Asset Allocation

  Dear Client, In lieu of our regular report next week, I will be hosting a webcast on Wednesday, December 18th at 10:00 AM EST, where I will discuss the major investment themes and views I see playing out for 2020. This will be the last Global Investment Strategy report of 2019, with publication resuming early next year. On behalf of the entire Global Investment Strategy team, I would like to wish you a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a Healthy New Year! Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist   Overall Investment Strategy: Global growth should accelerate in 2020. Favor stocks over bonds. A more defensive stance will be appropriate starting in late 2021. Equities: Upgrade non-US equities to overweight at the expense of their US peers. Cyclical stocks, including financials, will outperform defensives. Fixed Income: Central banks will stay dovish, but bond yields will nevertheless rise modestly thanks to stronger global growth. Favor high-yield corporate credit over investment grade and sovereigns. Currencies: The US dollar will weaken in 2020 against EUR, GBP, CAD, AUD, and most EM currencies. The dollar will be flat against the yen and the Swiss franc. Commodities: Oil and industrial metals prices will move higher. Gold prices will be range-bound next year, but should rally in 2021 once inflation finally breaks out. GIS View Matrix Strategy Outlook – 2020 Key Views: Full Speed Ahead Strategy Outlook – 2020 Key Views: Full Speed Ahead   I. Global Macro Outlook Stronger Global Growth Ahead We turned bullish on global equities last December after temporarily moving to the sidelines in the summer of 2018. Last month, we increased our procyclical bias by upgrading non-US stocks within our recommended equity allocation at the expense of their US peers. The decision to upgrade non-US equities stems from our expectation that global growth will strengthen in 2020. Global financial conditions have eased sharply this year, largely due to the dovish pivot by many central banks. Monetary policy affects the economy with a lag. This is one reason why the net number of central banks cutting rates has historically led global growth by about 6-to-9 months (Chart 1). Chart 1The Effects Of Easing Monetary Policy Should Soon Trickle Down To The Economy The Effects Of Easing Monetary Policy Should Soon Trickle Down To The Economy The Effects Of Easing Monetary Policy Should Soon Trickle Down To The Economy In addition, there is mounting evidence that the global manufacturing cycle is bottoming out (Chart 2). The “official” Chinese PMI produced by the National Bureau of Statistics rose above 50 in November for the first time since May. The private sector Caixin manufacturing PMI has been improving for five consecutive months. The euro area manufacturing PMI increased over the prior month, led by gains in Germany and France. Chart 2A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle Chart 3The Auto Sector Is Showing Signs Of Life (I) The Auto Sector Is Showing Signs Of Life (I) The Auto Sector Is Showing Signs Of Life (I)   The PMI data for the US has been mixed. The ISM manufacturing index weakened in November. In contrast, the Markit PMI rose to a seven-month high. Despite its shorter history, we tend to give the Markit PMI more credence. It is based on a larger sample of companies and has sector weights that closely match the actual composition of US output. As such, the Markit PMI is better correlated with hard data on manufacturing production, employment, and factory orders. The auto sector has been particularly hard hit during this manufacturing downturn. Fortunately, the industry is showing signs of life. The Markit euro area auto sector PMI has rebounded, with the new orders-to-inventory ratio moving back into positive territory for the first time since the autumn of 2018. US banks stopped tightening lending standards for auto loans in the third quarter. They are also reporting stronger demand for vehicle financing (Chart 3). In China, vehicle production and sales are improving on a rate-of-change basis (Chart 4). Both automobile ownership and vehicle sales in China are still a fraction of what they are in most other economies, suggesting further upside for sales (Chart 5). Chart 4The Auto Sector Is Showing Signs Of Life (II) The Auto Sector Is Showing Signs Of Life (II) The Auto Sector Is Showing Signs Of Life (II) Chart 5China: Structural Outlook For Autos Is Bright China: Structural Outlook For Autos Is Bright China: Structural Outlook For Autos Is Bright     Trade War Uncertainty The trade war remains the biggest risk to our sanguine view on global growth. As we go to press, rumors are swirling that the US and China have reached a “Phase One” trade deal that would cancel the scheduled December 15th tariff hike and roll back as much as half of the existing tariffs. If this were to occur, it would be consistent with our expectation of a trade truce. Nevertheless, it is impossible to be certain about how things will unfold from here. The best we can do is think through the incentives that both sides face and assume they will act in their own self-interest. For President Trump, the key priority is to get re-elected next year. Trump generally gets poor grades from voters on most issues. The one exception is the economy. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of voters approve of his handling of the economy (Chart 6). An escalation of the trade war would hurt the US economy, especially in a number of Midwestern states that Trump needs to win to remain president (Chart 7). Chart 6Trump Gets Reasonably High Marks On His Handling Of The Economy, But Not Much Else Strategy Outlook – 2020 Key Views: Full Speed Ahead Strategy Outlook – 2020 Key Views: Full Speed Ahead Chart 7Economic Health Of The US Midwest Matters For Trump Economic Health Of The US Midwest Matters For Trump Economic Health Of The US Midwest Matters For Trump A resurgence in the trade war would also hurt Trump’s credibility. The point of the tariffs was not simply to raise revenue; it was to get China to the negotiating table. As a self-described master negotiator, President Trump now has to produce a “great” deal for the American people. If he had finalized an agreement with China a year or two ago, he would currently be on the hook for showing that it resulted in a smaller trade deficit. But with the presidential election only a year away, he can semi-credibly claim that the trade balance will only improve after he is re-elected. For their part, the Chinese would rather grapple with Trump now than face him after the election when he will no longer be constrained by re-election pressures. China would also like to avoid facing someone like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, who may insist on including stringent environmental and human rights provisions in any trade deal. At least with Trump, the Chinese know that they are getting someone who is focused on commercial issues. Contrary to most media reports, there is a fair amount of overlap between what Trump wants and what the Chinese themselves would like to achieve. For example, as China has moved up the technological ladder, many Chinese companies have begun to complain about intellectual theft by their domestic rivals. Thus, strengthening intellectual property protection has become a priority for Chinese officials. Along the same vein, China aspires to transform the RMB into a reserve currency. A country cannot have a reserve currency unless it also has an open capital account. Hence, financial market liberalization must be part of China’s long-term reform strategy. These mutual interests between the US and China could provide the basis for a trade truce. The Changing Nature Of Chinese Stimulus Chart 8China: Credit Growth Is Only A Few Percentage Points Above Nominal GDP Growth China: Credit Growth Is Only A Few Percentage Points Above Nominal GDP Growth China: Credit Growth Is Only A Few Percentage Points Above Nominal GDP Growth If a détente in the trade war is reached, will this prompt China to go back to its deleveraging campaign? We do not think so. For one thing, there can be no assurance that a trade truce will last. Thus, China will want to maintain enough stimulus as an insurance policy. In addition, credit growth is currently running only a few percentage points above nominal GDP growth (Chart 8). With the ratio of credit-to-GDP barely rising, there is little need to bring credit growth down much from current levels. This does not mean that the Chinese authorities will allow credit growth to increase significantly further. Instead, the authorities will continue shifting the composition of credit growth from the riskier shadow banking sector to the safer formal banking sector, while increasingly leaning on fiscal policy to buttress growth. One of the developments that has gone largely unnoticed by investors this year is that China’s general government deficit has climbed from around 3% of GDP in mid-2018 to 6.5% of GDP at present (Chart 9). Some of this stimulus has been used to finance tax cuts for households. Some of it has also been used to finance infrastructure spending, which requires imports of raw materials and capital goods. As a result of this fiscal easing, the combined Chinese credit/fiscal impulse has risen to a two-year high. It leads global growth by about nine months (Chart 10). Chart 9China Has Been Stimulating, Fiscally China Has Been Stimulating, Fiscally China Has Been Stimulating, Fiscally Chart 10Chinese Stimulus Should Boost Global Growth Chinese Stimulus Should Boost Global Growth Chinese Stimulus Should Boost Global Growth   Europe On The Upswing Chart 11Euro Area Growth: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Euro Area Growth: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Euro Area Growth: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Chart 12German Economy: Some Green Shoots German Economy: Some Green Shoots German Economy: Some Green Shoots The weakness in euro area growth this year has been concentrated in Germany and Italy. France and Spain have actually grown at a trend-like pace (Chart 11). Germany should benefit from stronger global growth and a recovery in automobile production next year. The recent rebound in the German PMI, as well as improvements in the expectations components of the IFO, ZEW, and Sentix surveys are all encouraging in this regard (Chart 12). Italy should also gain from an easing in financial conditions and receding political risks (Chart 13). The Italian 10-year government bond yield has fallen from a high of 3.69% in October 2018 to 1.23% at present. Chart 13Easing Financial Conditions And Less Political Uncertainty Will Help Italy Easing Financial Conditions And Less Political Uncertainty Will Help Italy Easing Financial Conditions And Less Political Uncertainty Will Help Italy Chart 14Euro Area Fiscal Thrust Euro Area Fiscal Thrust Euro Area Fiscal Thrust   Fiscal policy across the euro area is also turning more stimulative. The fiscal thrust in the euro area rose to 0.4% of GDP this year mainly due to a somewhat larger budget deficit in France (Chart 14). The thrust should remain positive in 2020. Even in Germany, fiscal policy should loosen. Faster wage growth in Germany is eroding competitiveness relative to the rest of the euro area (Chart 15). That could force German policymakers to ratchet up fiscal stimulus in order to support demand. Already, the Social Democrats are responding to poor electoral performance by adopting a more proactive fiscal policy, hoping to stop the loss of votes to the big spending Greens. Chart 15Germany: Faster Wage Growth Eroding Competitiveness Relative To The Rest Of The Euro Area Germany: Faster Wage Growth Eroding Competitiveness Relative To The Rest Of The Euro Area Germany: Faster Wage Growth Eroding Competitiveness Relative To The Rest Of The Euro Area Chart 16Boris Johnson Won't Pursue A No-Deal Brexit Boris Johnson Won't Pursue A No-Deal Brexit Boris Johnson Won't Pursue A No-Deal Brexit   The UK economy should start to recover next year as Brexit uncertainty fades and fiscal policy turns more stimulative. Exit polls suggest that the Conservatives will command a majority government following today's election. There is not enough appetite within the Conservative party for a no-deal Brexit (Chart 16). As such, today's victory will allow Prime Minister Boris Johnson to push his proposed deal through Parliament. It will also allow him to fulfill his pledge to pass a budget that boosts spending.   Japan: Own Goal Japan has been hard hit by the global growth slowdown, given its close ties to its Asian neighbors, namely China. Add on a completely unnecessary consumption tax hike, and it is no wonder the economy has been faltering. Despite widespread weakness, there have been some very preliminary signs of improvement of late: The manufacturing PMI ticked up in November, while the services PMI rose back above 50. Consumer confidence also moved up to the highest level since June. Furthermore, Prime Minister Abe announced a multi-year fiscal package worth approximately 26 trillion yen. The headline number grossly overstates the size of the stimulus because it includes previously announced measures as well as items such as land acquisition costs that will not directly benefit GDP. Nevertheless, the package should still boost growth by about 0.5% next year, offsetting part of the drag from higher consumption taxes.  US: Chugging Along Despite the slowdown in global growth, a stronger dollar, and the trade war, US real final demand is on track to grow by 2.5% this year (Chart 17). This is above the pace of potential GDP growth of 1.7%-to-2%. Chart 17Underlying US Growth Remains Above Trend Strategy Outlook – 2020 Key Views: Full Speed Ahead Strategy Outlook – 2020 Key Views: Full Speed Ahead The Fed’s 75 basis points of rate cuts has moved monetary policy even further into accommodative territory. Not surprisingly, residential housing – the most interest rate-sensitive part of the economy – has responded favorably (Chart 18). While the tailwind from lower mortgage rates will dissipate by next summer, we do not anticipate much weakness in the housing market. This is because the inventory levels and vacancy rates remain near record-low levels (Chart 19). The shortage of homes should buttress both construction and prices. Chart 18US Housing: On Solid Ground (I) US Housing: On Solid Ground (I) US Housing: On Solid Ground (I) Chart 19US Housing: On Solid Ground (II) US Housing: On Solid Ground (II) US Housing: On Solid Ground (II)   Strong labor and housing markets will support consumer spending, which represents nearly 70% of the economy. Business capital spending should also benefit from lower rates, receding trade tensions, and rising wages which are making firms increasingly eager to automate. II. Financial Markets Global Asset Allocation We argued in the section above that global growth should rebound next year thanks to easier financial conditions, an upturn in the global manufacturing cycle, a detente in the trade war, and modest Chinese stimulus. Chart 20 shows that stocks usually outperform bonds when global growth is accelerating. This occurs partly because corporate earnings tend to rise when growth picks up. BCA’s US equity strategy team expects S&P 500 EPS to increase by 5% next year if global growth merely stabilizes. An acceleration in global growth would surely lead to even stronger earnings growth. On the flipside, investors also tend to price out rate cuts (or price in rate hikes) when growth is on the upswing, resulting in lower bond prices (Chart 21). Chart 20Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Chart 21Improving Global Growth Boosts Earnings Growth...And Expectations Of Rate Hikes Improving Global Growth Boosts Earnings Growth...And Expectations Of Rate Hikes Improving Global Growth Boosts Earnings Growth...And Expectations Of Rate Hikes Relative valuations also favor stocks over bonds. Despite the stock market rally this year, the MSCI All-Country World Index currently trades at a reasonable 15.8-times forward earnings. This is below the forward PE ratio of 16.7 reached in January 2018 and even below the forward PE ratio of 16.4 hit in May 2015. Analysts expect global EPS to increase by 10% next year, below the historic 12-month expectation of 15% (Chart 22). In contrast to most years when analyst forecasts prove to be wildly overoptimistic, the current EPS forecast is likely to be met. Chart 22Analyst Expectations Are Not Wildly Optimistic Analyst Expectations Are Not Wildly Optimistic Analyst Expectations Are Not Wildly Optimistic Chart 23Equity Risk Premium Remains Quite Elevated Equity Risk Premium Remains Quite Elevated Equity Risk Premium Remains Quite Elevated   If one inverts the PE ratio, one can calculate an earnings yield for global equities of 6.3%. One can then calculate the implied equity risk premium (ERP) by subtracting the real long-term bond yield from the earnings yield. As Chart 23 illustrates, the ERP remains quite elevated by historic standards. Some observers might protest that the ERP is elevated mainly because bond yields are so low. If low bond yields are discounting very poor economic growth prospects, perhaps today’s PE ratio should be lower than it actually is? The problem with this argument is that growth prospects are not so bad. The IMF estimates that global growth will be slightly above its post-1980 average over the next five years (Chart 24). While trend growth is falling in both developed and emerging economies, the rising share of faster-growing emerging markets in global GDP is helping to prop up overall growth. Chart 24The Trend In Global Growth Has Remained Steady Thanks To Faster-Growing EM The Trend In Global Growth Has Remained Steady Thanks To Faster-Growing EM The Trend In Global Growth Has Remained Steady Thanks To Faster-Growing EM Sector And Regional Equity Allocation US stocks have outperformed their overseas peers by 10% year-to-date and by 137% since 2008. About half of the outperformance of US equities since the Great Recession was due to faster sales-per-share growth, a third was due to stronger margin growth, and the rest was due to relative PE expansion (Chart 25). Chart 25Faster Sales Growth, Rising Margins, And Relative PE Expansion Helped Drive US Outperformance Over The Past Decade Strategy Outlook – 2020 Key Views: Full Speed Ahead Strategy Outlook – 2020 Key Views: Full Speed Ahead It is worth noting that the outperformance of US stocks is a fairly recent phenomenon. Between 1970 and 2008, European equity prices and EPS actually rose slightly faster than in the US (Chart 26). EM stocks also outperformed the US in the decade leading up to the Global Financial Crisis. Chart 26US Earnings Have Not Always Outpaced Their Peers US Earnings Have Not Always Outpaced Their Peers US Earnings Have Not Always Outpaced Their Peers We expect US stocks to rise in 2020 by about 5%-to-10%, but to lag their foreign peers in common-currency terms. There are four reasons for this: Sector skews favor non-US equities. Cyclical stocks tend to outperform defensives when global growth is strengthening and the US dollar is weakening (Chart 27). Cyclical sectors are overrepresented outside the US. We would include financials in our definition of cyclicals. Faster global growth next year will lift long-term bond yields. Since central banks are unlikely to raise rates, yield curves will steepen. Steeper yield curves will boost net interest margins, thus helping bank shares (Chart 28). European banks are more dependent on the spread between lending and borrowing rates than US banks, since the latter derive more of their profits from fees. Non-US stocks are quite a bit cheaper than their US peers. The forward PE for US equities currently stands at 18.1, well above the forward PE of 13.6 for non-US equities. Other valuation measures reveal an even bigger premium on US stocks (Chart 29). Differences in sector weights account for about a quarter of the valuation gap between the US and the rest of the world. The rest of the gap is due to cheaper valuations within sectors. Financials, for example, are notably less expensive in the rest of the world, particularly in Europe (Chart 30). The valuation gap between the US and the rest of the world is even starker if we compare earnings yields with bond yields. Since bond yields are lower outside the US, the implied equity risk premium is significantly higher for non-US stocks. Profit margins have less scope to rise in the US than in the rest of the world. According to MSCI data, net operating margins currently stand at 10.3% in the US compared to 7.9% abroad. Unlike in the US, margins in Europe and EM are still well below their pre-recession peaks (Chart 31). While US margins are unlikely to fall next year thanks to stronger global growth, rising wage growth will negatively impact profits in some labor-intensive industries. Labor slack is generally greater abroad, which should limit cost pressures. Uncertainty over the US election is likely to limit the gains to US equities. All of the Democratic frontrunners have pledged to roll back the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to one degree or another. A full repeal of the Act would reduce S&P 500 EPS by about 10%. While such a dramatic move is far from guaranteed – for starters, it would require that the Democrats gain control of both the White House and the Senate – it does pose a risk to investors. The same goes for increased regulatory actions, which Senators Sanders and Warren have both vocally championed. Chart 27Cyclicals Do Well Versus Defensives When Global Growth Is Strengthening And The US Dollar Is Weakening Cyclicals Do Well Versus Defensives When Global Growth Is Strengthening And The US Dollar Is Weakening Cyclicals Do Well Versus Defensives When Global Growth Is Strengthening And The US Dollar Is Weakening Chart 28Steeper Yield Curves Help Financials Steeper Yield Curves Help Financials Steeper Yield Curves Help Financials   Chart 29US Equities Are More Expensive Than Stocks Abroad US Equities Are More Expensive Than Stocks Abroad US Equities Are More Expensive Than Stocks Abroad Chart 30European Financials Trade At A Substantial Discount To Their US Peers European Financials Trade At A Substantial Discount To Their US Peers European Financials Trade At A Substantial Discount To Their US Peers     Chart 31Profit Margins Have Less Scope To Rise In The US Than In The Rest Of The World Profit Margins Have Less Scope To Rise In The US Than In The Rest Of The World Profit Margins Have Less Scope To Rise In The US Than In The Rest Of The World Within the non-US universe, euro area stocks have the most upside potential. In contrast, we see less scope for Japanese stocks to outperform the global benchmark because of uncertainties over the impact of the consumption tax hike on domestic demand. In addition, a weaker trade-weighted yen next year will annul the currency translation gains that unhedged equity investors can expect to receive from other non-US stock markets. Lastly, the passage of a new investment law that requires investors wishing to “influence management” to receive prior government approval could cast a pall over recent efforts to improve corporate governance in Japan. Fixed Income Chart 32Inflation Excluding Shelter Has Been Muted Inflation Excluding Shelter Has Been Muted Inflation Excluding Shelter Has Been Muted Chart 33Long-Term Bond Yields Will Move Higher As Faster Growth Pushes Up Estimates Of The Neutral Rate Long-Term Bond Yields Will Move Higher As Faster Growth Pushes Up Estimates Of The Neutral Rate Long-Term Bond Yields Will Move Higher As Faster Growth Pushes Up Estimates Of The Neutral Rate Central banks will remain on the sidelines next year. Inflation is still running well below target in most economies. Even in the US, where slack has largely been absorbed and wage growth has risen, core inflation excluding housing has averaged only 1.2% over the past five years (Chart 32). Nevertheless, long-term bond yields will still move higher next year as investors revise up their estimate of the neutral rate in response to faster growth (Chart 33). On a regional basis, BCA’s fixed-income experts favor low-beta bond markets (Chart 34). Japanese bonds have a very low beta to the overall Barclays Global Treasury index because inflation expectations are quite depressed and the Bank of Japan will actively intervene to prevent yields from rising. On a USD currency-hedged basis, the Japanese 10-year yield stands at a relatively decent 2.38%, above the yield of 1.79% on comparable maturity US Treasurys (Table 1). Chart 34Favor Lower-Beta Government Bond Markets In 2020 Favor Lower-Beta Government Bond Markets In 2020 Favor Lower-Beta Government Bond Markets In 2020 Table 1Bond Markets Across The Developed World Strategy Outlook – 2020 Key Views: Full Speed Ahead Strategy Outlook – 2020 Key Views: Full Speed Ahead In contrast to Japan, the beta of US Treasurys to the overall