 3Min Vol Outperformance Is Broad-Based Min Vol Outperforms In All Countries Min Vol Outperforms In All Countries Chart 4Min Vol Provides A Substantial Reduction In Risk Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets In addition to its risk reduction, minimum volatility also has a countercyclical relative return profile, outperforming during bear markets, and underperforming slightly during bull markets (Chart 5, top panel). This return profile occurs partly due to the sector skew of this factor, which overweights defensive sectors such as Utilities and Consumer Staples relative to the global benchmark3 (Chart 5, middle panel). At the global level, this defensive tilt exposes minimum volatility to significant duration risk, given that the stocks in this index tend to have bond-like properties (Chart 5, bottom panel). The negative relationship between interest rates and the low-volatility factor has been well documented by the academic literature: Some studies estimate that up to 80% of the outperformance of low-volatility equities can be explained by exposure to duration risk.4 Chart 5Global Min Vol Is Sensitive To Interest Rates Global Min Vol Is Sensitive To Interest Rates Global Min Vol Is Sensitive To Interest Rates Chart 6Min Vol Is Expensive Min Vol Is Expensive Min Vol Is Expensive     On average, minimum volatility also tends to overweight stocks with a higher dividend yield than the market (Chart 6, panel 1). This yield difference accounts for roughly a quarter of the return difference between minimum volatility and the benchmark since 1990. However, high dividend yield and minimum volatility are not synonymous: Over the past decade, minimum volatility has selected stocks that are more expensive than the benchmark, a stark difference from high dividend yield portfolios, which exclusively select very cheap stocks (Chart 6, panel 2). The current high overvaluation of minimum volatility relative to the market could spell bad news for this factor in the near future: While valuation and returns do not have a straightforward relationship, extreme levels of valuation relative to the benchmark have historically resulted in subsequent underperformance of this factor relative to the market (Chart 6, panels 3 and 4). Why Does The Low-Volatility Factor Work? Analyst Forecasts It has been shown empirically that equity analysts tend to have an optimistic bias, due to the need of the analyst to maintain good relationships with the companies they cover. Moreover, investors do not adjust for this bias, meaning that the stocks of companies that receive an overly optimistic forecast tend to rise initially when the forecast is released, but then mean-revert once the forecast does not materialize. Chart 7Analyst Bias Is Larger In High-Vol Stocks Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets It seems that this dynamic might be more pervasive in high-volatility stocks. In their paper “When Sell-Side Analysts Meet High-Volatility Stocks: An Alternative Explanation for the Low-Volatility Puzzle,” Hsu et al. show that analysts’ positive bias is larger for more volatile stocks, even when adjusting for confounding variables like size, sector and country5 (Chart 7).  It is easy to see why this might be the case: An extremely optimistic bias on a low variance stock would look unrealistic to most investors. Thus, analysts are more prone to express a large positive bias on high variance stocks, where bias is harder to detect. Ultimately, this bias causes these stocks to become chronically overvalued. Salary Structure of Managers Chart 8Institutions Favor High Vol Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets The payoff structure of fund managers has also been suggested as a possible cause of the low-volatility anomaly.6 The structure of compensation for fund managers often resembles an option: A bonus is granted if the portfolio returns are higher than a certain threshold. In such a structure, the compensation of portfolio managers resembles a call option: The probability of a payoff increases with volatility, creating an incentive to invest in high-volatility stocks.  However, this preference for high-volatility stocks will overbid them, causing them to underperform. There is some evidence that this is in fact the case. Once the effect of size is neutralized, stocks with high institutional ownership tend to be more volatile than stocks with low institutional ownership (Chart 8). Moreover, a study on the exposure of hedge funds to popular risk factors from 2000 to 2016, showed that hedge funds have a large short exposure to the anomaly, indicating that they favor high-volatility over low-volatility stocks.7   Lottery Stocks Chart 9The Low-Volatility Anomaly Is Most Prevalent In Lottery-Like Stocks Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets Not all high-volatility stocks are chronic underperformers. In the paper “The Low Volatility Anomaly and the Preference for Gambling,” Hsu et al. identify that the low-volatility anomaly is largest in