global bond index is relatively high, implying that Treasurys will underperform other sovereign bond markets in a rising yield environment. The beta for Germany, UK, Australia, and Canada lie somewhere between Japan and the US. Consistent with our bullish view on global equities, we expect corporate bonds to outperform sovereign debt in 2020 (Chart 35). Despite the weakness in manufacturing, US banks further eased terms on commercial and industrial loans in Q3, according to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey. Chart 35Stronger Growth Causes Corporate Spreads To Tighten Stronger Growth Causes Corporate Spreads To Tighten Stronger Growth Causes Corporate Spreads To Tighten At the US economy-wide level, neither interest coverage nor debt-to-asset ratios are particularly stretched (Chart 36). Admittedly, the picture looks less flattering if we focus solely on high-yield issuers (Chart 37). That said, a wave of defaults is very unlikely to occur in 2020, so long as the Fed is on hold and economic growth is on the upswing. Chart 36Corporate Debt: A Benign Top-Down View Corporate Debt: A Benign Top-Down View Corporate Debt: A Benign Top-Down View Chart 37Corporate Debt: More Concerning Picture Among High-Yield Issuers Corporate Debt: More Concerning Picture Among High-Yield Issuers Corporate Debt: More Concerning Picture Among High-Yield Issuers Chart 38US Corporates: Focus On High-Yield Credit HY Spread Targets US Corporates: Focus On High-Yield Credit HY Spread Targets US Corporates: Focus On High-Yield Credit Moreover, despite narrowing this year, high-yield spreads still remain above our fixed-income team’s estimate of fair value (Chart 38). They recommend moving down the credit curve and increasing the weight in Caa-rated bonds. These have underperformed this year largely because of technical factors such as their large exposure to the energy sector and relatively short duration. As oil prices rise next year, energy sector issuers will feel some relief. Moreover, unlike this year, rising long-term government bond yields in 2020 should also make shorter-duration credit more attractive. In contrast to high-yield spreads, investment-grade spreads have gotten quite tight. Investors seeking high-quality bond exposure should shift towards Agency MBS, which still carry an attractive spread relative to Aa- and A-rated corporate bonds. European IG bonds should also outperform their US peers thanks to faster growth in Europe next year and ongoing support from the ECB’s asset purchase program. Looking beyond the next 12-to-18 months, there is a strong chance that inflation will increase materially from current levels. The unemployment rate across the G7 has fallen to a multi-decade low, while the share of developed economies reaching full employment has hit a new cycle high (Chart 39). Chart 39ADeveloped Markets: Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower... And Full Employment Reaching New Cycle Highs Developed Markets: Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower... And Full Employment Reaching New Cycle Highs Developed Markets: Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower... And Full Employment Reaching New Cycle Highs Chart 39BDeveloped Markets: Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower... And Full Employment Reaching New Cycle Highs Developed Markets: Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower... And Full Employment Reaching New Cycle Highs Developed Markets: Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower... And Full Employment Reaching New Cycle Highs Chart 40The Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well The Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well The Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well   For all the talk about how the Phillips curve is dead, wage growth remains well correlated with labor market slack (Chart 40). Rising wages will boost real disposable incomes, leading to more spending. If economies cannot increase supply to meet higher demand, prices will rise. It simply does not make sense to argue that the price of apples will increase if the demand for apples exceeds the supply of apples, but that overall prices will not increase if the demand for all goods and services exceeds the supply of all goods and services. It will take at least until mid-2021 for inflation to rise above the Fed’s comfort zone. It will take even longer for rates to reach restrictive territory, and longer still for tighter monetary policy to make its way through the economy. However, at some point in 2022, the interest-rate sensitive sectors of the US economy will buckle, setting off a global economic downturn and a deep bear market in equities and credit. Enjoy it while it lasts. Currencies And Commodities The US dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it usually moves in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 41). This countercyclicality stems from the fact that the US, with its large service sector and relatively small manufacturing base, is a “low beta economy.” Strong global growth does help the US, but it benefits the rest of the world even more. Thus, capital tends to flow out of the US when global growth strengthens, which puts downward pressure on the dollar. As global growth picks up in 2020, the dollar will weaken. EUR/USD should increase to around 1.15 by end-2020. GBP/USD will rise to 1.40. USD/CNY will move to 6.8. The Australian and Canadian dollars, along with most EM currencies, will strengthen as well. However, the Japanese yen and Swiss franc are likely to be flat-to-down against the dollar, reflecting the defensive nature of both currencies. Today's rally in the pound has raised the return on our short EUR/GBP trade to 10.5%. For now, we would stick with this position. Chart 42 shows that the pound should be trading near 1.30 against the euro based on real interest rate differentials, which is still well above the current level of 1.20. Chart 41The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 42Interest Rate Differentials Suggest More Upside For The Pound Interest Rate Differentials Suggest More Upside For The Pound Interest Rate Differentials Suggest More Upside For The Pound   The trade-weighted dollar will continue to depreciate until late-2021, and then begin to strengthen again as the Fed turns more hawkish and global growth starts to falter. Commodity prices tend to closely track the global growth/dollar cycle (Chart 43). Industrial metal prices will fare well next year. Oil prices will also move up. Globally, the last of the big projects sanctioned prior to the oil-price collapse in late 2014 are coming online in Norway, Brazil, Guyana, and the US Gulf. Our commodity strategists expect incremental oil supply growth to slow in 2020, just as demand reaccelerates. Gold is likely to be range-bound for most of next year reflecting the crosswinds from a weaker dollar on the one hand (bullish for bullion), and receding trade war risks and rising bond yields on the other hand. Gold will have its day in the sun starting in 2021 when inflation finally breaks out. Our key market charts are shown on the following page. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Chart 43Dollar Weakness Is A Boon For Commodities Dollar Weakness Is A Boon For Commodities Dollar Weakness Is A Boon For Commodities   Key Financial Market Forecasts Strategy Outlook – 2020 Key Views: Full Speed Ahead Strategy Outlook – 2020 Key Views: Full Speed Ahead   MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategy Outlook – 2020 Key Views: Full Speed Ahead Strategy Outlook – 2020 Key Views: Full Speed Ahead Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Below-Benchmark Duration In 2020 H1. Improving global growth and the de-escalation of US/China trade tensions will put upward pressure on bond yields in the first half of 2020, making below-benchmark portfolio duration appropriate. US political risks could re-assert themselves as we head into 2020 H2, leading to a risk-off environment that causes bond yields to fall. We will likely recommend increasing portfolio duration in mid-2020 if the political situation plays out as we expect, or if the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield and 12-month Fed Funds Discounter reach our targets. Barbell Your Treasury Portfolio. The 2/10 Treasury slope will steepen modestly in the coming months, but will remain in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps in 2020. Any steepening will be concentrated in the real yield curve. The TIPS breakeven inflation curve is likely to flatten. Our valuation models suggest that a barbelled Treasury portfolio is the best way to position for this environment. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet and buying a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year note and 30-year bond. Overweight Spread Product. Low inflation expectations will keep the Fed on hold in 2020. This accommodative monetary environment will keep defaults low and credit spreads tight. Spread product will outperform Treasuries in duration-matched terms. Favor High-Yield Versus Investment Grade. Appropriate valuation measures show that high-yield corporate spreads are very attractive in the current environment, while investment grade corporate spreads are tight compared to our fair value estimates. Overweight Mortgage-Backed Securities. Agency MBS look attractive compared to investment grade corporate bonds, especially in risk-adjusted terms. The risk of a refinancing surge in 2020 is minimal and mortgage lending standards are more likely to ease than tighten. MBS spreads have room to tighten in 2020. Overweight TIPS Versus Nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates are well below our target range of 2.3%-2.5%. It will take some time, and likely an overshoot of the Fed’s 2% inflation target, for them to reach that range as expectations adapt only slowly to rising core inflation. But even if they don’t make it back to target, breakevens should still grind higher as the economy recovers in 2020. Feature BCA published its 2020 Outlook on November 22. That report lays out the main macroeconomic themes that our strategists see driving markets next year. This Special Report explains how investors can profit from those themes in US fixed income markets. Specifically, we offer six key US fixed income views for 2020. This report is limited to the six key investment views listed on page 1, and only discusses Fed policy in the context of how it influences those views. Next week we will publish a more comprehensive “Fed In 2020” report that will delve into our outlook for the Fed next year. Outlook Summary First, a brief summary of the main economic views presented in BCA’s 2020 outlook:1 The global manufacturing downturn that persisted throughout 2019 is quickly coming to an end. The following factors will cause global growth to rebound in early 2020: China eased economic policy significantly in 2019. Policymakers cut the reserve requirement ratio by 400 basis points, cut taxes by 2.8% of GDP, increased issuance of local government bonds to finance public infrastructure projects, and boosted capex at state-owned enterprises. The Fed cut rates by 75 bps, and other central banks also eased monetary policy in 2019. The global inventory purge that magnified the industrial sector’s pain in 2019 is exhausted. Both the US and China have incentives to de-escalate the trade war in the first half of 2020. Investors should remain invested in risk assets to take advantage of this favorable global macro environment. But 2020 is likely to be the last year of risk asset outperformance. Today’s accommodative monetary policy will revive inflationary pressures in 2021, and central banks will then be forced to lift rates much more aggressively. China will also continue to resist excess leverage. Neither the business cycle nor the equity bull market will withstand those final assaults in 2021. Key View #1: Below-Benchmark Duration In 2020 H1 Improving global growth and the de-escalation of US/China trade tensions will put upward pressure on bond yields in the first half of 2020, making below-benchmark portfolio duration appropriate. US political risks could re-assert themselves as we head into 2020 H2, leading to a risk-off environment that causes bond yields to fall. We will likely recommend increasing portfolio duration in mid-2020 if the political situation plays out as we expect, or if the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield and 12-month Fed Funds Discounter reach our targets. In prior research we identified the five macroeconomic factors that determine trends in US bond yields.2 They are: (i) global growth, (ii) the output gap, (iii) the US dollar, (iv) policy uncertainty and (v) sentiment. On global growth, the three measures that correlate most strongly with the 10-year Treasury yield are the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index. As mentioned above, we expect all three of these indicators to move higher in the first half of 2020, but so far we have seen only tentative signs of a rebound. The Global PMI is back above 50 after bottoming at 49.3 in July, but the US ISM remains in contractionary territory and the CRB Raw Industrials index is in a downtrend (Chart 1). All three of these indicators will have to increase for our call to play out. The global manufacturing downturn that persisted throughout 2019 is quickly coming to an end. The same amount of economic growth is more inflationary when the output gap is small than when it is wide. For this reason, we also need some sense of the output gap to make a call on Treasury yields. We have found wage growth to be a useful indicator of the output gap, as evidenced by its strong correlation with the fed funds rate (Chart 2). As long as recession is avoided, strong wage growth will make it difficult for the Fed to aggressively cut rates. The upshot is that Treasury yields will not re-visit their mid-2016 lows until the next recession hits and wage pressures wane. For now, all leading wage growth indicators continue to point up (Chart 2, bottom 2 panels). Chart 1Factor 1: Global Growth Factor 1: Global Growth Factor 1: Global Growth Chart 2Factor 2: The Output Gap Factor 2: The Output Gap Factor 2: The Output Gap   The US dollar is the third important macro factor we consider. A strengthening dollar signals that US yields are de-coupling too far from yields in the rest of the world, making them more likely to fall back down. Conversely, an uptrend in US bond yields is likely to last longer in an environment of dollar weakness. The trade-weighted dollar has been rangebound during the past few months and bullish sentiment toward the dollar has declined significantly (Chart 3). This suggests that US yields have room to move higher. However, we will watch the dollar closely as bond yields rise in 2020 H1. A rapidly appreciating dollar would make us more inclined to fade any increase in US bond yields. The fourth factor we consider is policy uncertainty. It’s no secret that US Treasury securities benefit from flight to safety flows in times of heightened political stress. The tight correlation between the 10-year Treasury yield and the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty index demonstrates this nicely (Chart 4). In fact, it is now clear that uncertainty about the US/China trade war caused US yields to reach lower levels this year than was implied by the economic fundamentals alone. Chart 3Factor 3: The US Dollar Factor 3: The US Dollar Factor 3: The US Dollar Chart 4Factor 4: Policy Uncertainty Factor 4: Policy Uncertainty Factor 4: Policy Uncertainty   We see trade tensions continuing to die down as we head into the New Year. President Trump faces an election in November 2020, and he no doubt realizes that an incumbent President with a strong economy has a good chance of winning re-election. He therefore has a strong incentive to support economic growth. However, by the second half of next year, we see two potential political risks that could flare, causing bond yields to fall. First, if Trump finds himself behind in the polls by mid-summer, then he may change his strategy and re-escalate tensions with China or some other foreign policy target. Second, if one of the progressive candidates – Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders – secures the Democratic nomination, stocks will likely sell off, precipitating a flight-to-quality into US bonds. All in all, we see the ebbing of policy uncertainty in the first half of 2020 helping to push bond yields higher. But risks could flare again in the 2020 H2, sending yields back down. Chart 5Factor 5: Sentiment Factor 5: Sentiment Factor 5: Sentiment The final factor we consider when forecasting bond yields is sentiment, and we find the Economic Surprise Index to be the most useful sentiment measure. Chart 5 shows that positive data surprises tend to coincide with rising Treasury yields and vice-versa. We also know that long periods of positive data surprises are more likely to be followed by disappointments, and vice-versa. Though the Surprise Index’s message can change quickly, it is currently close to neutral, sending no strong signal for bond yields. Considering our five macro factors together, we conclude that a rebound in global growth and waning political uncertainty will send bond yields higher in the first half of 2020. Investors should keep portfolio duration low in this environment. We may recommend increasing portfolio duration as we approach mid-year if political uncertainty looks set to rise, or if the dollar is appreciating strongly, or if yields reach the targets outlined below. Yield Target #1: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Our Golden Rule of Bond Investing asserts that you should keep portfolio duration low if you expect the Fed to be more hawkish than market expectations, and high if you expect the Fed to be more dovish.3 At present, the overnight index swap (OIS) curve is priced for 22 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months. While economic growth is poised to improve in 2020, the Fed is in no rush to tighten monetary policy with inflation expectations still low. We therefore expect the fed funds rate to stay flat next year. With the market still priced for cuts, this forecast implies that we should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration, at least until our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter – the change in the fed funds rate priced into the OIS curve for the next 12 months – rises to zero or above. A rebound in global growth and waning political uncertainty will send bond yields higher in the first half of 2020. Investors should keep portfolio duration low in this environment. Table 1 uses our Golden Rule framework to forecast Treasury index returns in different monetary policy scenarios. Our base case of a flat fed funds rate is consistent with Treasury index total returns of +0.67% to +0.88% in 2020, and excess returns versus cash of between -0.91% and -0.70%. The Appendix at the end of this report discusses how our Golden Rule framework performed in 2019 and in years past. Table 1Treasury Return Projections 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income Yield Target #2: Long-Run Fed Funds Rate Expectations Chart 6Target 2.25% To 2.5% Target 2.25% To 2.5% Target 2.25% To 2.5% A second catalyst for increasing portfolio duration would be if the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield converged with estimates of the longer-run neutral fed funds rate. Once recessionary risks move to the backburner, it would be logical for long-dated forward rates to converge to levels that are consistent with market expectations for the long-run neutral fed funds rate. Indeed, this is precisely what happened in 2014 and 2017/18, the last two periods of strong global growth (Chart 6). At present, the Fed’s median long-run neutral rate estimate is 2.5%. The New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants estimates a range of 2.19% to 2.50% and its Survey of Primary Dealers estimates a range of 2.25% to 2.56%. A 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield in the range of 2.25% to 2.5% would be a second catalyst for us to increase recommended portfolio duration. For Treasury yields to move sustainably above 2.5% in this cycle, it will be necessary for investors to revise their long-run neutral rate estimates higher. This could very well occur, but probably not within the next six months. Nonetheless, investors should pay close attention to the price of gold and the US housing market for signals that neutral rate estimates might undergo upward revisions. The gold price tends to rise when investors view monetary policy as becoming increasingly accommodative. This can occur because the Fed is cutting rates while neutral rate estimates are unchanged, or because neutral rate estimates are rising and the fed funds rate is unchanged. Chart 7 shows that a drop in the gold price foreshadowed downward revisions to the neutral rate in 2013. A further breakout in gold in 2020 could signal that the neutral rate needs to be revised higher again. The housing market will also provide important clues about the neutral fed funds rate. Last year, housing activity slowed considerably once the 30-year mortgage rate rose about 4% (Chart 8). Activity bounced back this year after rates fell, but it will be important to see what happens to housing once the mortgage rate rises back to 4% and above. If an above-4% mortgage rate leads to another downdraft in housing, it would send a strong signal that current neutral rate estimates are roughly correct. However, if housing activity continues to improve with a mortgage rate above 4%, it would suggest that upward neutral rate revisions are required. Chart 7Gold Leads The Neutral Rate... Gold Leads The Neutral Rate... Gold Leads The Neutral Rate... Chart 8...And So Does Housing ...And So Does Housing ...And So Does Housing   There is at least one good reason to think that housing activity might not slow once the mortgage rate rises above 4%. There is currently an excess of supply at the upper-end of the housing market, and a lack of supply at the low-end. This has resulted in price deceleration for new homes, as homebuilders shift construction to the lower-end of the market where demand is stronger (Chart 8, bottom panel). This supply side re-adjustment could make the housing market more resilient to higher mortgage rates in 2020. Key View #2: Barbell Your Treasury Portfolio The 2/10 Treasury slope will steepen modestly in the coming months, but will remain in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps in 2020. Any steepening will be concentrated in the real yield curve. The TIPS breakeven inflation curve is likely to flatten. Our valuation models suggest that a barbelled Treasury portfolio is the best way to position for this environment. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet and buying a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year note and 30-year bond. In thinking about how the slope of the Treasury curve will respond as global growth improves in 2020, it’s useful to look at what happened in two recent episodes of strengthening global growth – 2012/13 and 2016/17. Charts 9A, 9B and 9C illustrate how the 2/10 slope responded in those periods, and show the breakdown between changes in the real and inflation components of yields. The actual slope changes are provided in Table 2. In 2012/13, the 2/10 slope steepened dramatically as global growth rebounded, with almost all of the steepening coming from the real yield curve. It’s not difficult to understand why. The economic outlook was improving, but the Fed was still two years away from lifting interest rates. As such, the Fed’s dovish forward guidance kept a firm lid on short-maturity yields even as long-dated yields rose. In contrast, we can look at the 2016/17 episode. The 2/10 slope steepened somewhat early in the 2016/17 global growth recovery, but ended up 45 bps flatter by the time that the Global PMI peaked. This time, both the real and inflation components contributed to curve flattening. The key difference in this episode was that the Fed was quick to turn more hawkish as growth improved. It lifted the funds rate four times, and short-dated yields rose more quickly than those at the long-end. If housing activity continues to improve with a mortgage rate above 4%, it would suggest that upward neutral rate revisions are required. What can be applied from these two episodes to today? One thing that’s clear is that the Fed will not be as quick to tighten policy as it was in 2016/17. As will be discussed in more detail in next week’s report, the Fed wants to keep policy accommodative until inflation expectations are firmly re-anchored around its target. We think the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate needs to rise from its current 1.8% to above 2.3% before that goal is met. However, it’s also conceivable that inflationary pressures will emerge as soon as late-2020, necessitating rate hikes in 2021. If that’s the case, then short-dated yields will sniff that out in advance, imparting some flattening pressure to the curve. All in all, we’re looking for modest curve steepening in the first half of 2020. But with the Fed not completely out of the picture – as was the case in 2012/13 – the 2/10 slope will not rise above 50 bps. We would also recommend positioning for curve steepening via real yields. The cost of 2-year inflation protection is currently below the cost of 10-year inflation protection (Chart 9C), but will probably lead the 10-year higher as inflation expectations slowly adapt to the incoming data. We recommend TIPS breakeven curve flatteners. Chart 9ANominal 2/10 Slope Nominal 2/10 Slope Nominal 2/10 Slope Chart 9BReal 2/10 Slope Real 2/10 Slope Real 2/10 Slope Chart 9CInflation Compensation: 2/10 Slope Inflation Compensation: 2/10 Slope Inflation Compensation: 2/10 Slope Table 22/10 Slope Changes During Two Recent Global Growth Upturns 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income Interestingly, we also do not recommend the typical 2/10 steepening trade of going long the 5-year bullet against a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. This is because the 2/5/10 butterfly already discounts a huge amount of 2/10 steepening. The 5-year bullet appears 6 bps expensive on our model, meaning that the 2/10 slope needs to steepen by 26 bps during the next six months for a long 5-year, short 2/10 trade to profit (Chart 10).4 Chart 102/5/10 Butterfly Valuation Model 2/5/10 Butterfly Valuation Model 2/5/10 Butterfly Valuation Model Against this valuation backdrop, we recommend owning a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year note and the 30-year bond, while shorting the 5-year note. This heavily barbelled Treasury allocation adds positive carry to a bond portfolio, and will earn positive returns as long as the 5/30 slope steepens by less than 61 bps during the next six months.5 Further, recent correlations suggest that the 5-year yield will rise by more than either the 2-year or 30-year yields if the market starts to price-in fewer Fed rate cuts, as we expect. Table 3 shows that there has been a positive correlation between changes in the 2/5 Treasury slope and our 12-month discounter during the past six months, and a negative correlation between our discounter and the 5/30 slope. Table 3Correlation Of Monthly Changes In 12-Month Discounter With Monthly Changes In Treasury Curve Slopes 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income Key View #3: Overweight Spread Product Low inflation expectations will keep the Fed on hold in 2020. This accommodative monetary environment will keep defaults low and credit spreads tight. Spread product will outperform Treasuries in duration-matched terms. In last year’s Key Views report, we presented a method for splitting the economic cycle into three phases based on the slope of the yield curve.6 We observed that spread product excess returns versus Treasuries tend to be highest in Phase 1 of the cycle, when the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is above 50 bps. Spread product excess returns tend to be low, but still positive, in Phase 2 of the cycle when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps, and only turn negative in Phase 3 after the 3-year/10-year slope inverts. By our criteria, we remained in Phase 2 of the cycle throughout all of 2019 and spread product did in fact deliver small, but positive, excess returns relative to Treasuries. We expect to remain in Phase 2 throughout most (if not all) of 2020, and therefore advise investors to maintain overweight allocations to spread product versus duration-matched Treasuries. We are looking for modest curve steepening in the first half of 2020. The principal rationale for our call is that accommodative Fed policy will keep the yield curve positively sloped in 2020. It will also give banks the confidence to continue extending credit. And as long as lending standards are sufficiently easy, defaults will remain low and spreads will stay tight. Yes, there are some early indications that we might be transitioning into a Phase 3 environment, an environment that would merit a more defensive stance. For one thing, some parts of the Treasury curve inverted in August, though the specific measure we use in our credit cycle analysis – the monthly average of daily closes of the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope – remained above zero (Chart 11). Also, commercial & industrial (C&I) lending standards tightened in the third quarter. Chart 11Still In Phase 2 Still In Phase 2 Still In Phase 2 However, we expect both of these warning signs to dissipate in the near future. The yield curve has already re-steepened, and while loan officers indicated that they had tightened overall standards on C&I loans in Q3, they continued to loosen the terms on those loans (Chart 11, panel 3). But most importantly, we continue to observe inflation expectations that are far below the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 11, bottom panel). As long as this is the case, the Fed will do its best to keep interest rates low and monetary conditions accommodative. In that environment, the yield curve should stay upward sloping and banks will keep the credit taps open. Phase 2 will stay in place and spread product will outperform Treasuries. The poor health of nonfinancial corporate balance sheets is another risk to our positive spread product view. We track corporate balance sheet health using both aggregate top-down data from the US Financial Accounts (Chart 12A) and by looking at the median firm in our own bottom-up sample of high-yield issuers (Chart 12B). In both cases, we see that debt-to-profit and debt-to-asset ratios are elevated, indicating that firms are carrying a lot of debt on their balance sheets relative to history. However, both samples also show that interest coverage ratios are strong. Solid interest coverage is the result of low interest rates and the Fed’s accommodative monetary policy. It tells us that defaults won’t occur until inflation expectations rise and the Fed turns more restrictive. That may not happen until 2021. Chart 12ACorporate Health: Top-Down Corporate Health: Top-Down Corporate Health: Top-Down Chart 12BCorporate Health: Bottom-Up Corporate Health: Bottom-Up Corporate Health: Bottom-Up   The downside is that an extended period of accommodative monetary policy and few defaults means that firms will continue to build up debt and whittle away the equity cushion in corporate capital structures. The end result will be greater losses during the next default cycle. Our Preferred Spread Sectors Within US spread product, we recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield corporate bonds to take advantage of the favorable macro environment. Within investment grade sectors, we advise only a neutral allocation to corporate bonds (see Key View #4), but recommend overweighting Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (see Key View #5), Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities, Local Authority and Foreign Agency debt. Chart 13 shows a snapshot of the risk/reward trade-off between investment grade spread products. The vertical axis displays the option-adjusted spread as a simple proxy for 12-month expected excess returns. The horizontal axis displays our own risk measure called the Risk Of Losing 100 bps.7 This measure calculates the spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus duration-matched Treasuries, then adjusts for each sector’s historical spread volatility. Chart 13Excess Return Bond Map: Main Investment Grade Sectors 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income Chart 13 imposes no macro view, but it does reveal that Foreign Agency debt offers an attractive expected return for its level of risk. Agency CMBS and Agency MBS also offer attractive expected returns for their respective risk levels. USD-denominated Sovereign bonds offer high expected returns, but are also the riskiest of the sectors in Chart 13. We recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated Sovereigns with the exception of Mexican and Saudi Arabian bonds, which look attractive on a risk/reward basis. Chart 14 replicates Chart 13 but with the USD-denominated Sovereign bonds of different countries. Only Mexico and Saudi Arabia stand out as being attractively priced. Chart 14Excess Return Bond Map: USD-Denominated EM Sovereigns 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income Chart 15Favor Long-Maturity Munis Favor Long-Maturity Munis Favor Long-Maturity Munis We also maintain a positive outlook on Municipal bonds, particularly at the long-end of the Aaa-rated curve. Municipal / Treasury yield ratios look attractive compared to history, especially at long maturities (Chart 15). While many state and local governments face long-run problems related to underfunded pensions, these issues won’t be exposed until revenue growth falters in the next downturn. For now, state & local government balance sheets are healthy enough to keep muni upgrades outpacing downgrades (Chart 15, bottom 2 panels). Key View #4: Favor High-Yield Over Investment Grade Appropriate valuation measures show that high-yield corporate spreads are very attractive in the current environment, while investment grade corporate spreads are tight compared to our fair value estimates. We noted above that, despite the favorable macro environment for spread product, we recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield corporate bonds but only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. The reason for the disparity is valuation. Our preferred valuation measure is the 12-month breakeven spread. This is the spread widening required for the sector to lose money versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. This measure is superior to the simple index option-adjusted spread because it controls for time-varying index duration. We also re-calculate the investment grade and high-yield bond indexes so that they have constant distribution between the different credit tiers over time. Charts 16A and 16Bshow 12-month breakeven spreads for our re-constituted investment grade and high-yield indexes as percentile ranks versus history. The investment grade spread has been tighter only 11% of the time since 1995, while the high-yield spread has been tighter 67% of the time. Chart 16AIG Valuation IG Valuation IG Valuation Chart 16BHY Valuation HY Valuation HY Valuation   From our analysis of the three phases of the cycle, we also know that spreads tend to tighter in Phase 2 of the cycle than in Phases 1 or 3. Since we are currently in Phase 2, we would expect spreads to be near the bottom of their historical distributions. With this knowledge, we derive spread targets for each corporate credit tier based on the median breakeven spreads witnessed in prior Phase 2 periods. We then use current index duration to calculate option-adjusted spread targets for each credit tier and the overall investment grade and high-yield indexes (Charts 17A and 17B). Notice that all investment grade spreads are below their Phase 2 targets, while high-yield spreads are well above. Chart 17AIG Spread Targets IG Spread Targets IG Spread Targets Chart 17BHY Spread Targets HY Spread Targets HY Spread Targets   We also observe that Caa-rated spreads are extremely cheap relative to target, and have been widening rapidly. We are more inclined to view this as an opportunity to buy Caa-rated bonds than as a warning sign for overall corporate bond performance, as we discussed in a recent report.8 Key View #5: Overweight Mortgage-Backed Securities Agency MBS look attractive compared to investment grade corporate bonds, especially in risk-adjusted terms. The risk of a refinancing surge in 2020 is minimal and mortgage lending standards are more likely to ease than tighten. MBS spreads have room to tighten in 2020. We noted above that Agency MBS offer an attractive trade-off between risk and expected return. Specifically, Chart 13 shows that MBS offer expected returns that are similar to Aa and Aaa corporates, but with less risk of losing 100 bps versus Treasuries. For further evidence of the attractiveness of MBS spreads, we note that while the zero-volatility spread for conventional 30-year Agency MBS is not all that elevated compared to history, it is being held down by very low expected prepayment losses (aka option costs) (Chart 18). The OAS, the best proxy for MBS expected return, stands at 48 bps. This is reasonably elevated compared to history and very close to the spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds. Past periods when the MBS OAS was close to the Aa-rated corporate bond spread were followed by MBS outperformance (Chart 18, bottom panel). We recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield corporate bonds but only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. The reason for the disparity is valuation. We noted that expected prepayment losses are low, and this is for good reason. Mortgage refinancing activity will remain depressed throughout 2020. First, with the Fed likely to go on hold for 2020 and then lift rates in 2021, the mortgage rate is more likely to rise than fall. Higher mortgage rates will keep refis down. Second, most homeowners have already had multiple opportunities to refinance their mortgages during the past few years, as evidenced by the fact that the MBA Refinance Index didn’t rise that much in 2019, even as the mortgage rate declined 106 bps (Chart 19). Chart 18MBS Spreads MBS Spreads MBS Spreads Chart 19Refi Risk Is Minimal Refi Risk Is Minimal Refi Risk Is Minimal   Tightening bank lending standards for residential mortgages can also lead to wider MBS spreads, but lending standards are more likely to ease than tighten in 2020. FICO scores for approved mortgages have not come down at all since the financial crisis (Chart 19, panel 3), and loan officers consistently claim that lending standards are tighter than the average since 2005 (Chart 19, bottom panel). With standards already so tight, modest easing is more likely than rapid tightening. Key View #6: Overweight TIPS Versus Nominal Treasuries TIPS breakeven inflation rates are well below our target range of 2.3%-2.5%. It will take some time, and likely an overshoot of the Fed’s 2% inflation target, for them to reach that range as expectations adapt only slowly to rising core inflation. But even if they don’t make it back to target, breakevens should still grind higher as the economy recovers in 2020. Our target range for both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates remains 2.3%-2.5%. But it could take quite some time for that target to be met. The reason is that inflation expectations adapt only slowly to changes in the actual inflation data. We explained this dynamic in a report from last year, and also created a fair value model for the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate based on long-run trends in the actual inflation data.9 At present, our Adaptive Expectations Model pegs fair value for the 10-year breakeven rate at 1.9%, 20 bps above the current level of 1.7%, but well short of our end-of-cycle 2.3%-2.5% target (Chart 20). We could see the 10-year breakeven reaching 1.9% in the coming months as global growth recovers, but it will take a more sustained uptrend in the actual inflation data to move higher than that. A more sustained uptrend in actual inflation could take some time to develop. This year’s increase in core CPI inflation has been concentrated in the core goods component (Chart 21). This component of core inflation tracks import prices with a lag, and it is very likely to fall back down in 2020. Any sustained breakout in core inflation will require more strength from the core services (ex. Shelter and medical care) component (Chart 21, panel 3), something that hasn’t happened yet this cycle. Chart 20Adaptive Expectations Model Adaptive Expectations Model Adaptive Expectations Model Chart 21The Components Of Core CPI The Components Of Core CPI The Components Of Core CPI   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Our Golden Rule of Bond Investing says that we should determine what change in the fed funds rate is priced into the overnight index swap curve for the next 12 months, and then decide whether the Fed will deliver a hawkish or dovish surprise relative to that expectation. We contend that if the Fed delivers a hawkish surprise, then a below-benchmark portfolio duration positioning will pay off. Conversely, if the Fed delivers a dovish surprise, then an above-benchmark portfolio duration positioning will profit. Chart A1 shows how the Golden Rule has performed in every calendar year going back to 1990. We include year-to-date performance for 2019. In 30 years of historical data, our Golden Rule performed well in 22. It provided the wrong recommendation in 8 years, though 3 of those years were during the zero-lower-bound period between 2009 and 2015 when 12-month rate expectations were essentially pinned at zero.10 At the beginning of this year, the market was priced for 7 bps of rate cuts in 2019. The funds rate actually fell by 84 bps, leading to a dovish surprise of 77 bps. Based on a historical regression, we would expect a dovish surprise of 77 bps to coincide with a Treasury index yield that falls by 52 bps. In actuality, the index yield fell by 81 bps, more than our Golden Rule predicted. Chart A2 shows how close changes in the Treasury index yield have been to our Golden Rule’s prediction in each of the past 30 years. This regression between the change in Treasury index yield and the monetary policy surprise is the main source of error in our Treasury return forecasts. Based on our expected -52 bps index yield change, we would have expected the Treasury index to deliver 5.9% of total return in 2019 and to outperform cash by 3.4%. In actuality, the index earned 7.9% of total return and outperformed cash by 5.6%. Charts A3 and A4 show how index total and excess returns have performed relative to our Golden Rule’s expectations in each of the past 30 years. Chart A1The Golden Rule’s Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record Chart A2Treasury Index Yield Changes Versus Fed Funds Surprises 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income Chart A3Treasury Index Total Returns Versus The Golden Rule’s Predictions 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income Chart A4Treasury Index Excess Returns Versus The Golden Rule’s Predictions 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income   Footnotes 1    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2020: Heading Into The End Game”, dated November 22, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4   For more details on our butterfly spread valuation models please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5   The 2/5/30 valuation model is not shown in this report. Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Mixed Messages”, dated December 3, 2019, for a recent update of all our yield curve models. 6   Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For US Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7   For further details on how this measure is calculated please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Perspective On Risk And Reward”, dated October 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8   Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9   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 10  We say the Golden Rule “worked” if a dovish surprise coincided with positive Treasury index excess returns versus cash, or if a hawkish surprise coincided with negative Treasury excess returns versus cash.

Highlights Structurally overweight US T-bonds versus core European bonds. Our preferred expression is long T-bonds versus Swiss bonds. US yields can fall a lot more than European yields, and European yields can rise a lot more than US yields. Structurally underweight the overvalued dollar versus undervalued European currencies. Our preferred expression is long SEK/USD. Structurally underweight price-sensitive European export sectors. Undervalued European currencies cannot fall much further, and those European exporters that depend on price competitiveness will struggle to outperform. But structurally overweight soft luxuries. Despite President Trump’s threat to tariff French products, soft luxuries retain very strong pricing power and sustainable long term demand growth from rising female labour participation rates globally. Fractal trade: The 65-day fractal structure of global equities suggests that they are vulnerable to a near-term countertrend move. Feature Chart of the WeekLike-For-Like, Structural Inflation Is Lower In the US Than In Europe Like-For-Like, Structural Inflation Is Lower In the US Than In Europe Like-For-Like, Structural Inflation Is Lower In the US Than In Europe A seemingly trivial disagreement between Europeans and Americans on how to measure inflation turns out to be the culprit for three major distortions in the world right now: Deeply divergent monetary policies across the developed economies. Huge valuation anomalies in the foreign exchange markets. President Trump’s threat of a trade war to counter the huge trade surpluses that Europe and China are running against the US. The inflation measurement disagreement wouldn’t really matter if inflation were running in the mid-single digits. But when inflation is near zero, the seemingly trivial difference in inflation measurement methodologies has ended up generating massive distortions. European And American Inflation Are Not The Same European inflation excludes the maintenance and upkeep costs associated with owning your home, whereas US inflation includes these costs at a hefty 25 percent weighting, making owner occupied housing by far the largest single item in the US inflation basket. By omitting the largest item in the US inflation basket, European inflation is subtly yet crucially different to American inflation. The European statisticians argue that unlike all the other items in the inflation basket, there is no independent market price for the ongoing cost of home ownership, and therefore this cost should be excluded. The American statisticians argue that the ongoing cost of home ownership is the single largest expense for most people and, as such, it should be ‘imputed’ from a concept known as ‘owner equivalent rent’ – essentially, asking homeowners how much it would cost to rent their own home. Different definitions of inflation will trigger very different policy responses from central banks. Both the European and American approaches have their merits and drawbacks, and it is not our intention to endorse one approach over the other. Our intention is simply to point out that the two approaches can give very different results for inflation – and therefore trigger very different policy responses from inflation-targeting central banks, with their consequent economic and political repercussions. If Americans used the European definition of inflation, then headline inflation in the US today would be running at the same sub-par rate as in the euro area, 1 percent, and well below the Fed’s 2 percent target (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). More important, the five year annualised rate of inflation – let’s call it US structural inflation – would have been stuck below 1 percent since 2016 (Chart I-1 and Chart I-4). Under these circumstances, it would have been impossible for the Fed to hike the funds rate eight times, as it did through 2017-18. Chart I-2Like-For-Like, Headline Inflation Is Identical In The US And The Euro Area... Like-For-Like, Headline Inflation Is Identical In The US And The Euro Area... Like-For-Like, Headline Inflation Is Identical In The US And The Euro Area... Chart I-3...And Core Inflation Is ##br##Very Similar ...And Core Inflation Is Very Similar ...And Core Inflation Is Very Similar   Chart I-4Using The European Definition Of Inflation, The Fed Couldn't Have Hiked Rates Using The European Definition Of Inflation, The Fed Couldn't Have Hiked Rates Using The European Definition Of Inflation, The Fed Couldn't Have Hiked Rates Instead, what if Europeans used the American definition of inflation? European inflation does not include owner equivalent rent, but it does include housing rent for those that do rent their homes. In the US, these two items tend to move in lockstep (Chart I-5). If we assume the same for Europe, we can deduce that a US type weighting for owner equivalent rent would have boosted the headline inflation rate in the euro area by 0.3-0.4 percent through 2014-16, and by a possible 0.5 percent in Sweden through 2013-15 (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Under these circumstances, it would have been very difficult for the ECB and Riksbank to take and maintain policy rates deeply in negative territory, as they did through 2015-19. Chart I-5Owner Equivalent Rent Tracks ##br##Housing Rent Owner Equivalent Rent Tracks Housing Rent Owner Equivalent Rent Tracks Housing Rent Chart I-6Using The American Definition Of inflation, Euro Area Inflation Would Have Been Higher... Using The American Definition Of inflation, Euro Area Inflation Would Have Been Higher... Using The American Definition Of inflation, Euro Area Inflation Would Have Been Higher... Chart I-7...And Swedish Inflation Would Have Been Much Higher ...And Swedish Inflation Would Have Been Much Higher ...And Swedish Inflation Would Have Been Much Higher The Different Definitions Of Inflation Have Created Dangerous Distortions If Europeans and Americans were using the same definition of inflation then, one way or the other, their monetary policies would not be as deeply divergent as they are now. One important implication is that European currencies would not be as undervalued as they are now. If Europeans and Americans were using the same definition of inflation then their monetary policies would not be as deeply divergent as they are now.  Based on the ECB’s own analysis, the euro area is over-competitive versus its top 19 trading partners – meaning the euro is undervalued – by at least 10 percent. Moreover, the ECB admits that this sizable undervaluation only appeared after the ECB and Fed started taking their monetary policies in opposite directions in 2015 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Euro Is Undervalued By More Than 10 Percent The Euro Is Undervalued By More Than 10 Percent The Euro Is Undervalued By More Than 10 Percent Put the other way, the dollar would not be as overvalued as it is now. In turn, the stronger dollar has created its own dangerous spill-overs. As we explained last week in The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015… And Why It Matters Now, the surging dollar in 2015 could not have come at a worse time for China. Given that the Chinese economy was already slowing sharply, and the yuan was pegged to the dollar, the resulting loss of Chinese competitiveness just exacerbated the slump. Forcing China to loosen the dollar peg in August 2015. All of which brings us neatly to the hot topic of 2019, and likely 2020 too – President Trump’s threat of a trade war to counter the huge trade imbalances that Europe and China are running against the US. As it happens, President Trump has a good point. Trade wars almost always stem from trade imbalances; and trade imbalances almost always stem from exchange rate manipulations or, at least, exchange rate distortions that advantage one economy to the detriment of another. The euro's undervaluation only happened after monetary policies diverged in 2015. Most of the euro area’s €150 billion trade surplus with the US appeared after 2015, so it cannot be a structural issue. In fact, the evolution of the trade imbalance has tracked relative monetary policy between the Fed and ECB almost tick for tick (Chart I-9), via the exchange rate channel and the over-competitiveness of the euro which the ECB fully admits. Chart I-9Excessively Divergent Monetary Policies Caused The Euro Area's Huge Trade Surplus With The US Excessively Divergent Monetary Policies Caused The Euro Area's Huge Trade Surplus With The US Excessively Divergent Monetary Policies Caused The Euro Area's Huge Trade Surplus With The US Of course, neither the ECB nor the Fed are deliberately targeting trade or the exchange rate; they are targeting inflation. But to repeat, they are targeting different definitions of inflation. Crucially, with a backdrop of near zero inflation, small definitional differences in inflation can generate huge economic and financial distortions, with dangerous political consequences. The Compelling Structural Opportunities The definitional difference between European and American inflation explain many of the economic and financial distortions we are witnessing now, as well as the dangerous political consequences. The main counterargument is that the inflation definitions are what they are; neither the ECB nor the Fed are likely to change them anytime soon. Nevertheless, there are compelling structural opportunities. Since 2015, American inflation has outperformed European inflation for one reason and one reason only: owner equivalent rents have surged by almost 20 percent relative to other prices (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). The historic evidence suggests that such a pace of outperformance is unsustainable structurally and, absent this tailwind, US and European headline inflation rates have to converge, one way or the other. Chart I-10An Unsustainable Surge In US Owner Equivalent Rent... An Unsustainable Surge In US Owner Equivalent Rent... An Unsustainable Surge In US Owner Equivalent Rent... Chart I-11...Has Lifted US Headline ##br##Inflation ...Has Lifted US Headline Inflation ...Has Lifted US Headline Inflation In this inevitable convergence, the asymmetric starting point of bond yields favours a long US T-bonds, short core European bonds structural position. Because, if the inflation convergence is downwards, T-bond yields will fall much further than European yields; whereas if the inflation convergence is upwards, European yields will likely rise more than T-bond yields. Our preferred structural expression is: long US T-bonds, short Swiss bonds. For currencies it is the opposite message. The overvalued dollar is likely to underperform, at least versus other developed market currencies. Given that Swedish inflation has been the most understated by the exclusion of owner equivalent rents, combined with the Riksbank’s intention to exit negative interest rate policy imminently, our preferred structural expression is: long SEK/USD. American inflation has outperformed European inflation for one reason and one reason only: owner equivalent rents have surged by almost 20 percent relative to other prices. Lastly, European export growth – even in Germany – has been heavily reliant on a cheapening euro (Chart I-12). Undervalued European currencies cannot fall much further, and those European exporters that depend on price competitiveness will struggle to outperform. Even those multinationals that sell their products in dollars will lose out in the accounting translation back into a strengthening domestic currency. Hence, structurally underweight price-sensitive European export sectors. Chart I-12Without A Weaker Euro, Most European Exporters Will Struggle To Outperform Without A Weaker Euro, Most European Exporters Will Struggle To Outperform Without A Weaker Euro, Most European Exporters Will Struggle To Outperform The one exception to this is the soft luxuries sector. Despite President Trump’s threat to tariff French products, soft luxuries retain very strong pricing power and sustainable long term demand growth from rising female labour participation rates globally. Stay structurally overweight soft luxuries. Fractal Trading System* The 65-day fractal structure of global equities suggests that they are vulnerable to a near-term countertrend move. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to short the MSCI All Country World versus the global 10-year bond (simple average of US, euro area, and China), setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2.5 percent. In other trades, long NZD/JPY and long SEK/JPY both achieved their profit targets of 3 percent and 1.5 percent respectively. Against this, long Poland versus World reached its 4 percent stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 65 percent. Chart I-13MSCI All-Country World Vs. Global 10-Year Bond MSCI All-Country World Vs. Global 10-Year Bond MSCI All-Country World Vs. Global 10-Year Bond When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System How Low Inflation Has Distorted The World How Low Inflation Has Distorted The World How Low Inflation Has Distorted The World How Low Inflation Has Distorted The World   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations How Low Inflation Has Distorted The World How Low Inflation Has Distorted The World How Low Inflation Has Distorted The World How Low Inflation Has Distorted The World How Low Inflation Has Distorted The World How Low Inflation Has Distorted The World How Low Inflation Has Distorted The World How Low Inflation Has Distorted The World 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 Chart 1Manufacturing PMIs Track Bond Yields Manufacturing PMIs Track Bond Yields Manufacturing PMIs Track Bond Yields November’s manufacturing PMI data were released yesterday, giving us an update for two of our preferred global growth indicators: the Global Manufacturing PMI and the US ISM Manufacturing PMI (Chart 1). Unfortunately, the two indicators sent conflicting signals, providing us with very little clarity on the global growth outlook. On the positive side, the Global Manufacturing PMI jumped back above 50 for the first time since April. China is the largest weighting in the global index, and its PMI rose for the fifth consecutive month. Conversely, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI dipped further into contractionary territory in November – from 48.3 to 48.1. Optimistically, the index’s inventory component contracted by more than the new orders component, meaning that the difference between new orders and inventories rose to its highest level since May. The difference between new orders and inventories often leads the overall ISM index by several months. All in all, we continue to see tentative signs of stabilization in our preferred global growth indicators. But a more significant rebound will be necessary to push bond yields higher in the first half of next year, as we expect. Stay tuned. Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 63 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +494 bps. We consider three main factors in our credit cycle analysis: (i) corporate balance sheet health, (ii) monetary conditions and (iii) valuation.1 On balance sheets, our top-down measure of gross leverage is high and rising (Chart 2). In contrast, interest coverage ratios remain solid, propped up by the Fed’s accommodative stance. With inflation expectations still depressed, the Fed can maintain its “easy money” policy for some time yet. The third quarter’s tightening of C&I lending standards is a concern, because it suggests that monetary conditions may not be sufficiently stimulative for banks to keep the credit taps running (bottom panel). But the yield curve, another indicator of monetary conditions, has steepened significantly since Q3, suggesting that lending standards will soon move back into “net easing” territory. For now, we see valuation as the main headwind for investment grade credit spreads. Spreads for all credit tiers are below our targets, with the Baa tier looking less expensive than the others (panels 2 & 3).2 As a result, we advise only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds, with a preference for the Baa credit tier. 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* Mixed Messages Mixed Messages Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Mixed Messages Mixed Messages High-Yield Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +671 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 22 bps on the month and currently sits at 370 bps, 131 bps above our target (Chart 3). Ba and B rated junk bonds outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 79 bps and 76 bps, respectively, in November. But Caa-rated credit underperformed Treasuries by 89 bps. This continues the trend of Caa underperformance that has been in place since late last year (panel 3). We analyzed the divergence between Caa and the rest of the junk bond universe in last week’s report and came to two conclusions.3 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 this year’s Caa underperformance that make us inclined to downplay any potential negative signal. Specifically, we note that the Caa credit tier’s exposure to the shale oil sector is responsible for the bulk of this year’s underperformance (bottom panel). With elevated spreads, accommodative monetary conditions and a looming recovery in global economic growth, we expect junk spreads to tighten during the next 6-12 months.    MBS: Overweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +22 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread tightened 3 bps on the month, as a 5 bps tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) was offset by a 2 bps increase in expected prepayment losses (aka option cost). We recommend an overweight allocation to Agency MBS, particularly relative to corporate bonds rated A or higher, for three reasons.4 First, expected compensation is competitive. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS is now 50 bps (Chart 4). This is very close to its pre-crisis average and only 3 bps below the spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds (panel 4). Also, spreads for all investment grade corporate bond credit tiers trade below our targets. Second, risk-adjusted compensation heavily favors MBS. 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. Finally, the macro environment for MBS remains supportive. Mortgage lending standards have barely eased since the financial crisis (bottom panel), and most homeowners have already had at least one opportunity to refinance their mortgages. This burnout will keep refi activity low, and MBS spreads tight (panel 2). Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +197 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 36 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +513 bps. Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 24 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +245 bps. Meanwhile, Foreign Agencies outperformed by 4 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +266 bps. Domestic Agencies outperformed by 11 bps in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +51 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +36 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 Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities, 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 outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 70 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +6bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 4% in November, and currently sits at 83% (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 Specifically, 2-year and 5-year M/T yield ratios are somewhat below average pre-crisis levels at 68% and 72%, respectively. However, M/T yield ratios for longer maturities (10 years and higher) are all above average pre-crisis levels. M/T yield ratios for 10-year, 20-year and 30-year maturities are 84%, 93% and 97%, respectively. Fundamentally, state & local government balance sheets remain solid. Our Municipal Health Monitor remains 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 outnumber 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 shifted higher in November, steepening out to the 7-year maturity and flattening beyond that. The 2/10 Treasury slope was unchanged on the month. It currently sits at 17 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened 7 bps to end the month at 59 bps (Chart 7). In a recent report we discussed the 6-12 month outlook for the 2/10 Treasury slope.8 We considered the main macro factors that influence the slope of the yield curve: Fed policy, wage growth, inflation expectations and the neutral fed funds rate. We concluded that the 2/10 slope has room to steepen during the next few months, as the Fed holds down the front-end of the curve in an effort to re-anchor inflation expectations. However, we see the 2/10 slope remaining in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps, owing to strong wage growth and downbeat neutral rate expectations. Despite the outlook for modest curve steepening, 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. This position offers strong positive carry (bottom panel), due to the extreme overvaluation of the 5-year note, and looks attractive on our yield curve models (see Appendix B). TIPS: Overweight   Chart 8TIPS Market Overview Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 47 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -70 bps.The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.62%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 9 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.73%. 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 for most of the year (Chart 8). However, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain stubbornly low. As we have pointed out in prior research, it can take time for expectations to adapt to a changing macro environment.9 That being said, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 29 bps too low according to our Adaptive Expectations Model, a model whose primary input is 10-year trailing core inflation (panel 4). It is highly likely that the Fed will have to tolerate some overshoot of its 2% inflation target in order to re-anchor inflation expectations near desired levels. We anticipate that the committee will do so, and maintain our view that long-dated TIPS breakevens will move above 2.3% before the end of the cycle. ABS: Underweight Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 7 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +74 bps. Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 2 bps on the month. It currently sits at 34 bps; its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). Our Excess Return Bond Map (see Appendix C) shows that Aaa-rated consumer ABS rank among the most defensive US spread products and also offer more expected return 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 continue to shift in the wrong direction. The consumer credit delinquency rate is still low, but has put in a clear bottom. The is 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). All in all, our favorable outlook for global growth causes us to shy away from defensive spread products, and deteriorating ABS credit metrics are also a cause for concern. Stay underweight. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +221 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 72 bps, below its average pre-crisis level but somewhat above levels seen in 2018 (Chart 10). The macro outlook for commercial real estate (CRE) is somewhat unfavorable, with lenders tightening loan standards (panel 4) in an environment of tepid demand. The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey shows that banks saw slightly stronger demand for nonfarm nonresidential CRE loans in Q3, after four consecutive quarters of falling demand (bottom panel). CRE prices are still not keeping pace with CMBS spreads (panel 3). Despite the poor fundamental picture, our Excess Return Bond Map shows that CMBS offer a reasonably attractive risk/reward trade-off compared to other bond sectors (see Appendix C). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 7 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +107 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 2 bps on the month, and currently sits at 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 high-rated 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. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 26 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. 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. Mixed Messages Mixed Messages Mixed Messages Mixed Messages 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 November 29 2019) Mixed Messages Mixed Messages 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 November 29, 2019) Mixed Messages Mixed Messages 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 45 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 45 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) Mixed Messages Mixed Messages 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. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of November 29, 2019) Mixed Messages Mixed Messages Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2   For details on how we arrive at 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  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 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 Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com   Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of November 29, 2019.  The model has not made any directional change in its allocations this month. In terms of magnitude, however, the underweight of the US and the UK are both reduced slightly at the expense of other countries, as shown in Table 1.  As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1,  2 and 3, the overall model underperformed the MSCI World benchmark in November by 22 bps, caused by the underperformance from both the Level 1 (11 bps) and the Level 2 (27 bps) models. Four out of the five underweights worked well, especially the large underweight in Japan. However, none of the seven overweights panned out, especially the large overweight in Spain and Italy. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 51 bps, with 237 bps of outperformance by the Level 2 model, offset by 58 bps of underperformance from the Level 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates 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 U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) 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. Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of November 29, 2019. The model’s relative tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. The global growth proxies used in our model have turned slightly bearish, reflecting concerns about the rebound. This in turn led the model to reverse a few of the overweights it had instated last month on sectors such as Industrials and Consumer Discretionary. The valuation component remains muted across all sectors except Energy. The model is now overweight three sectors in total, one cyclical versus two defensive sectors. These are Consumer Staples, Health Care, and Information Technology. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Table 3Overall Model Performance GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates 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 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 Portfolio Strategy Interest rates are one of the most important macro drivers of overall equity returns via valuations. BCA’s view of a selloff in the bond market is a key factor underpinning most of our 2020 high-conviction calls. A 50bps to 75bps rise in the 10-year Treasury yield in 2020, as BCA predicts, will have significant knock on effects on sector selection. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1 2020 Key Views: High-Conviction Calls 2020 Key Views: High-Conviction Calls Feature As 2019 draws to a close, this week we reveal our high-conviction calls for the coming year. But before proceeding, a brief market comment is in order. As 2019 draws to a close, this week we reveal our high-conviction calls for the coming year. But before proceeding, a brief market comment is in order. We remain perplexed by the market’s euphoric rise and near total neglect of weak profit growth fundamentals. This “hope rally”, as we have characterized it in the recent past, may have some more legs with the traditional Santa Rally around the corner, but the set up for stocks could not be more treacherous for 2020. Importantly, we deem the risk of not getting a Sino-American trade deal to be significantly greater than a relief rally in case of a successful deal. Most of the positive trade-related news is already reflected into equities. This complacent backdrop is reminiscent of the early 2018 SPX catapult to 2,870 as back then the fresh fiscal easing package was all priced into stocks in the first 20 trading days of that year. Chart 1 vividly depicts this euphoric melt-up in stocks with the longest dated VIX future trouncing the squashed front month VIX future. While this ratio is not at the stratospheric level hit in late-December 2017, it hit a wall recently forewarning that equities are skating on thin ice. Chart 1VOL... VOL... VOL... Similarly, speculators are net short vol, but a snap can occur at any time. This is eerily reminiscent of February 2018. Since 2017, this vol positioning measure has consistently troughed prior to the SPX peak on three occasions and a “four-peat” likely looms (vol net spec positions shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 2).   