stocks with strong lottery-like characteristics (the authors define lottery-like as the stocks that had the highest maximum daily return the previous month)8 (Chart 9). Meanwhile, other high-volatility stocks are much more likely to have higher or equal returns than their low-volatility counterparts. Why is this the case? Investors tend to have a preference for “home-run” stocks, which have a large probability of a small loss, but a small probability of a large gain – a well-documented behavioral bias known as the long-shot bias.9 This bias might cause investors to overbid for lottery-like stocks, causing them to underperform as a cohort. This phenomenon might be related to the incentives in the money management industry. Flows to equity funds tend to be very skewed to the very best performing funds. This means that fund managers have a high incentive to invest in stocks that have the potential of an extremely high payoff. Benchmarking Chart 10Benchmarking Could Be To Blame For The Low-Vol Anomaly Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets While the low-volatility anomaly has been found in other asset classes,10 it is interesting to note that the anomaly occurs only within asset classes and not across asset classes. Indeed, the traditional risk-return relationship is conserved when looking at a multi-asset universe (Chart 10, top panel). One possible solution to this puzzle might be the effect of benchmarking. Within an asset class, benchmarked managers are not only measured according to their return relative to their benchmark but also to their tracking risk (volatility of return difference). Under this structure, investors do not have a large incentive to exploit the alpha from low-volatility or low-beta stocks, since such a strategy would result in a relatively high tracking error.11 This high tracking error will make the excess return of low-volatility stocks relatively less attractive for benchmarked managers, even if these stocks are clearly superior in terms of raw risk-adjusted returns (Chart 10, bottom panel). How Can Minimum Volatility Be Used In Asset Allocation? Chart 11Sensitivity Of Min Vol To Interest Rates Has Increased In The Last Decade Sensitivity Of Min Vol To Interest Rates Has Increased In The Last Decade Sensitivity Of Min Vol To Interest Rates Has Increased In The Last Decade The interest rate sensitivity of low-volatility stocks has been a topic of significant interest for academic researchers. A study that attempted to measure this sensitivity found that equities in the lowest volatility decile have an interest-rate exposure equivalent to a 66% equity/34% bond portfolio.12 Moreover, this sensitivity has increased in recent years: Factor analysis shows that while the beta of the excess returns of minimum volatility to the equity market has remained constant, the beta to the bond market has increased significantly over the last decade13 (Chart 11, top panel). Interestingly this process seems to have accelerated as bond yields fell below dividend yields – a result which might arise because the market starts perceiving bonds, and low-volatility equities as close substitutes when they provide a similar cash flow (Chart 11, bottom panel). At first glance, this relatively high duration risk appears to be a red flag, particularly if you share our view that interest rates have reached a multi-year bottom. After all, an environment where interest rates rise would imply that minimum volatility would underperform global equities on a structural basis.  However, the sensitivity of minimum volatility to interest rates can be used to the advantage of an asset allocator. Specifically, in a world of low bond yields, it could be attractive for an investor to shift some of the exposure he or she has from bonds to minimum-volatility equities. Why would an investor do this? As we discussed in our October 2019 report, low bond yields will cause bonds to generate returns that are much lower than their historical averages. This means that using government bonds as a hedge for an equity portfolio is likely to result in a severe drag on performance.14 On the other hand, while minimum-volatility equities do not have the same hedging potency as bonds, their returns are much higher, which suggests that at the right allocation they could prove to be a better hedge. In a world of low bond yields, it could be attractive for an investor to shift some of the exposure he or she has from bonds to minimum-volatility equities. How has such a strategy worked historically? Chart 12 shows how allocating incremental amounts of global minimum-volatility equities to an equity portfolio compares to adding incremental amounts of global government bonds. Overall, allocating an additional 3% of minimum-volatility equities to a portfolio had the same effect as adding 1% of government bonds in terms of downside protection and volatility reduction, but with a much higher return. This effect was robust throughout the sample period. Consider a portfolio with 30% government