On the profit front, sector earnings breadth is sinking like a stone confirming the negatively anchored S&P 500 net EPS revisions ratio (Chart 3). We doubt that 10% EPS growth for calendar 2020 is even plausible, especially given the looming steep deceleration in equity retirement that we highlighted recently.1 Tack on the mighty US dollar, and profit headwinds abound. Chart 2...A Coiled Spring ...A Coiled Spring ...A Coiled Spring Chart 3No Earnings Pulse No Earnings Pulse No Earnings Pulse Market internals are also screaming that something is off in the equity markets. Small caps are trailing large caps, transports are at stall speed, weak balance sheet stocks are underperforming strong balance sheet stocks, the median stock as per the Value Line Geometric Index is far from all-time highs and high yield bonds (especially CCC rated) are also not confirming the SPX breakout (Chart 4). Importantly, the CBOE’s S&P 500 implied correlation index, which gauges “the expected average correlation of price returns of S&P 500 Index components, implied through SPX option prices and prices of single-stock options on the 50 largest components of the SPX”,2 is rising again over the 40% mark, underscoring that stocks are more and more beginning to move in tandem. Historically this has been a negative omen (implied correlation index shown inverted, top panel, Chart 5). Chart 4Watch Market Internals Watch Market Internals Watch Market Internals Chart 5Reflation No More? Reflation No More? Reflation No More? Downtrodden M&A activity is also firing a warning shot. A steep divergence of M&A deals from stock prices is atypical at this late stage of the business cycle (middle panel, Chart 5). In fact, out Reflation Gauge comprising the greenback, oil prices and the 10-year Treasury yield has taken a turn for the worse, signaling that economic surprises will likely suffer the same fate (bottom panel, Chart 5). All of this, warns that the risks of a significant pullback in the SPX are rising. What follows is four high-conviction overweight and four underweight calls. Similar to last year, we are using BCA’s view of a selloff in the bond market is a key factor underpinning most of our 2020 high-conviction calls.3 While last year this was offside, the collapse in the 10-year US Treasury yield from 3% last December to 1.75% currently offers a better backdrop for this view to pan out. A 50bps to 75bps rise in the 10-year Treasury yield in 2020, as our BCA house view predicts, will have significant knock on effects on sector selection.4 As a reminder, interest rates are one of the most important macro drivers of overall equity returns via valuations (10-year Treasury yield shown inverted, Chart 6). Moreover on a sector basis, the ebbs and flows of the risk free asset directly influence utilities, real estate, financials, consumer discretionary and tech growth stocks or more than half of the S&P 500’s market capitalization. Chart 6Priced To Perfection Priced To Perfection Priced To Perfection What follows is four high-conviction overweight and four underweight calls.     Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   S&P Managed Health Care (Overweight) We upgraded the S&P managed health care group to overweight in April shortly after Bernie Sanders re-introduced his revamped “Medicare For All” bill. Despite the recent explosive run up in relative share prices – partly owing to the drop in Elizabeth Warren’s odds of winning the Democratic candidacy and partly given her watering down of her “Medicare For All” take up plan – we are adding this health care sub-group to our high-conviction overweight call list. HMOs are finally raising prices at the steepest rate of the past fifteen years and while such breakneck pace is unsustainable, profit margins are set to expand smartly (Chart 7). The profit margin backdrop is enticing for health insurers for another reason: labor cost containment. CEOs have been extremely prudent refraining from adding to headcount. One final profit margin booster is the rising 10-year Treasury yield, as roughly 10% of the industry’s operating income is tied to “investment income”. In other words, as insurers receive the premia they typically invest it in Treasurys and that explains the high EPS and margin sensitivity on interest rate moves. Thus, if BCA’s bond view materializes, it will prove a tonic to both margins and profits. With regard to technicals, relative share prices are not as oversold as they were mid-year, but remain below the neutral zone still offering investors a compelling entry point to this position (bottom panel, Chart 7). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH – UNH, ANTM, HUM, CNC, WCG.  Chart 7S&P Managed Health Care S&P Managed Health Care S&P Managed Health Care S&P Machinery (Overweight) A tentative up-tick in EM data in general and China in particular along with improving operating metrics signal that the US/China trade war wounded machinery stocks deserve a high-conviction overweight status for 2020. In more detail, the budding recoveries in the EM and Chinese manufacturing PMIs herald a brighter outlook for relative share prices. China’s fiscal and credit impulse also signals that a bottom in relative share prices is likely already in place. If this leading indicator proves accurate in the coming months, then relative share prices can reclaim the early-2018 highs. On the operating front, the new orders-to-inventories momentum has traced a bottom. Assuming that the Chinese manufacturing PMI reading stays on an upward trajectory, machinery demand will make a durable comeback. None of these green shoots are reflected in sell-side analysts’ bombed out relative profit and sales growth expectations (bottom panel, Chart 8). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5MACH – CAT, DE, ITW, IR, CMI, PCAR, PH, SWK, FTV, DOV, XYL, IEX, WAB, SNA, PNR, FLS.  Chart 8S&P Machinery S&P Machinery S&P Machinery S&P Banks (Overweight) The expected price of credit, still pristine credit quality, and a looming reacceleration in credit growth all argue for including the S&P banks index in our high-conviction overweight list. Banks stocks troughed in mid-August, sniffing out a sell-off in the bond market. As the bond sell-off gained steam, the bank outperformance phase also caught on fire. BCA’s view for next year calls for a 50-75bps selloff in the 10-year Treasury yield, further boosting the allure of bank equities (top panel, Chart 9). Beyond the rising price of credit, credit growth is another key industry profit driver. Importantly, the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey painted a bright picture on both the demand and supply of credit. In more detail, bankers reported that a rising number of credit categories reversed course and demand for loans slingshot higher. The upshot is that bank credit growth will likely reaccelerate in the first half of 2020 (third panel, Chart 9). Finally, credit quality, the third key bank profit driver, is also emitting a positive signal. While a few loan categories have deteriorated recently in absolute terms, as percentage of loans outstanding, credit quality remains pristine. Despite all this enticing news, bank valuations remain anchored near rock bottom levels and a resurgent ROE is signaling that there is a long runway ahead for relative bank valuations (bottom panel, Chart 9). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX – WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB, FRC.  Chart 9S&P Banks S&P Banks S&P Banks Long Large Caps/Short Small Caps (Overweight) The large cap size bias is our sole hold out from last year’s high-conviction list despite getting stopped out and booking a handsome 9% profit. Today we recommend reinstating a large cap size bias. This call actually represents a slight hedge on BCA’s overall higher interest rates view for next year. Financials comprise 13% of the SPX, but the weight jumps to 18% in small cap indexes. Thus, if the rising interest view is off the mark, the large cap bias will provide an offset. Relative forward profit growth favors mega caps and by a wide margin. One key factor underpinning this increasing profit gap is the massive profit margin divergence (Chart 10). Tack on the fact that index providers omit negative forward profits from their index EPS calculations and the narrative that small caps have cheapened versus large caps falls flat on an adjusted basis. Why? Because a large number of small caps have negative forward EPS. Moreover, we recently created a relative employment proxy that is firing on all cylinders. Not only is the small business labor market crumbling according to the latest NFIB survey, but hard data also suggest that nonfarm private small business payroll employment has ground to a halt. Finally, small caps are debt saddled compared with large caps and small cap b/s have actually been degrading of late (Chart 10). Chart 10Long Large Caps/Short Small Caps Long Large Caps/Short Small Caps Long Large Caps/Short Small Caps S&P Homebuilding (Underweight) We downgraded homebuilders to underweight in late-October, and today we are adding it to our high-conviction underweight call list. Most, if not all, positive profit drivers are already reflected in relative share prices. Specifically, the drubbing in interest rates has been more than accounted for by the year-to-date outperformance in homebuilders. Now that interest rates are moving in reverse, more pain lies ahead for the S&P homebuilding index (Chart 11). Worrisomely, consumers’ expectations to purchase a new home plunged anew last month according to The Conference Board’s survey, and that demand softness will weigh on housing starts and ultimately homebuilding revenues (Chart 11). Adding insult to injury, new house selling prices are losing ground to existing home prices, but such discounting is no longer boosting volumes as new home sales market share gains have stalled. Already, S&P homebuilding sales are contracting and the risk is that deflation gets entrenched in this construction industry (Chart 11). Simultaneously, lumber prices are gaining steam and coupled with contracting new home prices signal that homebuilding profits will suffer a setback. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5HOME – DHI, LEN, PHM, NVR.  Chart 11S&P Homebuilding S&P Homebuilding S&P Homebuilding S&P Semi Equipment (Underweight) While year-to-date chip equipment stocks are the best performing index in the SPX, we deem them a mania, and include them in our high-conviction underweight basket for 2020. The top panel of Chart 12 shows this irrational exuberance that has permeated the semi equipment universe is similar to the dotcom era excesses. Back in the late-1990s relative profit growth was sky high, but today it is flirting with the zero line, warning that gravity will pull these stocks back down to earth (second panel, Chart 12). The contracting ISM manufacturing survey signals that relative share price momentum running at a breakneck pace is unwarranted. The same holds true for relative forward profit and revenue growth expectations, especially given the ongoing contraction in global semi sales (middle panel, Chart 12). This deficient demand for semis and therefore semi equipment manufacturers is also apparent in deflating DRAM prices, our industry pricing power proxy. Historically, relative profit expectations and pricing power have moved in lockstep and the current message is to fade sell-side analysts’ buoyancy. Net earnings revisions have slingshot from extreme pessimism to extreme optimism during the past quarter and are vulnerable to disappointment (bottom panel, Chart 12). In sum, lack of profit growth, deficient industry demand, perky valuations and extremely overbought conditions all suggest that the mania in the S&P chip equipment index will likely turn into a panic next year. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5SEEQ – AMAT, LRCX, KLAC. Chart 12S&P Semi Equipment S&P Semi Equipment S&P Semi Equipment S&P Utilities (Underweight) Heavily indebted utilities are a high-conviction underweight call for next year. · Relative share prices and the 10-year Treasury yield are closely inversely correlated. Now that the risk free asset is having a more competitive yield, investors will likely start to abandon this niche defensive sector. The jury is still out on the final outcome of the Sino-American trade war. However, there has been a decisive change of heart in US exporters and the ISM manufacturing survey’s new export orders subcomponent reflects an, at the margin, improvement in the US/China trade relationship. This bodes ill for safe haven utilities stocks (Chart 13). Utilities command a 19.4 forward P/E multiple representing roughly a 10% premium to the broad market, but their forecast EPS growth rate at 5% trails the SPX by 400bps. Our composite relative Valuation Indicator has surged to one standard deviation above the historical mean, a level typically associated with recession (Chart 13). On the operating front, natural gas prices are contracting at the steepest pace of the past four years, and electricity capacity utilization is in a multi-decade downtrend, warning that the relative profitability will remain under pressure in 2020. The implication is that this crowded trade is at risk of deflating, especially if the breakout in bond yields gains steam as BCA expects. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5UTIL– PPL, PNW, ATO, PEG, FE, EIX, AEE, SO, SRE, AEP, XEL, DTE, EVRG, WEC, AES, CMS, LNT, ED, NRG, D, AWK, DUK, ETR, EXC, NEE, CNP, NI, ES.  Chart 13S&P Utilities S&P Utilities S&P Utilities S&P Real Estate (Underweight) We would refrain from chasing high yielding real estate stocks higher, and instead we are including them in our high-conviction underweight call list for 2020. The commercial real estate (CRE) sector is a bubble candidate that exemplifies this cycle’s excesses. CRE prices sit at roughly two standard deviations above both the historical time trend and the previous cycle’s peak (not shown). Worryingly, CRE demand is waning. Not only our proprietary real estate demand indicator has sunk recently, but also the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer survey revealed that demand for CRE loans remains feeble. Simultaneously, fewer bankers are willing to extend CRE credit according to the same quarterly Fed survey (Chart 14). Occupancy rates have crested and there are increasing anecdotes of credit quality deterioration. As a result, CRE rents are also failing to keep up with inflation which eats into relative cash flow growth prospects. The supply side build up tilts this delicate balance further into deficit. Non-residential construction shows no signs of abating, with multi-family housing starts still running at an historically high rate of roughly 400K/annum (Chart 14). Finally, interest rate related headwinds will also weigh on this high-yielding sector in coming quarters, especially if the selloff in the bond market gains steam as BCA expects. (Chart 14). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5RLST – AMT, PLD, CCI, SPG, EQIX, WELL, PSA, EQR, AVB, SBAC, O, DLR, WY, VTR, ESS, BXP, CBRE, ARE, PEAK, MAA, UDR, EXR, DRE, HST, REG, VNO, IRM, FRT, KIM, AIV, SLG, MAC. Chart 14S&P Real Estate S&P Real Estate S&P Real Estate Footnotes 1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Gasping For Air” dated November 18, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2    https://www.cboe.com/micro/impliedcorrelation/impliedcorrelationindicator.pdf 3    Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, “OUTLOOK 2020: Heading Into The End Game” dated November 22, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4    Ibid. 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%)

Feature Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update: How To Position For The End Game Monthly Portfolio Update: How To Position For The End Game In late November, BCA Research published its 2020 Outlook titled Heading Into The End Game, an annual discussion between BCA’s managing editors and the firm’s longstanding clients Mr. and Ms X.1 We recommend GAA clients read that document for a full analysis of the macro and investment environment we expect in 2020. In this Monthly Portfolio Outlook, we focus on portfolio construction: how we would recommend positioning a global multi-asset portfolio for the 12-month investment horizon in light of that analysis. First, a brief summary of the BCA macro outlook. We believe the global manufacturing cycle is starting to bottom out, partly because of its usual periodicity of 18 months from peak to trough, and also because of easier financial conditions, and some moderate fiscal and credit stimulus from China (Chart 1).  Central banks will remain dovish next year despite accelerating growth. The Fed, in particular, worries that inflation expectations have become unanchored (Chart 2) and, moreover, will be reluctant to raise rates ahead of the US presidential election. This environment implies a moderate rise in long-term interest rates, with the US 10-year Treasury yield rising to 2.2-2.5%. Chart 1Reasons To Expect A Rebound Reasons To Expect A Rebound Reasons To Expect A Rebound Chart 2Unanchored Inflation Expectations Worry The Fed Unanchored Inflation Expectations Worry The Fed Unanchored Inflation Expectations Worry The Fed For an asset allocator, this combination of an improving manufacturing cycle and easy monetary policy looks like a very positive environment for risk assets (Chart 3). We, therefore, remain overweight equities and underweight fixed income. We have discussed over the past few months the timing to turn more risk-on and pro-cyclical in our recommendations.2 Since we are increasingly confident about the probability of the manufacturing cycle turning up, this is the time to make that change. Consequently, the shifts we are recommending in our global portfolio, shown in the Recommended Allocation table and discussed in detail below, add to its beta (Chart 4).   Chart 3A Positive Environment For Risk Assets A Positive Environment For Risk Assets A Positive Environment For Risk Assets Chart 4Raising The Beta Of Our Portfolio Raising The Beta Of Our Portfolio Raising The Beta Of Our Portfolio Chart 5Some Signs Of Risk-On Still Missing Some Signs Of Risk-On Still Missing Some Signs Of Risk-On Still Missing Nonetheless, we still have some concerns. China’s stimulus (particularly credit growth) remains half-hearted compared to previous cyclical rebounds in 2012 and 2016. We expect a “phase one” ceasefire in the trade war. But even that is not certain, and it would not anyway solve the long-term structural disputes. To turn fully risk-on, we would want to see signs of a clear rebound in commodity prices and a depreciation of the US dollar, which have not yet happened (Chart 5). The 2020 Outlook proposed some milestones to monitor whether our scenario is playing out and whether we should turn more or less risk-on. We summarize these milestones in Table 1. Given these uncertainties, to hedge our pro-cyclical positioning we continue to recommend an overweight in cash, and we are instituting an overweight position in gold. Table 1Milestones For 2020 Monthly Portfolio Update: How To Position For The End Game Monthly Portfolio Update: How To Position For The End Game Chart 6Recessions Are Caused By Inflation Or Debt Recessions Are Caused By Inflation Or Debt Recessions Are Caused By Inflation Or Debt How will this cycle end? All recessions in modern history have been caused either by a sharp rise in inflation, or by a debt-fueled asset bubble (Chart 6). The Fed will likely fall behind the curve at some point as, after further tightening in the labor market, inflation starts to pick up. How the Fed reacts to that will determine what triggers the recession. If – as is most likely – it lets inflation run, that could blow up an asset bubble (and it was the bursting of such bubbles which caused the 2000 and 2007 recessions); if it decides to tighten monetary policy to kill inflation, the recession would look more like those of the 1970s and 1980s. But it is hard to see either happening over the next 12-18 months. Equities: As part of our shift to a more pro-risk, pro-cyclical stance, we are cutting US equities to underweight, and raising the euro zone to overweight, and Emerging Markets and the UK to neutral. US equities have outperformed fairly consistently since the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 7) – except during the two periods of accelerating global growth, in 2012-13 (when Europe did better) and 2016-17 (when EM particularly outperformed). The US today is expensive, particularly in terms of price/sales, which looks more expensive than the P/E ratio because the profit margin is at a record high level (Chart 8). The upside for US stocks in 2020 is likely to be limited. In 2019 so far, US equities have risen by 29% despite earnings growth close to zero. Multiples expanded because the Fed turned dovish, but investors should not assume further multiple expansion in 2020. Our rough model for US EPS growth points to around 8% next year (sales in line with nominal GDP growth of 4%, margins expanding by a couple of points, plus 2% in share buybacks). Add a dividend yield of 2%, and US stocks might give a total return of 10% or so. Chart 7US Doesn't Always Outperform US Doesn't Always Outperform US Doesn't Always Outperform Chart 8US Equities Are Expensive US Equities Are Expensive US Equities Are Expensive To play the cyclical rebound, we prefer euro zone stocks over those in EM or Japan. Euro zone stocks have a higher weighting in sectors we like such as Financials and Industrials (Table 2). European banks, in particular, look attractively valued (Chart 9) and offer a dividend yield of 6%, something investors should find appealing in this low-yield world. EM is more closely linked to China and commodities prices, which are not yet sending strong positive signals. We worry about the excess of debt in EM (Chart 10), which remains a structural headwind: the IMF and World Bank put total external EM debt at $6.8 trillion (Chart 11). Table 2Equity Sector Composition Monthly Portfolio Update: How To Position For The End Game Monthly Portfolio Update: How To Position For The End Game Chart 9Euro Zone Banks Are Especially Cheap Euro Zone Banks Are Especially Cheap Euro Zone Banks Are Especially Cheap Chart 10EM Debt Remains A Headwind EM Debt Remains A Headwind EM Debt Remains A Headwind Japan is another likely beneficiary of a cyclical recovery. But, before we turn positive, we want to see (1) signs of a stabilization of consumption after the recent tax rise (retail sales fell by 7% year-on-year in October), and (2) clarification of a worrying new investment law (which will require any investor which intends to “influence management” to get prior government approval before buying as little as a 1% stake in many sectors). For an asset allocator this combination of an improving manufacturing cycle and easy monetary policy looks very positive for risk assets. We raise the UK to neutral. The market has been a serial underperformer over the past few years, but this has been due to the weak pound and derating, rather than poor earnings growth (Chart 12). It now looks very cheap and, with the risk of a no-deal Brexit off the table, sterling should rebound further. The UK is notably overweight the sectors we like (Table 2). However, political risk makes us limit our recommendation to neutral. Although the Conservatives look likely to win a majority in this month’s general election, which will allow them to push through the negotiated Brexit deal, subsequent arguments over the future trade relationship with the EU will be divisive. Chart 116.8 Trillion In EM External Debt $6.8 Trillion In EM External Debt $6.8 Trillion In EM External Debt Chart 12The UK Has Been Derated Since 2016 The UK Has Been Derated Since 2016 The UK Has Been Derated Since 2016   Fixed Income: We remain underweight government bonds. Stronger economic growth is likely to push up long-term rates (Chart 13). Nonetheless, the rise in yields should be limited. The Fed looks to be on hold for the next 12 months, but the futures market is not far away from that view: it has priced in only a 60% probability of one rate cut over that time. The gap between market expectations and what the Fed actually does is what our bond strategists call the “golden rule of bond investing”. US inflation is also likely to soften over the next few months due to the lagged effect of this year’s weaker growth and appreciating dollar. We do not expect the 10-year US Treasury to rise above 2.5% – the current FOMC estimate of the long-run equilibrium level of short-term rates (Chart 14). Chart 13Growth Will Push Up Rates... Growth Will Push Up Rates... Growth Will Push Up Rates...   Chart 14...But Only As Far As 2.5% ...But Only As Far As 2.5% ...But Only As Far As 2.5%   Within the fixed-income universe, we remain positive on corporate credit. But US investment-grade bond spreads are no longer attractive and so we downgrade them to neutral (Chart 15). Investors looking for high-quality bond exposure should prefer Agency MBS, which trade on an attractive spread relative to Aa- and A-rated corporate bonds. European IG should do better since spreads are not so close to historical lows, risk-free rates should rise less than in the US, and because the ECB is increasing its purchases of corporate bonds. Chart 15US IG Spreads Are Close To Historical Lows Monthly Portfolio Update: How To Position For The End Game Monthly Portfolio Update: How To Position For The End Game Chart 16US Caa Bonds Have Some Catching Up To Do The Puzzling Case Of Caa-Rated Junk Bonds US Caa Bonds Have Some Catching Up To Do The Puzzling Case Of Caa-Rated Junk Bonds US Caa Bonds Have Some Catching Up To Do We continue to like high-yield bonds, both in the US and Europe. But we would suggest moving down the credit curve and increasing the weight in Caa-rated bonds. These have underperformed this year (Chart 16), mainly because of technical factors such as their overweight in the energy sector and relatively smaller decline in duration.3 With a stronger economy and rising oil prices, they should catch up to their higher-rated HY peers in 2020. To play the cyclical rebound, we prefer euro zone stocks over those in EM or Japan. Currencies: Since the US dollar is a counter-cyclical currency (Chart 17), we would expect it to weaken against more cyclical currencies such as the euro, and commodity currencies such as the Australian dollar and Canadian dollar. But it should appreciate relative to the yen and Swiss franc, which are the most defensive major currencies. We expect EM currencies to continue to depreciate. Most emerging markets are experiencing disinflation (Chart 18), which will push central banks to cut rates and inject liquidity into the banking system. This will tend to weaken their currencies. Overall, we are neutral on the US dollar. Chart 17The Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency Chart 18Disinflation Will Push EM Currencies Down Further Disinflation Will Push EM Currencies Down Further Disinflation Will Push EM Currencies Down Further     Commodities: Industrials metals prices are closely linked to Chinese stimulus (Chart 19). A moderate recovery in Chinese growth should be a positive, and so we raise our recommendation to neutral. But with question-marks still lingering over the strength of the rebound in the Chinese economy, we would not be more positive than that. Oil prices should see moderate upside over the next 12 months, with supply tight and demand growth recovering in line with the global economy. Our energy strategists forecast Brent crude to average $67 a barrel in 2020 (compared to a little over $60 today). Chart 19Metals Prices Depend On China Metals Prices Depend On China Metals Prices Depend On China Chart 20Gold: Short-Term Negatives, But Remains A Good Hedge Gold: Short-Term Negatives, But Remains A Good Hedge Gold: Short-Term Negatives, But Remains A Good Hedge   Gold looks a little overbought in the short term, and less monetary stimulus and a rise in rates next year would be negative factors (Chart 20). Nonetheless, we see it as a good hedge against our positive economic view going awry, and against geopolitical risks. If central banks do decide to let economies run hot next year and ignore rising inflation, gold could do particularly well. We, therefore, raise our recommendation to overweight on a 12-month horizon.     Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    Please see "Outlook 2020," dated November 22 2019, available at bcaresearch.com 2   Please see, for example, last month’s GAA Monthly Portfolio Update, “Looking For The Turning-Point,” dated November 1, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3   For a more detailed explanation, please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Signs Or Buying Opportunity,” dated 26 November 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Investors should remain overweight global stocks relative to bonds over the next 12 months and begin shifting equity exposure towards non-US markets. Bond yields will rise next year as global growth picks up, while the dollar will sell off. The extent to which bond yields increase over the long term depends on whether inflation eventually stages a comeback. Today’s high debt levels could turn out to be deflationary if they curtail spending by overstretched households, firms, and governments. However, high debt levels could also prompt central banks to engineer higher inflation in order to reduce the real burden of debt obligations. Which of these two effects will win out depends on whether central banks are able to gain traction over the economy. This ultimately boils down to whether the neutral rate of interest is positive or negative in nominal terms. While there is little that policymakers can do to alter certain drivers of the neutral rate such as the trend rate of economic growth, they do have control over other drivers such as the stance of fiscal policy. Ironically, a structural shift towards easier fiscal policy could lead to a decline in government debt-to-GDP ratios if higher inflation, together with central bankers' reluctance to raise nominal rates, pushes real rates down far enough. This suggests that the endgame for today’s high debt levels is likely to be overheated economies and rising inflation.   Stay Bullish On Stocks But Shift Towards Non-US Equities We returned to a cyclically bullish stance on global equities following the stock market selloff late last year, having temporarily moved to the sidelines in June 2018. We have remained overweight global equities throughout 2019. Two weeks ago, we increased our pro-cyclical bias by upgrading non-US stocks within our recommended equity allocation at the expense of their US peers. Our decision to upgrade non-US equities stems from the conviction that global growth has turned the corner. Manufacturing has been at the heart of the global slowdown. As we have often pointed out, manufacturing cycles tend to last about three years – 18 months of weaker growth followed by 18 months of stronger growth (Chart 1). The current slowdown began in the first half of 2018, and right on cue, the recent data has begun to improve. The global manufacturing PMI has moved off its lows, with significant gains seen in the new orders-to-inventories component. Global growth expectations in the ZEW survey have rebounded. US durable goods orders surprised on the upside in October. The regional Fed manufacturing surveys have also brightened, suggesting upside for the ISM next week (Chart 2). Chart 1A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle Chart 2Some Manufacturing Green Shoots Some Manufacturing Green Shoots Some Manufacturing Green Shoots     Unlike in 2016, China has not allowed a major reacceleration in credit growth this year. Instead, fiscal policy has been loosened significantly. The official general government deficit has increased from around 3% of GDP in mid-2018 to 6.5% of GDP at present. The augmented budget deficit – which includes spending through local government financing vehicles and other off-balance sheet expenditures – is on track to reach nearly 13% of GDP in 2019. This is a bigger deficit than during the depths of the Great Recession (Chart 3). As a result of all this fiscal easing, the combined Chinese credit/fiscal impulse has continued to move up. It leads global growth by about nine months (Chart 4). Chart 3China Has Been Stimulating, Fiscally China Has Been Stimulating, Fiscally China Has Been Stimulating, Fiscally Chart 4Chinese Stimulus Should Boost Global Growth Chinese Stimulus Should Boost Global Growth Chinese Stimulus Should Boost Global Growth The dollar tends to weaken when global growth strengthens (Chart 5). The combination of stronger global growth and a softer dollar will disproportionately benefit cyclical equity sectors. Financials will also gain thanks to steeper yield curves (Chart 6). The sector weights of non-US stock markets tend to be more tilted towards deep cyclicals and financials. As a consequence, non-US stocks typically outperform when global growth picks up (Chart 7). Chart 5The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 6Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials In addition, valuations favor stocks outside the US. Non-US equities currently trade at 13.8-times forward earnings, compared to 18.1-times for the US. The valuation gap is even greater if one looks at price-to-book, price-to-sales, and other measures (Chart 8). Chart 7Non-US Equities Usually Outperform When Global Growth Improves Non-US Equities Usually Outperform When Global Growth Improves Non-US Equities Usually Outperform When Global Growth Improves Chart 8US Stocks Are Relatively More Expensive US Stocks Are Relatively More Expensive US Stocks Are Relatively More Expensive Trade War Remains A Key Risk The US-China trade war remains a key risk to our bullish equity view. President Trump continues to send conflicting signals about the status of the talks. He complained last week that Beijing is not “stepping up” in finalizing a phase 1 agreement, adding that China wants a deal “much more than I do.” This Wednesday he struck a more optimistic tone, saying that negotiators were in the “final throes” of deal. However, he made this statement on the same day that he decided to sign the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act into law, a decision that was bound to antagonize China. According to our BCA geopolitical team, Trump had little choice but to sign the bill. The Senate approved it unanimously, while the House voted for it 417-1. Failure to sign it would have resulted in an embarrassing veto by the Senate. The key point is that the new law does not force Trump to take any immediate actions against China. This suggests that the trade talks will continue. In fact, from China's point of view, Congress’ desire to pass a Hong Kong bill may provide a timely reminder that getting a deal done with Trump now may be preferable to waiting until after the election and potentially facing someone like Elizabeth Warren who is likely to make human rights a key element of any deal to roll back tariffs. Waiting For Inflation If global growth accelerates next year, history suggests that bond yields will rise (Chart 9). Looking further out, the extent to which bond yields will continue to increase depends on whether inflation ultimately stages a comeback. Right now, most of our forward-looking inflationary indicators remain well contained (Chart 10). However, this could change if falling unemployment eventually triggers a price-wage spiral. Chart 9Stronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields Stronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields Stronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields Chart 10An Inflation Breakout Is Not Imminent An Inflation Breakout Is Not Imminent An Inflation Breakout Is Not Imminent     Many investors are skeptical that such a price-wage spiral could ever emerge. They argue that automation, globalization, weak trade unions, and demographic changes make an inflationary outburst rather implausible. We have addressed these arguments in the past1 and will not delve into them in this report. Instead, we will focus on one argument that also gets a fair bit of attention, which is that high debt levels will prove to be deflationary. Are High Debt Levels Inflationary Or Deflationary? Total debt levels in developed economies are no lower today than they were during the Great Recession. While private debt has fallen, public debt has risen by roughly the same magnitude, leaving the overall debt-to-GDP ratio unchanged (Chart 11). Meanwhile, debt levels in emerging markets have risen substantially. A common rebuttal to any suggestion that inflation might rise over the medium-to-longer term is that high debt levels around the world will cause households, firms, and governments to pare back spending. While this may be true, it could also be argued that high debt levels could prompt central banks to engineer higher inflation in order to reduce the real burden of debt obligations. So which effect will win out? Given the choice, it is likely that most policymakers would opt for higher inflation. This is partly because high unemployment and fiscal austerity are politically toxic. It is also because falling prices make it very difficult to reduce real debt burdens. The experience of the Great Depression bears this out: Private debt declined by 25% in absolute terms between 1929 and 1933. However, due to the collapse in nominal GDP, the ratio of debt-to-GDP actually increased more in the first half of the 1930s than during the Roaring Twenties (Chart 12). Chart 11Global Debt Levels Remain High Global Debt Levels Remain High Global Debt Levels Remain High Chart 12The Experience Of The Great Depression Shows Deleveraging Is Impossible Without Growth The Debt Supercycle Endgame: Deflation Or Inflation? The Debt Supercycle Endgame: Deflation Or Inflation?   Means, Motive And Opportunity Chart 13A Kinked Relationship: It Takes Time For Inflation To Break Out The Debt Supercycle Endgame: Deflation Or Inflation? The Debt Supercycle Endgame: Deflation Or Inflation? There is a big difference between wanting to engineer higher inflation and being able to do so. The distinction between success and failure ultimately boils down to a seemingly technical question: Is the neutral rate of interest – the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation – positive or negative in nominal terms? When the neutral rate is above zero, central banks can gain traction over the economy. Even if the neutral rate is only slightly positive, a zero rate would be enough to keep monetary policy in expansionary territory. When monetary policy is accommodative, the unemployment rate will tend to drop. Eventually the “kink” in the Phillips curve will be reached, resulting in higher inflation (Chart 13). In contrast, when the neutral rate is firmly below zero, monetary policy loses traction over the economy. Since there is a limit to how deeply negative policy rates can go before people decide to hold cash, the central bank could find itself out of ammunition. This could set off a vicious circle where high unemployment causes inflation to drift lower, leading to an increase in real rates. Rising real rates will then further curb spending, causing inflation to fall even more. Drivers Of The Neutral Rate Two of the more important determinants of the neutral rate of interest are the growth rate of the economy and the national savings rate. If either the savings rate rises or economic growth slows, the stock of fixed capital will tend to pile up in relation to GDP, leading to a higher capital-to-output ratio.2 As Chart 14 shows, this has already happened in Europe and Japan. An increase in the capital-to-GDP ratio will drag down the rate of return on capital. A lower interest rate will be necessary to ensure that the capital stock is fully utilized. Chart 14Capital Stock-To-Output Ratios Have Risen The Debt Supercycle Endgame: Deflation Or Inflation? The Debt Supercycle Endgame: Deflation Or Inflation? Realistically, there is not much that policymakers can do to raise trend GDP growth. While looser immigration policy would allow for a faster expansion of labor force growth, this is politically contentious. Increasing productivity growth is also easier said than done. Fiscal Policy And The Neutral Rate In contrast, policymakers already have a ready-made mechanism for lowering the savings rate: fiscal policy. The fiscal balance is a component of national savings. If the government runs a larger budget deficit in order to finance tax cuts or higher transfer payments to households, national savings will decline and aggregate demand will rise. Is the endgame for today’s high debt levels deflation or inflation? The answer is inflation. Since one can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that brings aggregate demand in line with the economy’s supply-side potential, anything that raises demand will also lift the neutral rate. Once the neutral rate has risen above the zero bound, monetary policy will gain traction again. This implies that central banks should never run out of ammunition in countries whose governments can issue debt in their own currencies. While higher inflation stemming from fiscal stimulus will erode the real value of private sector debt obligations, won’t the impact on total debt be offset by the increase in public debt? Not necessarily. True, larger budget deficits will raise the stock of government debt. However, nominal GDP will also rise on account of higher inflation. Standard debt sustainability equations state that the government debt-to-GDP ratio could actually fall if higher inflation pushes real policy rates down far enough. As discussed in Box 1, such an outcome is quite likely when inflation accelerates in response to an overheated economy, but the central bank nevertheless refrains from raising nominal rates. The Final Verdict We are finally ready to answer the question posed in the title of this report: Is the endgame for today’s high debt levels deflation or inflation? The answer is inflation. People with a 30-year fixed rate mortgage will always favor inflation over deflation. And there are more voters who owe mortgage debt than own mortgage debt. Chart 15Germany's Competitive Advantage Over The Rest Of The Euro Area Is Deteriorating Germany's Competitive Advantage Over The Rest Of The Euro Area Is Deteriorating Germany's Competitive Advantage Over The Rest Of The Euro Area Is Deteriorating Politics is moving in a more populist direction. Whether it is left-wing populism of the Elizabeth Warren/Jeremy Corbyn variety or right-wing populism of the Donald Trump/Matteo Salvini variety, the result is usually bigger budget deficits and higher inflation. Even in those countries where populism has been slow to take hold, there may be pragmatic reasons for loosening fiscal policy. For example, Germany’s trade surplus with the rest of the euro area has fallen in half since 2007, largely because German unit labor costs have increased more than elsewhere (Chart 15). As Germany loses its ability to ship excess production to the rest of the world, it may end up having to rely more on easier fiscal policy to bolster demand. Of course, the path to higher inflation is paved with interest rates that stay lower for much longer than the economy needs to reach full employment. This means we are entering a period where first the US economy, and then many other economies, will start to overheat, and yet central banks will still refrain from tightening monetary policy until inflation rises well above their comfort zones. Such an environment will be positive for stocks for as long as it lasts, even if it eventually produces a mighty hangover.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Box 1 When Does A Large Budget Deficit Lead To A Lower Government Debt-to-GDP Ratio?   The Debt Supercycle Endgame: Deflation Or Inflation? The Debt Supercycle Endgame: Deflation Or Inflation? Footnotes 1    Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2),” dated August 24, 2018. 2   This point can be seen through the lens of the widely used Solow growth model. In steady state, the desired level of investment in the model is given by the formula: I=(a/r)(n+g+d)Y where a denotes the output elasticity of capital, r is the real rate of interest, n is labor force growth, g is productivity growth, d is the depreciation rate, and Y is GDP. Savings is assumed to be a constant fraction of income, S=sY. Equating savings with investment yields: r=(a/s)(n+g+d). A decrease in the growth rate of the economy (n+g) shifts the investment schedule downward, leading to a lower equilibrium rate of interest. This initially makes investing in fixed capital more attractive than buying bonds. Over time, however, the marginal return on capital will fall as the capital stock expands in relation to GDP.    Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores The Debt Supercycle Endgame: Deflation Or Inflation? The Debt Supercycle Endgame: Deflation Or Inflation? Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Global High-Yield: The widening of US Caa-rated high-yield spreads is narrowly focused in Energy-related companies. The conditions for a spillover into the broader junk bond market (tight monetary policy, tightening lending standards & deteriorating corporate health) are not currently in place. Stay overweight high-yield in both the US and euro area, where Caa-rated spreads have also widened. Australia: A sluggish economy and soggy inflation, with little evidence of an imminent turnaround, imply that the Reserve Bank of Australia may not be done with its rate cutting cycle. Maintain an overweight stance on Australian sovereign debt relative to global benchmarks. Feature There’s Nothing To “Caa” Here The clouds of pessimism on global growth, and financial markets, continue to slowly dissipate. The global manufacturing PMI has clearly bottomed, our rising global leading economic indicator is signaling more upside for the first half of 2020, equity markets worldwide are grinding higher, volatility is subdued, while corporate credit spreads in the US and Europe remain generally tight. Yet within the corporate bond market, a peculiar dynamic has emerged. We do not see a reason to extrapolate the weakness in lower-rated US junk bonds into a broader macro issue for the corporate bond market, and the US economy. The option-adjusted spread (OAS) for the overall Bloomberg Barclays US high-yield (HY) index now sits at 376bps. While this spread is relatively narrow from a longer-term perspective, investors may have become more discerning about credit risk. Lower-rated HY has dramatically underperformed higher-rated HY debt of late, with the US Caa-rated OAS now sitting at 985bps compared to Ba-rated spreads of 196bps (Chart of the Week). The divergence across credit tiers is unprecedented, in that Caa spreads are widening while Ba spreads are narrowing – typically, spreads move in tandem directionally, both in bull and bear markets for US junk bonds. The widening of US Caa-rated junk bond spreads has started to raise concerns that this is a “canary in the coal mine” signaling future financial stress among US corporate borrowers. Yet the same dynamic is occurring in euro area HY, with Caa-rated and Ba-rated spreads tracking the US on an almost tick-for-tick basis. In a report published yesterday, our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy investigated the history of Caa spread widenings dating back to 1996.1 They noted that Caa spread widening has typically been a good predictor of one-year-ahead negative excess returns for the overall US junk bond index. However, there has never been a period like today where Caa spreads have widened while overall HY spreads have remained stable. Chart of the WeekSome Odd Divergences In Global Credit Some Odd Divergences In Global Credit Some Odd Divergences In Global Credit We do not see a reason to extrapolate the weakness in lower-rated US junk bonds into a broader macro issue for the corporate bond market, and the US economy, for two main reasons: Chart 2Lower Energy Prices Hurt Lower Rated US HY Lower Energy Prices Hurt Lower Rated US HY Lower Energy Prices Hurt Lower Rated US HY 1) The widening is focused on Energy related debt The widening of US Caa-rated spreads in 2019 has occurred alongside a parallel increase in the spreads of Energy-related companies in the US junk bond universe (Chart 2). A similar trend played out during the 2014/15 HY bear phase, which was triggered by the collapse of world oil prices that ravaged the US shale oil industry which dominated the lower-rated tiers of the junk bond market. In 2019, oil prices have declined, although not as dramatically, and HY Energy spreads have widened but to nowhere near the levels seen five years ago. More importantly, non-Energy junk spreads remain very subdued and stable, unlike the case in 2014/15 (bottom panel). When looking at the 2019 year-to-date excess returns for the Bloomberg Barclays US HY index, it is clear that the overall negative returns for the Caa-rated bucket have been driven by the lagging performance of Energy names (Chart 3). The rest of the market has generally been delivering solid excess returns. Chart 3Contribution To 2019 YTD US HY Excess Returns* The Lowdown On Low-Rated High-Yield The Lowdown On Low-Rated High-Yield 2) The widening has not been confirmed by signals from other reliable credit cycle indicators We believe that, from a top-down macro perspective, corporate credit performance in the US is influenced by three main factors: the state of US corporate health, the stance of the Fed’s monetary policy and the trend in lending standards for US banks. We have dubbed this our “Credit Checklist”, and we present a version of that checklist for US high-yield in Chart 4. Chart 4Conditions Not In Place For A Broad US HY Selloff Conditions Not In Place For A Broad US HY Selloff Conditions Not In Place For A Broad US HY Selloff Our “bottom-up” US HY Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) aggregates, for a sample set of US HY issuers, published financial ratios that are typically used to determine the creditworthiness of borrowers – measures like interest coverage, operating margins and leverage. The US HY