bonds, 30% minimum volatility and 40% global equities. With the exception of the 1990-1994 period, this portfolio had roughly the same 10% conditional VaR in all sub periods as a portfolio with 40% government bonds and 60% equities, but a significantly higher return (Chart 13). Moreover, the volatility of the portfolio that includes minimum volatility has also been lower than the 60/40 portfolio since 2000. Chart 12Min Vol Provides Protection With A Relatively High Return Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets Chart 13Min-Vol Protection Has Been Robust Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets Less Risk And More Reward? The Low-Volatility Factor In Equity Markets Bottom Line The low-volatility anomaly contradicts what is perhaps the most fundamental pillar in finance: The tradeoff between risk and return. As such, this anomaly might be the most puzzling inefficiency in markets. But will it persist? The evidence suggests that the anomaly is caused by strong institutional incentives, which are likely to continue. Thus, investors should strongly consider investing in low-volatility stocks in the future. However, the following points should be taken into account: Investors who are evaluated according to their information ratio should avoid low/minimum-volatility stocks, given that their large volatility difference with the benchmark will result in a relatively high tracking error. Relatively high valuations and an uptrend in interest rates may hurt the performance of low/minimum-volatility stocks relative to the broad equity market in the near future. However, the interest-rate exposure of low/minimum-volatility stocks might prove attractive to multi-asset investors. Specifically, investing in minimum-volatility equities and reducing bond exposure might be a way to boost returns while remaining hedged.   Juan Correa Ossa, CFA Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  The discovery of the low-volatility anomaly predates the discovery of both the size and value anomalies. For more details, please see Michael C. Jensen, Fischer Black, and Myron S. Scholes, “The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Some Empirical Tests,” Studies in the Theory Of Capital Markets, Praeger Publishers Inc., 1972. 2 For more details on the construction of minimum-volatility portfolios, please see Tzee-man Chow, Jason C. Hsu,Li-Lan Kuo, and Feifei Li, “A Study of Low Volatility Portfolio Construction Methods,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2014. 3 However, research has shown that the low-volatility anomaly still holds within sectors, suggesting that its outperformance is not only a result of sector bias. For more details, please see Raul Leote de Carvalho, Majdouline Zakaria, Lu Xiao, and Pierre Moulin, “Low Risk Anomaly Everywhere - Evidence from Equity Sectors,” (November 19, 2014). 4 Please see Joost Driessen, Ivo Kuiper, Korhan Nazliben, and Robbert Beilo, “Does Interest Rate Exposure Explain the Low-Volatility Anomaly?” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 103, 2019. 5 Please see Jason C. Hsu, Hideaki Kudoh and Toru Yamada, “When Sell-Side Analysts Meet High-Volatility Stocks: An Alternative Explanation for the Low-Volatility Puzzle,”  Journal Of Investment Management (JOIM), Second Quarter 2013. 6 Please see Nardin L. Baker and Robert A. Haugen, “Low Risk Stocks Outperform within All Observable Markets of the World,” (April 27, 2012). 7 Please see David Blitz, “Are Hedge Funds on the Other Side of the Low-Volatility Trade?”  The Journal of Alternatives Investments, Vol. 21, No. 1, Summer 2018. 8 Please see Jason C. Hsu and Vivek Viswanathan, “The Low Volatility Anomaly and the Preference for Gambling,” Risk-Based and Factor Investing, pages 291-303; (2015). 9 There is some debate as to whether the long-shot bias is truly irrational in financial markets, where payoffs and probabilities are not known with precision. 10 Researchers have found that the low-volatility anomaly exists in the government and corporate bond market. For more details please see, Raul Leote de Carvalho, Patrick Dugnolle, Lu Xiao, and Pierre Moulin, “Low-Risk Anomalies in Global Fixed Income: Evidence from Major Broad Markets,” The Journal of Fixed Income, vol. 23, No. 4, Spring 2014. 11 Please see Malcolm Baker, and Brendan Bradley, and Jeffrey Wurgler, “Benchmarks as Limits to Arbitrage: Understanding the Low-Volatility Anomaly,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 67, No. 1, 2011. 12 Please see Joost Driessen, Ivo Kuiper, and Korhan Nazliben, and Robbert Beilo, “Does Interest Rate Exposure Explain the Low-Volatility Anomaly?” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 103, 2019. 13 We calculate sensitivity for US stocks instead of global stocks due to the effects of currency returns. 14 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Report “Safe Haven Review: A Guide To Portfolio Protection In The 2020s,” dated October 29 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.