CHM is currently at a “neutral” reading (2nd panel), unlike past periods where Caa-rated spreads widened sharply: during the early 2000s telecom bust, the 2008 Financial Crisis and the 2014/15 collapse in oil prices. The readings for the three components of our US HY Credit Checklist are all at neutral levels, suggesting that there is no fundamental underpinning at the moment for a sustained increase in US HY spreads. Yet another reason why the latest widening of Caa-rated spreads looks unusual. Turning to measures of the stance of US monetary policy, we look at both the slope of the US Treasury curve (2-year vs 10-year) and the gap between the real fed funds rate and the New York Fed’s estimate of the neutral “r-star” rate. Prior to the early 2000s and 2008 blowout in Caa spreads, the Fed had pushed the real funds rate into restrictive territory above r-star, and the Treasury curve subsequently inverted. That was not the case during the 2014/15 Caa widening, as the Fed was only beginning to transition away from its QE/zero-rate era at that time. Currently, the real funds rate is right at r-star, and the Treasury curve is very flat but not inverted, indicating a broadly neutral monetary policy stance. Finally, we look at data from the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey to evaluate lending standards for US banks. On that front, the latest reading on standards for commercial and industrial loans showed a very modest tightening in the third quarter of 2019, but the overall level remains broadly neutral – unlike the sharp tightening of conditions seen in the early 2000s and 2008 (and the modest tightening in 2014/15). The readings for the three components of our US HY Credit Checklist are all at neutral levels, suggesting that there is no fundamental underpinning at the moment for a sustained increase in US HY spreads. Yet another reason why the latest widening of Caa-rated spreads looks unusual, rather than a sign of future stress in US credit markets. We even see a similar dynamic at work in the euro area. In Chart 5, we present a Credit Checklist for euro area HY, using the same indicators that go into our US HY Credit Checklist. The readings here are even more positive for corporate credit performance than in the US. Our euro area bottom-up HY CHM is showing no deterioration of euro area corporate health, the real ECB policy rate is well below the estimate of r-star, the German yield curve is not inverted and the ECB’s survey of euro area bank lending standards showed a modest easing in the third quarter. Just like in the US, the fundamental backdrop does not argue for a sustained period of euro area HY spread widening, making the latest move higher in euro area Caa spreads as unusual as the move in US Caa. We cannot even blame lower oil prices for the spread widening, as Energy represents only a tiny fraction of the euro area HY market, compared to the large weighting of Energy borrowers in the US junk bond universe. Chart 5Conditions Not In Place For A Broad European HY Selloff Conditions Not In Place For A Broad European HY Selloff Conditions Not In Place For A Broad European HY Selloff We suspect that the correlation between US and euro area HY spreads, by credit tier, has more to do with the increased correlation of trading within global credit markets. Or perhaps it is a sign of investors staying cautious and staying up in quality, even within the riskier HY market. Whatever the reason, we see little fundamental reason to expect the widening of Caa-rated spreads to leak into the broader high-yield market. In fact, if oil prices begin to move higher again, as our commodity strategists are expecting for 2020, that might create a tactical buying opportunity in Caa-rated junk bonds in both the US and euro area. In the meantime, we see no reason to change our recommended overweight stance on US and euro area HY corporate bonds, even with the widening of lower-rated spreads. Bottom Line: The recent widening of US Caa-rated high-yield spreads is narrowly focused in Energy-related companies. The conditions for a spillover into the broader junk bond market (tight monetary policy, tightening lending standards & deteriorating corporate health) are not currently in place. Stay overweight high-yield in both the US and euro area, where Caa-rated spreads have also widened. Australia: The RBA May Not Be Done Yet The rally in Australian government bonds has been driven by the dovish policy response from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to weak economic growth and tepid inflation – a backdrop that is showing little sign of reversing quickly. We have maintained a recommended overweight investment stance on Australian government bonds since December 19, 2017. Since then, the yield on Bloomberg Barclays Australian Treasury index has declined by -140bps, sharply outperforming bonds in the other developed markets and ending Australia’s long-time status as a “high-yielding” developed economy bond market (Chart 6). The rally in Australian government bonds has been driven by the dovish policy response from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to weak economic growth and tepid inflation – a backdrop that is showing little sign of reversing quickly. The central bank has already cut interest rates by 75bps this year, taking the Cash Rate down to a record low of 0.75%. At the November 5th monetary policy meeting, the RBA held off on additional easing but still delivered what was perceived by the market to be a dovish surprise, emphasizing persistently below-target inflation and potential downside risks stemming from the housing market. The door was kept wide open for further rate cuts, if necessary. RBA Governor Philip Lowe has even discussed the possibility that the RBA may have to cut rates to the zero bound and start buying assets via quantitative easing to try and restore inflation back to the midpoint of the RBA’s 2-3% target band. Chart 6Australian Bonds Have Outperformed Sharply Australian Bonds Have Outperformed Sharply Australian Bonds Have Outperformed Sharply   The RBA’s dovishness is justified, given sluggish economic growth and tepid inflation. Real GDP growth slowed sharply in the first half of 2019 to a meager 1.4% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 7). Consumer sentiment and business confidence remain depressed, having both declined since the start of the year. The former is being hit by weak house prices and sub-par income growth, while the latter is suffering under the weight of weaker demand from Australia’s most important trade partner, China. In addition, persistent drought conditions in much of the country have pushed up food prices and brought down incomes related to the farming sector. Chart 7Sluggish Australian Domestic Demand Sluggish Australian Domestic Demand Sluggish Australian Domestic Demand Chart 8From Boom To Bust In Australian Housing From Boom To Bust In Australian Housing From Boom To Bust In Australian Housing A bellwether for the Australian economy, the housing market, has not fared much better (Chart 8). Building approvals for new dwelling units have fallen almost 20% since September of last year, while house prices in the major cities have been contracting since the fourth quarter of 2017. Responding to easy financial conditions in Australia and the rest of the world, the standard variable mortgage rate has now fallen to a 60-year low. It remains to be seen how quickly the housing market will turn around and when that, in turn, will lift dwelling investment, but the RBA cuts in 2019 should give a bit of a lift to Australian housing in 2020. As in other developed markets, trade uncertainty and fears of a recession have made Australian firms more hesitant to invest. Real private business investment is now falling in year-over-year terms, even with the boost to the terms of trade (and corporate profits) from the increase in prices for Australia’s most important commodities seen in 2019 (Chart 9). That impact may be starting to fade, however. The price for iron ore – a major Australian commodity export – has already fallen 28% from the 2019 peak. In addition, Chinese iron ore imports from Australia are contracting in year-over-terms, even with Chinese growth starting to show signs of stabilization in response to stimulus measures implemented earlier this year. Those is an ominous signal for Australian growth, given the massive swing in net exports seen this year. Chart 9Terms Of Trade Turning Negative For Australian Capex Terms Of Trade Turning Negative For Australian Capex Terms Of Trade Turning Negative For Australian Capex Chart 10An Unsustainable Lift From Net Exports An Unsustainable Lift From Net Exports An Unsustainable Lift From Net Exports Driven by the persistent depreciation of the Australian dollar, and supportive terms of trade, the Australian trade balance has reached its highest value as a percent of nominal GDP (3.7%) since 1959, when quarterly data began (Chart 10). The surge has come almost entirely from the export side, occurring alongside the boost to commodity prices that was concentrated in iron ore, and looks both unsustainable and unrepeatable on a rate-of-change basis. Slowing Australian economic momentum has also impacted the labor market. Employment growth is slowing and the unemployment rate has ticked up to 5.3% from a cyclical low of 5% in February 2019 (Chart 11). The so-called “underemployment rate”, is a much higher 8.5%, indicating that there is still ample slack in the Australian labor market as workers are working fewer hours than they wish (and are hence, “underemployed”). The underemployment rate is negatively correlated to wage growth, suggesting that the modest upturn in the latter seen since the end of 2016 is likely to cool off (bottom panel). Chart 11Some Softening In The Australian Labor Market Some Softening In The Australian Labor Market Some Softening In The Australian Labor Market Chart 12Australian Inflation Remains Subdued Australian Inflation Remains Subdued Australian Inflation Remains Subdued The RBA has already warned that wage growth expectations may have become anchored at a lower level given the anemic growth over the past several years. That mirrors the trend seen in overall price inflation. Headline CPI inflation was only 1.6% in the third quarter of 2019, as was the “trimmed mean” CPI inflation rate that is favored by the RBA. Both are below the bottom end of the RBA’s target range of 2-3%, as are survey-based expectations of short-term inflation (Chart 12). The previously mentioned drought conditions have put some upward pressure on overall inflation via grocery food prices, but that is expected to be transitory. With depressed house prices and ongoing issues with spare capacity in the labor market, longer-term market-based inflation expectations, captured by the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate, have dipped below the 2% level. The combination of weakening growth and soggy inflation poses a problem for the RBA, as it tries to use monetary policy tools to reverse those trends at a time when Australian banks have seen an unprecedented level of scrutiny of their lending practices. Australian banks have been under the harsh political spotlight after the government’s Royal Commission on misconduct in the financial industry released its findings back in February of this year. Many banks were exposed for serious violations, including money laundering and “improperly” selling financial products to households. Several top bank executives lost their jobs as a result, with the overall industry duly chastised and humbled.  Australian banks remain well capitalized, following the path of most developed market banks in response to the Basel III reforms, while non-performing loans remain modest. Yet the risk moving forward is that Australian banks become more prudent in their lending practices after the public “flogging” they received this year, which may impair the transmission mechanism from low RBA policy rates to increased loan growth - and, eventually, faster economic activity. Already, private credit growth has slowed sharply, with the sharpest declines coming for housing and business lending (Chart 13). Investment implications for Australian bonds In the case of Australia, however, the underlying economy and inflation trends still point to a possibility that the RBA will have to ease again sometime in the next few months – a move that is unlikely to be matched in the other major developed markets. This likely means that Australian government bonds can continue to outperform in 2020. Despite signs that the global economy is starting to bottom out after the 2019 downturn, the momentum in Australian economic growth and inflation remains tepid. This suggests that Australian sovereign debt is likely to continue outperforming global peers on a relative basis over the next 6-12 months. Our RBA Monitor continues to signal that more interest rate cuts from the RBA are needed. Yet the Australian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve now discounts only 19bps of rate cuts over the next year (Chart 14). This mirrors the trend seen in other developed interest rate markets, as investors have shifted to pricing out the dovish policy expectations as global growth starts to improve. Chart 13Weakening Loan Demand, But No Credit Crunch Weakening Loan Demand, But No Credit Crunch Weakening Loan Demand, But No Credit Crunch Chart 14Stay Overweight Australian Government Bonds Stay Overweight Australian Government Bonds Stay Overweight Australian Government Bonds In the case of Australia, however, the underlying economy and inflation trends still point to a possibility that the RBA will have to ease again sometime in the next few months – a move that is unlikely to be matched in the other major developed markets. This likely means that Australian government bonds can continue to outperform in 2020. We advise staying strategically overweight Australian government bonds in global fixed income portfolios. Bottom Line: A sluggish economy and soggy inflation, with little evidence of an imminent turnaround, imply that the Reserve Bank of Australia may not be done with its rate cutting cycle. Maintain an overweight stance on Australian sovereign debt relative to global benchmarks.     Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Lowdown On Low-Rated High-Yield The Lowdown On Low-Rated High-Yield Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Building on a previous special report focused on the investable market, in this report we construct and present models designed to predict the odds of Chinese domestic equity sector outperformance. BCA Research's China Investment Strategy service will aim to use our newly developed sector outperformance probability models to better understand the drivers of performance at any given moment, and to make more active equity sector recommendations in the future. Episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) than has been the case for the investable market, suggesting that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. Among the predictors included in our model, our Li Keqiang leading indicator (based on monetary conditions, money, and credit growth) has been the most important. Our base case view argues in favor of domestic cyclicals over defensives over the coming year, but recent sector performance suggests that domestic consumer discretionary and tech should be favored within a cyclical equity portfolio over energy, materials, and industrials barring a surge in oil prices or a capitulation by Chinese policymakers in favor of “flood irrigation-style” stimulus. Over the long-term, we argue that investors have a good reason to favor domestic defensives over cyclicals until the latter demonstrates meaningfully better earnings performance. Feature We examined China’s investable equity sector performance in detail in our October 30 Special Report,1 with a particular emphasis on understanding the specific macroeconomic or equity market factors that have historically predicted relative sector performance. In today’s report, we extend our approach to China’s A-share market. Our research focused on constructing and presenting models that quantify a checklist-based approach to determining the odds of equity sector performance. The aim is to use these models to better understand the drivers of performance at any given moment, and to make more active equity sector recommendations in the future. These recommendations will not mechanically follow the models; rather, we plan to use them as a stand in for what typically would be expected given the macro and financial market environment, and as a basis to investigate “abnormal” relative performance. We find that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) that has been the case for the investable market, suggesting that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. Among the macroeconomic and equity market factors that we found to be important predictors, our Li Keqiang leading indicator was the most significant. This confirms that China’s domestic market is more sensitive to monetary conditions, money, and credit growth than its investable peer. We also note the sharp difference in the relative performance of cyclicals versus defensives in the domestic market compared with the investable market, and what this means for investors over the coming 6-12 months. Finally, we argue that investors should maintain a structural bias towards defensive stocks in the domestic market until cyclicals demonstrate meaningfully better earnings performance, and point to an existing position in our trade book for investors interested in strategically allocating to the A-share market. Detailing Our Approach In our effort to better understand historical periods of domestic sector performance, we have chosen to model the probability of outperformance of each level 1 GICS sector (plus banks) based on a set of macro and equity market variables. Specifically, we use an analytical tool called a logistic regression, which forecasts the probability of a discrete event rather than forecasting the value of a dependent variable. We utilized this approach when building our earnings recession model for China (first presented in our January 16 Special Report).2 The “events” that we modeled are historical periods of individual Chinese investable sector outperformance from 2010 to 2018, relative to the MSCI China index (the “broad market”). We find that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) than has been the case for the investable market. Chart I-1A and Chart I-1B illustrate these periods with shading in each panel. We then attempt to explain these episodes of outperformance with the following macro predictors: Chart I-1AThis Report Builds Models ##br##Aimed At... Chart 1A This Report Builds Models Aimed At… This Report Builds Models Aimed At… Chart I-1B...Predicting The Shaded Regions Of These Charts Chart IB …Predicting The Shaded Regions Of These Charts …Predicting The Shaded Regions Of These Charts Periods of accelerating economic activity, represented by our BCA's China Activity Index Periods of rising leading indicators of economic activity, represented by our BCA Li Keqiang (LKI) Leading Indicator Episodes of tight monetary policy, defined as periods where China’s 3-month interbank repo rate is rising Periods of accelerating inflation, measured both by headline and core inflation We also include several equity market variables: uptrends in relative sector earnings, periods of rising broad market stock prices, uptrends in broad market earnings, and episodes of extreme technical conditions and relative over/undervaluation for the sector in question. In the case of energy stocks, we also include oil prices as a predictor. Chart I-2A and Chart I-2B illustrate these periods as well as the macro & market variables that we have included as predictors. Chart I-2AWe Use These Macroeconomic And Equity Market Factors... Chart 2A We Use These Macroeconomic And Equity Market Factors… We Use These Macroeconomic And Equity Market Factors… Chart I-2B...To Predict Periods Of Equity Sector Outperformance Chart 2B …To Predict Periods Of Equity Sector Outperformance …To Predict Periods Of Equity Sector Outperformance Our approach also accounts for the existence of any leading or lagging relationships between the macro and market variables we have used as predictors and sector relative performance. In most cases the predictors lead relative sector performance, but in some cases it is the opposite. In the case of the latter, we have limited the lead of any variable in our models to three months in order to reduce the need to forecast. Finally, our approach also limits the extent to which we consider a leading relationship between our predictors and relative sector performance, in order to avoid picking up overlapping economic cycles. This issue, and the evidence supporting the existence of a 3½-year credit cycle in China, is detailed in Box I-1 of our October 30 Special Report (please see footnote 1). Key Drivers Of Sector Performance: Domestic Versus Investable Pages 11-22 present the results of each sector’s outperformance probability model, along with a list of factors that were found to be useful predictors and a summary of the results. The importance of the factors included in the models is shown in each of the tables at the top right of pages 11-22 by a score of 1-3 stars, (loosely representing key levels of statistical significance) as well as each factor’s optimal lead or lag. A minus sign shows that the predictor leads sector relative performance, whereas a plus sign shows that it lags. Following a review of our domestic equity sector outperformance models, differences in the results from those presented in our previous report can be organized into three distinct elements: 1) the breadth of macro & equity market factors in predicting sector performance, 2) the relative importance of our LKI leading indicator, and 3) the difference between domestic/investable cyclical versus defensive performance. The Breath Of Predictive Factors Chart I-3In The Domestic Market, The Breadth Of Predictive Factors Is Narrower Chart 3 In The Domestic Market, The Breadth Of Predictive Factors Is Narrower In The Domestic Market, The Breadth Of Predictive Factors Is Narrower Compared with the models for investible sector performance that we detailed in our previous report, our work modeling domestic equity sector performance highlights that the breadth of predictive factors is narrower, particularly among cyclical sectors (Chart I-3). Our model for domestic materials (shown on page 12) is one exception to this rule, but we found that our models for energy, industrial, and consumer discretionary relative performance were all focused on fewer predictors than is the case for the investable market. In addition, our domestic utilities model has considerably worse predictive power than our model for investable utilities. The case of industrials is particularly notable: our model for investable industrials highlighted the importance of tight monetary policy, rising core inflation, rising broad market stock prices & earnings, and overbought and oversold technical conditions in explaining past periods of industrial sector outperformance. By contrast, our domestic industrials model is quite simple: the sector has been more likely to outperform, with a lag, when our BCA China Activity Index and LKI leading indicator have been rising, and underperform following periods of extreme overvaluation. One of the core conclusions of our previous report was that investors should view the relative performance of investable industrials versus consumer staples as a reflationary barometer, given the strong sensitivity of both sectors to tight monetary policy. We explained this sensitivity by pointing to the substantial difference in corporate health between the two sectors: industrial firms are heavily debt-laden and thus experience deteriorating operating performance and an environment of rising interest rates. In comparison, food and beverage firms appear to have the strongest balance sheets among the sub-sectors that we have examined, suggesting that they would benefit less from easier monetary conditions than firms in other industries. Our leading indicator for Chinese economic activity has been considerably more important in predicting domestic equity sector outperformance than in the investable market. However, these dynamics appear to be completely absent in influencing performance in China’s domestic equity market. Not only has domestic industrial sector relative performance not been negatively linked to periods of tight monetary policy, but our model for consumer staples (shown on page 15) highlights that periods of staples performance have been driven by two simple factors: the relative trend in staples EPS  (positive sign), and the trend in broad market EPS (negative sign). The Relative Importance Of Monetary Conditions, Money, And Credit Growth Chart I-4 summarizes the significance of the factors in predicting sector performance in general, by summing up each predictor’s number of stars across all of the models. The chart shows that our LKI leading indicator is the most important signal of sector performance that emerged from our analysis, followed by rising core inflation, rising broad market stock prices, rising economic activity, and oversold technical conditions. The ranking of results shown in Chart I-4 is fairly similar to those that we listed for the investable market, with two exceptions. First, for the domestic market, periods of tight monetary policy were considerably less important than in the investable market as an important predictor of relative sector performance. Instead, our LKI leading indicator was by far the most important predictor, which underscores a point that we have made in previous reports: domestic stocks appear to be much more sensitive to the trend in monetary conditions, money, and credit growth than for the investable market. This increased sensitivity has helped explain the difference in performance this year between the investable and domestic market, underscoring that the former has more catch-up potential than the latter in a trade truce scenario. Chart I-4Monetary Conditions, Money, & Credit Growth Drive A-Share Performance Chart 4 Monetary Conditions, Money, & Credit Growth Drive A-Share Performance Monetary Conditions, Money, & Credit Growth Drive A-Share Performance Second, in the investable market, episodes of significant overvaluation had essentially no power to predict future episodes of equity market underperformance. But this factor was an important or very important contributor to our domestic industrials, health care, and tech models. This finding is consistent with our May 23 Special Report, which noted that value stocks have outperformed in China’s domestic equity market over the past five years and underperformed in the investable market (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Value Has Been A More Successful ##br##Factor In The Domestic Market Chart 5 Value Has Been A More Successful Factor In The Domestic Market Value Has Been A More Successful Factor In The Domestic Market   Major Differences In The Performance Of Cyclicals Versus Defensives The results of our models for domestic equity sector performance did not change the cyclical & defensive labels that we applied in our previous report. The signs of the predictors shown in the tables on pages 11-22 clearly highlight that the domestic energy, materials, industrials consumer discretionary, and information technology sectors are cyclical sectors, and that consumer staples, health care, financials, telecom services, utilities, and real estate are defensive. What is striking, however, is that there is a major difference in the relative performance of equally-weighted domestic cyclicals versus defensives compared with what has occurred in the investable market over the past decade. Chart I-6A and Chart I-6B illustrate the different relative performance trends, along with their corresponding trends in relative P/E and relative EPS. Whereas the relative performance of investable cyclicals versus defensives has had somewhat of a stable mean over the past decade, domestic cyclicals have badly underperformed since early-2011. The charts also make it clear that this underperformance has been driven by a downtrend in relative EPS, not due to trend differences in relative valuation. Chart I-6ACyclicals/Defensives Somewhat Mean-Reverting In The Investable Market... Chart 6A Cyclicals/Defensives Somewhat Mean-Reverting In The Investable Market… Cyclicals/Defensives Somewhat Mean-Reverting In The Investable Market… Chart I-6B...But Not So In The Domestic##br## Market Chart 6B …But Not So In The Domestic Market …But Not So In The Domestic Market Digging further, it appears that this discrepancy can be largely explained by the significant difference in performance between investable and domestic tech over the past decade (Chart I-7). Whereas the former has outperformed the overall investable index by roughly 4-5 times since 2010, the relative performance of the latter has only very modestly risen. In effect, Charts I-6 and I-7 highlight that Chinese cyclical sectors have been structurally impaired over the past decade and have only been “saved” in the investable market by massive outsized outperformance of the tech sector. The fact that investable tech sector performance itself has been largely driven by 2 extremely successful firms underscores how narrowly based the investible cyclical versus defensives performance trend has been. Chart I-7A Huge Gap In Tech Explains Domestic Cyclical Underperformance Chart 7 A Huge Gap In Tech Explains Domestic Cyclical Underperformance A Huge Gap In Tech Explains Domestic Cyclical Underperformance Investment Conclusions There are three conclusions that investors can draw from our analysis. First, our research shows that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) that has been the case for the investable market. This does not mean that domestic sector performance is not significantly impacted by macro and top down equity market factors, but it suggests that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. As such, investors should be prepared to include episode-specific investigation of abnormal performance as a regular part of their domestic equity sector allocation decisions. Investors should favor domestic cyclicals over the coming year, with exposure focused on consumer discretionary and tech. Second, the fact that our LKI leading indicator is in an uptrend suggests that investors should favor domestic cyclicals over defensives over the coming year, with a caveat. We have noted in several previous reports that our indicator is in a shallow uptrend, and the slower pace of money and credit growth than during previous economic upswings suggests that the bar may be higher for some cyclical sectors to outperform. We would advise investors to watch closely over the coming 3-6 months for signs of a technical breakout in all cyclical sectors. But sector performance in Q1 of this year, when the overall A-share market rose sharply versus global stocks, suggests that domestic consumer discretionary and tech should be favored within a cyclical equity portfolio over energy, materials, and industrials barring a surge in oil prices or a capitulation by Chinese policymakers in favor of “flood irrigation-style” stimulus (Chart I-8). Within resources, we prefer the investable energy sector to its domestic peer, due to a sizeable valuation advantage. Chart I-8Favor Select Domestic Cyclical Sectors Over The Coming Year Chart 8 Favor Select Domestic Cyclical Sectors Over The Coming Year Favor Select Domestic Cyclical Sectors Over The Coming Year As a third and final point, abstracting from our bullish outlook for select cyclical sectors over the coming year, Charts 6 and 7 clearly argue for investors to maintain a structural bias towards defensive stocks in the domestic market until cyclicals demonstrate meaningfully better earnings performance. In the May 23 Special Report that we referred to above, we noted that an A-share portfolio formed of industry groups with above-median return on equity and below-median ex-post beta has significantly outperformed over the past decade. Table I-1 presents the current industry group weights of this portfolio, and shows that overweight exposure is concentrated in the health care, consumer staples, and real estate sectors (all of which are defensive), and a heavy underweight towards industrials. Table I-1Current High ROE / Low Beta Factor Industry Group Portfolio Weights* Table 1 Current High ROE / Low Beta Factor Industry Group Portfolio Weights* Current High ROE / Low Beta Factor Industry Group Portfolio Weights* For clients who are interested in strategically allocating to the A-share market, we maintain a long position in this portfolio relative to the MSCI China A Onshore index in our trade book, and plan to continue to update the performance of the trade on a weekly basis. Energy Chart II-1 Chart II-1 Energy Energy Table II-1 A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance Similar to the investable energy sector, periods of domestic energy sector outperformance are strongly positively related to rising oil prices and rising headline inflation in China. We noted in our previous report that this is a behavioral relationship, rather than a fundamental one. Domestic energy stocks are negatively associated with rising broad market stock prices, unlike their investable peers. This largely reflects the fact that the relative performance of domestic energy stocks has been in a structural downtrend over the past decade. From 2010 to mid-2016, this decline was caused by a persistent underperformance in earnings. Since mid-2016, domestic energy sector EPS have been rising in relative terms, meaning that more recent underperformance has been due to multiple contractions. While not as relatively cheap as their investable peers, domestic energy stocks are heavily discounted versus the broad domestic market based on both the price/earnings ratio and the dividend yield. Consequently, it is possible that domestic energy stocks may at some point begin to outperform in a rising broad equity market environment. For now, our model argues for an underweight stance towards domestic energy due to the lack of a clear uptrend in oil prices. As a pure value play, investable energy stocks maintain a dividend yield of nearly 6.5%, and are thus more attractive than their domestic peers. Materials Chart II-2 Chart II-2 Materials Materials Table II-2 A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance Our model for the domestic materials highlights that the sector’s performance has been related to strengthening economic activity and strongly related to a rising Li Keqiang leading indicator. Among the equity market variables that we tested, materials outperformance has been positively associated with rising relative EPS, rising broad market EPS, and prior oversold technical conditions. Similarly, the investable materials sector, these results show that domestic materials are a strong play on accelerating Chinese economic activity. The factors included in our domestic materials sector model are similar to those included in our investable material, except that relative material earnings have also been a significant predictor of sector relative performance. In addition, the macro & equity market predictors included in our domestic materials model have done a better job of leading material sector performance. The odds of domestic materials outperformance rose twice above the 50% mark this year according to our model, without any corresponding improvement in relative stock prices. The spikes in the model occurred largely because domestic materials became significantly oversold; technical conditions for the sector have only twice been weaker over the past decade. This underscores that investors should be watching domestic materials closely in Q1 of next year for signs of a relative rebound. Industrials Chart II-3 Chart II-3 Industrials Industrials Table II-3 A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance The results of our model for domestic industrial sector outperformance are interesting, as they imply that the drivers of performance are different between the domestic and investable markets. In the investable index, we found that industrials were heavily sensitive to monetary policy, rising core inflation, relative sector earnings, and periods of rising broad market stock prices. Our domestic model is considerably simpler: industrials outperform, with a lag, when our activity index and Li Keqiang leading indicator are rising. Periods of strong overvaluation have also been significant in predicting future episodes of domestic industrial sector underperformance. It is not clear to us why the drivers of relative performance for domestic industrials have been different than in the investable equity index, But the good news is that the relative simplicity of the model makes the investment decision making process for domestic industrials considerably easier. Today, domestic industrials are significantly undervalued, and our Li Keqiang leading indicator is in a shallow uptrend. This suggests that domestic industrials are likely to begin outperforming at some point in early-2020 following a bottoming in Chinese economic activity, unless policymakers are quick to tighten once activity begins to improve (which would be contrary to our expectations). Consumer Discretionary Chart II-4 Chart II-4 Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Table II-4 A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance Our domestic consumer discretionary model highlights that the sector’s relative performance is positively associated with a rising Li Keqiang leading indicator, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Similar to its investable peers, domestic consumer discretionary stocks are cyclical, and positive relationship with core inflation may reflect improved pricing power for the sector. Unlike investable consumer discretionary, the domestic consumer discretionary has not been meaningfully impacted by the December 2018 changes to the global industry classification standard. Hence, our model does not exclude the internet & direct marketing retail sector as we did in our previous report on investable sectors. For now, our model suggests that the domestic consumer discretionary sector is likely to continue to underperform, given decelerating core inflation and the lack of a clear uptrend in the broad domestic equity index. However, as a cyclical sector, we will be watching closely for an upside breakout in domestic consumer discretionary performance in the first quarter as a signal to increase exposure to the sector. Consumer Staples Chart II-5 Chart II-5 Consumer Staples Consumer Staples Table II-5 A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance Our domestic consumer staples model is significantly different than that shown in our previous report for investable staples. This reflects sizeable differences in investable/domestic staples relative performance over the past decade, particularly from mid-2015 to late-2017 (where domestic staples outperformed significantly and investable staples languished). Of the two predictors found to be significant in explaining historical periods of domestic staples performance, a negative relationship with the trend in broad market EPS has been the most important. This underscores that staples are defensive sector. The trend in staples relative earnings has closely followed in importance, showing that the tremendous outperformance in domestic consumer staples over the past several years has, at least in part, been driven by fundamentals. Still, domestic consumer staples are currently priced at 34x earnings per share, compared with 15x for the overall domestic market. While our model currently argues for continued staples outperformance, the risk of a valuation mean reversion next year, against the backdrop of an improving economy, is above average. Over the coming 6-12 months, investors should be closely monitoring domestic staples for signs of waning earnings momentum and/or a major technical breakdown as potential signals to reduce domestic staples exposure. Health Care Chart II-6 Chart II-6 Health Care Health Care Table II-6 A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance Over the past decade, periods of domestic health care outperformance have been negatively associated with rising economic activity, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Oversold technical conditions and periods of overvaluation have also helped predict future episodes of health care relative performance. These factors clearly point to the defensive nature of domestic health care, similar to health care stocks in the investable index. However, one clear difference between investable and domestic health care is that the former appears to have leading properties and the latter does not. We noted in our previous report that periods of investable health care underperformance appeared to lead, on average, our BCA Activity Index, periods of rising core inflation, and uptrends in the broad investable index. By contrast, domestic health care lags the Activity Index and core inflation by just over a year, and also lags the trend in broad market EPS. Our model points to further health care outperformance, but we would expect domestic health care stocks to underperform at some point next year following an improvement in economic activity and a resumed uptrend in broad domestic EPS. Financials Chart II-7 Chart II-7 Financials Financials Table II-7 A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance Our outperformance probability model for domestic financials highlights that the sector is countercyclical: periods of outperformance have been negatively related to our LKI leading indicator, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Similar to the case of the investable index and unlike the case globally, financials are clearly defensive. Investable financials have exhibited atypical performance this year according to the model presented in our previous report. By contrast, domestic financials have performed in line with what our model has suggested: our LKI leading indicator is in a shallow uptrend, and the relative performance of domestic financials has trended flat-to-down since late-2018. Barring a major shift by the PBoC towards a hawkish stance in the coming year (which we do not expect), our base case view for the Chinese economy implies that domestic financials are likely to continue to underperform. Banks Chart II-8 Chart II-8 Banks Banks Table II-8 A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance Our model for domestic banks is similar to that of financials, with some important differences. In addition to being sensitive to our LKI leading indicator, domestic bank performance is negatively related to our Activity Index. Oversold technical conditions have also been quite important in predicting future episodes of domestic bank outperformance. The model is currently forecasting domestic bank underperformance, although it was late in predicting the selloff in bank stocks that began late last year. Similar to the case for domestic financials, our baseline view for the Chinese economy implies that domestic bank are likely to continue to underperform over the coming year. Information Technology Chart II-9 Information Technology Information Technology Table II-9 A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance Our model for the domestic technology sector is different than that of investable tech, which reflects the vast difference in performance between the two sectors. While the relative performance of domestic tech has trended sideways over the past decade, investable tech stock prices have risen fourfold relative to the broad investable index. This difference is largely accounted for by the absence of the BAT stocks (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent) from the domestic market. Similar to investable tech, domestic technology stocks are negatively related to tight monetary policy, and positively linked with a pro-cyclical economic variable (a rising LKI leading indicator). However, strangely, domestic tech has been strongly and negatively related to rising headline inflation, a finding with no clear fundamental basis. The model has been less successful in predicting domestic tech performance over the past year than in the past, which appears to be linked to the inclusion of headline inflation in the model. Rising headline inflation has been clearly associated with three major episodes of domestic tech underperformance since 2010, but over the past year domestic tech has outperformed as headline inflation accelerated. For now we would advise investors to focus on the other factors in the model: the lack of overvaluation, and our view that policy will remain easy on a measured basis, supports an overweight stance towards domestic tech over the coming year. Telecom Services Chart II-10 Telecom Services Telecom Services Table II-10 A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance Our domestic telecom services relative performance model highlights that the sector is defensive like its investable peer, but the factors driving performance are somewhat different. The only similarity between the two models is that periods of outperformance are negatively related to rising broad market stocks prices for both investable and domestic telecom services, with domestic telecom stocks responding with a lag. Among the macro factors included in the model, periods of domestic telecom services outperformance are negatively and coincidently related to our LKI leading indicator, and positively related to tight monetary policy (with a slight lead). Oversold technical conditions have also proven to help predict future episodes of outperformance. The model failed to predict a brief period of outperformance in mid-2018, but has generally accurately predicted underperformance of domestic telecom stocks since early-2017. Barring a collapse in the US/China trade talks or considerably weaker near-term economic conditions than we expect, domestic telecom services will likely continue to underperform until the specter of tighter monetary policy emerges. This is unlikely to occur until the middle of 2020, at the earliest. Utilities Chart II-11 Utilities Utilities Table II-11 A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance Overall, our domestic utilities model has considerably worse predictive power than our model for investable utilities. The model shows that the performance of domestic utilities is negatively related to rising core inflation (with a lag) and rising broad market EPS, but these relationships are not particularly strong. We noted in our June 19 Special Report that domestic utilities ranked highly on the impact that relative EPS had on predicting relative stock prices , yet relative sector earnings did not register as a significant predictor in our model. This apparent discrepancy is resolved by differences in the time horizon between these two approaches. The analysis that we presented in our June 19 Special Report examined the relationship between earnings and stock prices over the entire sample period (2011-2018), meaning that it examined the predictive power of earnings over the long-term. The models built in this report have focused strongly on explaining periods of outperformance over a 6-12 month time horizon, there have been enough deviations in the trend between the relative performance of utilities and relative utilities earnings that the relationship between the two was not sufficiently strong to show up in the model. In other words, the long-term link between utilities relative earnings and stock prices is strong, but the short-term link is fairly weak. Real Estate Chart II-12 Real Estate Real Estate Table II-12 A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance A Guide To Chinese Domestic Equity Sector Performance Similar to investable real estate, our model shows that domestic real estate is a counter-cyclical sector in that it is negatively related to periods of rising economic activity, a rising LKI leading indicator, tight monetary policy, and rising core inflation. Overbought technical conditions have also aided in predicting future episodes of domestic real estate underperformance. Our model for domestic real estate stocks has performed quite well on average, but its predictive success since late-2017 has been mixed. This period of atypical underperformance has coincided with a considerably weaker rebound in residential floor space sold than has occurred in previous recoveries in the real estate market. This suggests that domestic real estate stocks are more susceptible to trends in housing sales than their investable peers (which appear to be mostly sensitive to rising house prices). We noted in our November 6 Weekly Report that floor space sold is picking up , but it still remains weak when compared with history. This, in combination with our view that the Chinese economy will improve over the coming year, suggests that investors should avoid domestic real estate exposure relative to the overall domestic equity market. Footnotes 1  Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "A Guide To Chinese Investable Equity Sector Performance," dated October 30, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see China Investment Strategy "Six Questions About Chinese Stocks," dated January 16, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3  Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Chinese Equity Sector Earnings: Predictability, Cyclicality, And Relevance," dated June 19, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China Macro And Market Review," dated November 6, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations