Corporate Bonds

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

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

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

Highlights The Chinese economy slowed in May following two months of improvement, but the June PMI data suggests that the pace of decline is moderating. Still, the economy remains highly vulnerable in a full-tariff scenario. This weekend’s agreement to continue trade talks was a weaker result compared with what emerged from the G20 meeting in Argentina, and did not represent any real progress toward a final trade agreement that includes a substantial tariff rollback. Our 6-12 month investment outlook remains unchanged: Chinese stocks face potentially acute near-term risks, but are likely to outperform global stocks over the coming year as mounting economic weakness forces policymakers to overcome their reluctance to act and to ultimately stimulate as needed. Feature The Caixin PMI decline in June appears to have been preceded by the official PMI in May. No change in the latter in June is thus somewhat encouraging. Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, May’s activity data shows that the economy slowed following two months of improvement, which underscores that the budding, credit-driven recovery in China’s investment relevant economic activity remains in its infancy and is vulnerable to a further deterioration in external demand. The Caixin manufacturing PMI fell back below the 50 mark in June, but this appears to have simply confirmed the prior decline in the official PMI. June’s official PMI was flat on the month, which in combination with only a modest further decline in new export orders, implies that the May slowdown in activity noted above did not repeat itself in June (at least not in terms of magnitude) Table 1China Macro Data Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review Within financial markets, Chinese stocks actively outperformed the global benchmark over the past month as the latter rallied. The rally was in response to assurances from the PBoC about the capacity to ease further if needed, and the steadily rising odds over the course of the month that a new tariff ceasefire would be reached at the G20 meeting in Osaka. While this expectation was indeed validated, our view is that the agreement to continue talks was a weaker result compared with what emerged from the G20 meeting in Argentina, and did not represent any real progress toward a final trade agreement that includes a substantial tariff rollback. As such, our 6-12 month investment outlook remains unchanged: Chinese stocks face potentially acute near-term risks, but are likely to outperform global stocks over the coming year as mounting economic weakness forces policymakers to overcome their reluctance to act and to ultimately stimulate as needed. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide below several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1A Sharp Decline In Electricity Production A Sharp Decline In Electricity Production A Sharp Decline In Electricity Production China’s economy slowed in May according to the Bloomberg Li Keqiang index, after having picked up for two months in a row. While both electricity production and rail cargo volume fell in May, the former fell sharply, almost into negative territory (Chart 1). This underscores that the budding, credit-driven recovery in China’s investment relevant economic activity remains in its infancy, and that economic activity is set to deteriorate meaningfully in a full-tariff scenario. Our LKI leading indicator rose modestly in May, with all six components showing an improvement. Still, the uptrend in the indicator is slight, and is being held back by the money supply components, particularly the growth in M2. Much stronger money & credit growth will be required if Chinese economic activity relapses and no deal to end U.S. import tariffs has occurred, but policymakers are likely to be reactive rather than proactive in this regard. The picture painted by China’s housing data continues to be a story of weak housing demand arrayed against seemingly strong housing construction and stable growth in house prices. However, we noted in a May 9 joint Special Report with our Emerging Market Strategy service that the strength observed in floor space started over the past year reflected a funding strategy by cash-strapped real estate developers.1 Launching new projects aggressively last year – i.e., more property starts – allowed real estate developers to pre-sell property units in order to raise cash in a tight credit environment. On the demand side, the annual change in the PBOC’s pledged supplementary lending injection has strongly predicted floor space sold over the past four years; it remains deeply in negative territory and our measure declined in May for the 8th month in a row. Given that housing construction cannot sustainably decouple from housing demand, we expect floor space started to slow meaningfully over the coming several months absent a major pickup in housing sales. Chart 2The Flat Official PMI In June Is Somewhat Encouraging The Flat Official PMI In June Is Somewhat Encouraging The Flat Official PMI In June Is Somewhat Encouraging The Caixin manufacturing PMI fell back below the 50 mark in June, but this appears to have simply confirmed the prior decline in the official PMI (Chart 2). The official PMI was flat in June with only a modest further decline in new export orders, which implies that the May slowdown in activity noted above did not repeat itself in June, at least not in terms of magnitude. Chinese stocks have rallied 8-9% over the past month in U.S. dollar terms, outpacing the EM and global equity benchmarks. The rally initially followed comments from Governor Yi Gang that the PBoC had “tremendous” room to ease monetary policy if needed, and was sustained by expectations later in the month of a second tariff truce emerging from the G20 meeting in Osaka. For China-exposed investors, the issue is not whether Chinese policymakers have the capacity to support China’s economy, but rather the willingness to ease materially. From our perspective, the renewal of trade talks with the U.S. does not represent material progress towards the ultimate removal of tariffs. But the existence of talks is likely to give Chinese authorities a reason (for now) to avoid aggressively stimulating the economy, meaning that our 6-12 month investment outlook remains unchanged. Chart 3The BAT Stocks Will Outperform China If Chinese Stocks Outperform Global The BAT Stocks Will Outperform China If Chinese Stocks Outperform Global The BAT Stocks Will Outperform China If Chinese Stocks Outperform Global The significant outperformance of the investable consumer discretionary has been the most meaningful equity sector development over the past month. We have noted in past reports that changes last December to the global industry classification standard (GICS) mean that trends in investable consumer discretionary are now largely driven by Alibaba’s stock price, and Chart 3 highlights that the BAT stocks (Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent) have indeed risen relative to the overall investable index. We noted in last month’s macro & market review that investors appeared to be wrongly conflating the risks facing Huawei (U.S. supply chain reliance) with those facing the BATs (the outlook for Chinese consumer spending), and the outperformance of the latter over the past month, as expectations mounted of another tariff truce emerging from the G20, would appear to validate this view. This implies that the outlook for the relative performance of the BATs versus the Chinese equity benchmark is likely to be the same as that of Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark: near-term risk, but likely to outperform over a 6-12 month time horizon. Chinese interbank rates fell over the past month, in response to an injection of liquidity by the PBoC following the collapse and takeover of Baoshang bank. The event marked the first takeover of a commercial bank in China since 1998, and has been described by authorities as an isolated event that was caused, in part, by the illegal use of bank funds. Market participants have clearly been concerned that Baoshang is not an isolated event; China’s 3-month interbank repo rate rose nearly 60bps from early-April to mid-June, and the PBoC’s response was intended to help prevent a significant tightening in credit conditions for China’s smaller lenders. While bad debt concerns have clearly impacted the interbank market over the past several weeks, there has been little impact on China’s onshore corporate bond market (Chart 4). Spreads on bonds rated AA+ did rise meaningfully in June, but have since nearly returned to late-May levels. We continue to recommend an overweight stance towards Chinese onshore corporate bonds, on the basis that market participants are pricing in a much higher default rate than we expect over the coming 6-12 months. The risk to Hong Kong is not the stability of the peg, but the impact of higher interest rates on an extremely leveraged economy. Chart 4The Onshore Corporate Bond Market Is Not Concerned By The Baoshang Takeover The Onshore Corporate Bond Market Is Not Concerned By The Baoshang Takeover The Onshore Corporate Bond Market Is Not Concerned By The Baoshang Takeover Chart 5HKD Strength Reflects More Than Just Falling U.S. Rate Expectations HKD Strength Reflects More Than Just Falling U.S. Rate Expectations HKD Strength Reflects More Than Just Falling U.S. Rate Expectations The Hong Kong dollar has strengthened significantly over the past month, with USD-HKD having retreated to the midpoint of its band. This has occurred in part because of declining U.S. interest rate expectations, but also because of a sharp rise in 3-month HIBOR versus the base rate (Chart 5). The strengthening in HIBOR seems linked to the anti-extradition bill protests, implying that HKD has strengthened due to anti-capital flight measures by the HKMA. We see no major risk to the currency peg at the moment, but discussed the negative implications of higher interest rates in Hong Kong on the region’s property market and share prices in last week’s joint report with our Emerging Market Strategy service.2   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China’s Property Market: Making Sense Of Divergences”, dated May 9, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Hong Kong’s Currency Peg: Truths And Misconceptions”, dated June 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Corporate Spreads: The Fed’s dovish pivot prolongs the period of time before the yield curve inverts, thus extending the window for corporate bond outperformance. Investors should remain overweight corporate bonds, with a preference for securities rated Baa and below, where spreads remain wide relative to our fair value estimates. Yield Curve: Investors should barbell their U.S. bond portfolios, favoring long-maturity (> 10 years) and short-maturity (< 2 years) securities while avoiding the 5-year and 7-year notes. This positioning will boost average portfolio yield and will benefit from any future hawkish re-assessment of Fed policy. MBS: Lower mortgage rates have led to a jump in mortgage refinancings and wider MBS spreads. However, MBS spreads remain quite low compared to history. Maintain a neutral allocation to MBS in U.S. bond portfolios. Feature Last December, we laid out our key fixed income themes for 2019 in a Special Report.1 In that report we also introduced a framework for splitting the economic cycle into three phases based on the slope of the yield curve. Specifically, we use the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope to divide each cycle into the following three phases:2 Phase 1 runs from the end of the last recession until the 3/10 slope flattens to below 50 bps. Phase 2 encompasses the period when the 3/10 slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps. Phase 3 begins after the 3/10 slope inverts and ends at the start of the next recession. Clearly, as is illustrated in Chart 1, we are smack dab in the middle of a Phase 2 environment. This has implications for how we should think about positioning a U.S. bond portfolio. Chart 1Firmly In Phase 2 Firmly In Phase 2 Firmly In Phase 2 What Makes The Middle Phase Awkward? Table 1 shows annualized excess returns for Treasuries and corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) in each phase of every cycle stretching back to the mid-1970s. Treasury excess returns are calculated relative to cash, as a proxy for the returns from taking duration risk. Corporate excess returns are relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Table 1Bond Performance In Different Yield Curve Regimes The Long Awkward Middle Phase The Long Awkward Middle Phase A look at Table 1 reveals why we call Phase 2 the “awkward” middle phase of the cycle. The excess returns earned from taking both duration and corporate spread risk tend to be underwhelming. On duration, we observe that in three of the four complete cycles in our sample, Treasury excess returns are lowest in Phase 2. This lines up well with intuition. The flatter yield curve means that Treasuries offer a lower term premium in Phase 2 than in Phase 1. Meanwhile, Phase 3 periods tend to coincide with rapid Fed rate cuts, and thus large capital gains. Phase 2 periods, in contrast, often contain Fed tightening cycles. On corporate credit, we observe that excess returns tend to be lower in Phase 2 than in Phase 1, but are usually still positive. Returns tend not to turn consistently negative until after the 3/10 slope inverts and we enter Phase 3. Overall, if we know nothing other than that we are in Phase 2 of the cycle, our results suggest that we should take less duration risk in our portfolio than in Phases 1 or 3. Overall, if we know nothing other than that we are in Phase 2 of the cycle, our results suggest that we should take less duration risk in our portfolio than in Phases 1 or 3. The results also suggest that we should prefer corporate credit over Treasuries, though to a lesser extent than in Phase 1. What Makes The Middle Phase Long? In last December’s Special Report, we argued that the U.S. economy would remain in a Phase 2 environment for a long time, at least until late 2019. Our reasoning was that, in the absence of inflationary pressures, the Fed would be reluctant to tighten policy enough to invert the 3/10 curve. The Fed’s recent dovish pivot, and the resultant steepening of the curve (see Chart 1), only prolongs the current Phase 2 environment. We now think it will be well into 2020, and possibly later, before the 3/10 slope inverts and the economy enters Phase 3. One obvious investment implication of an extended Phase 2 environment is that we should remain overweight corporate bonds relative to duration-matched Treasuries. However, we also need to consider valuation before drawing too firm of a conclusion. Charts 2A and 2B show spreads for each corporate credit tier, encompassing both investment grade and high-yield, along with our spread targets. The spread targets are the median levels observed in prior Phase 2 environments, adjusted for changes in the average duration of the bond indexes over time.3 The charts reveal that Aaa-rated bonds already look expensive, while Aa and A-rated bonds are close to fairly valued. Baa-rated bonds are 13 bps cheap relative to our target, while the high-yield credit tiers offer significantly more value. Chart 2AInvestment Grade Spread Targets Investment Grade Spread Targets Investment Grade Spread Targets Chart 2BHigh-Yield Spread Targets High-Yield Spread Targets High-Yield Spread Targets As discussed in last week’s report, the Fed’s dovish pivot will cause corporate spreads to tighten in the near-term, but it will take longer before Treasury yields respond by moving higher.4 For Treasury yields to move higher, investors must first become convinced that the Fed’s reflationary efforts are translating into stronger global economic growth. Ultimately, we expect this will occur in the second half of this year and Treasury yields will be higher 12 months from now, as the Fed will fail to deliver the 92 bps of rate cuts that are currently priced. The flat yield curve means that the yield give-up is small, and we expect global growth to improve in the second half of the year. Bottom Line: The Fed’s dovish pivot prolongs the period of time before the yield curve inverts, thus extending the window for corporate bond outperformance. Investors should remain overweight corporate bonds, with a preference for securities rated Baa and below, where spreads remain wide relative to our fair value estimates. Investors should also keep portfolio duration low. The flat yield curve means that the yield give-up is small, and we expect global growth to improve in the second half of the year. Barbell Your Portfolio Chart 3Barbell Your Portfolio Barbell Your Portfolio Barbell Your Portfolio For those unwilling or unable to deviate portfolio duration significantly from benchmark, there is another way to bet on the Fed delivering fewer cuts than are currently priced into the market. Investors can run a barbelled portfolio, favoring short-maturity (< 2 years) and long-maturity (> 10 years) securities, while avoiding the belly (5-year/7-year) of the curve. This sort of positioning has a few advantages. First, since the financial crisis, the yield curve has tended to steepen out to the 5-year/7-year point and flatten beyond that point whenever our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter rises (Chart 3). Conversely, whenever the market prices in more cuts/fewer hikes and our discounter falls, the yield curve has flattened out to the 5-year/7-year maturity point and steepened beyond that point. This correlation has been very consistent during the past few years, and continued to hold during the most recent decline in rate expectations. Notice that the 5-year yield has fallen by more than either the 2-year or 10-year yields since our Discounter's early-November peak (Table 2). Table 2The Belly Of The Curve Is Most Sensitive To Rate Expectations The Long Awkward Middle Phase The Long Awkward Middle Phase The upshot is that, if rate expectations rise during the next 12 months, as we expect, the 5-year and 7-year notes will endure the most damage. The second reason why a barbelled portfolio makes sense is that valuation is very attractive. Chart 4 shows that the 5-year yield is below the yield on a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. It also shows that this 2/5/10 butterfly spread is very low relative to our model’s fair value.5  Chart 42/10 Barbell Is Attractive Versus 5-Year Bullet 2/10 Barbell Is Attractive Versus 5-Year Bullet 2/10 Barbell Is Attractive Versus 5-Year Bullet We run similar fair value models for every possible bullet/barbell combination along the yield curve, and barbells appear universally cheap (see Appendix). Bottom Line: Investors should barbell their U.S. bond portfolios, favoring long-maturity (> 10 years) and short-maturity (< 2 years) securities while avoiding the 5-year and 7-year notes. This positioning will boost average portfolio yield and will benefit from any future hawkish re-assessment of Fed policy.   MBS & Housing: The Implications Of Lower Mortgage Rates Alongside bond yields, mortgage rates have fallen sharply during the past few months, a trend that has important implications for both MBS spreads and future housing data. We consider the outlook for both. MBS Spreads Lower mortgage rates encourage homeowners to refinance their loans, and any increase in refinancing activity puts upward pressure on MBS spreads. Not surprisingly, as mortgage rates have declined we have seen a jump in the MBA Refinance Index and a widening of nominal MBS spreads (Chart 5). Chart 5MBS Spreads Still Historically Tight MBS Spreads Still Historically Tight MBS Spreads Still Historically Tight While spreads have widened somewhat, they remain low compared to history (Chart 5, top panel). As such, we do not see a compelling buying opportunity in MBS. This is especially true relative to corporate credit where spreads are more attractive. Chart 6Limited Upside For Refis Limited Upside For Refis Limited Upside For Refis With the mortgage rate now below 4%, our rough calculation suggests that approximately 44% of the Bloomberg Barclays Conventional 30-year MBS index is refinanceable. A regression of the MBA Refi Index versus the refinanceable share suggests a fair value of 2014 for the Refi Index, slightly above its actual level of 1950 (Chart 6). We also calculate that a further drop in the mortgage rate to below 3.5%, where it troughed in mid-2016, would increase the refinanceable share to 77%. Our regression translates this 77% share to a level of 3309 on the Refi Index. It should be noted that when the refinanceable share rose to 77% in 2016, the MBA Refi Index peaked at 2870. This means that our simple regression analysis probably overstates the surge in refis that would occur if mortgage rates fell another 50 bps. In addition, we think it’s unlikely that mortgage rates will actually fall back to 3.5%, as they did in 2016, and as such, we are hesitant to position for further MBS spread widening. The improvement in housing actitivty is not uniform across all indicators. We recommend maintaining a neutral allocation to MBS for now. If mortgage rates drop and spreads widen further in the near-term, then a buying opportunity may present itself. Housing Activity Chart 7Housing Activity: A Mixed Picture Housing Activity: A Mixed Picture Housing Activity: A Mixed Picture The drop in mortgage rates will also have a significant impact on housing activity data. This is important because, as we have demonstrated in prior reports, housing activity data – particularly single-family housing starts and new homes sales – are reliable indicators of U.S. recessions and interest rates.6 By all measures, housing activity weakened significantly as mortgage rates surged in 2018. But it has improved somewhat now that mortgage rates have declined. However, the improvement is not uniform across all indicators (Chart 7): New home sales jumped sharply early this year, then fell back more recently. The current trend is neutral, with the latest monthly print very close to the 12-month moving average (Chart 7, top panel). Housing starts and permits are both trending below their respective 12-month moving averages, though by less than in 2018 (Chart 7, panel 2 & 3). Existing home sales have popped, and are now exerting upward pressure on the 12-month average (Chart 7, panel 4). Likewise for mortgage purchase applications (Chart 7, panel 5). Homebuilders also report that lower mortgage rates have led to a jump in sales activity (Chart 7, bottom panel).  With mortgage rates still low, the tentative rebound in housing activity data should continue in the coming months. Looking further out, we see significantly more upside in single-family housing starts and new home sales as builders shift construction toward lower-priced properties. The Bifurcated Housing Market Beyond the large swings in mortgage rates, another trend has significantly influenced housing activity in recent years. For the past few years, homebuilders have focused their attention on higher priced homes, and that segment of the market now looks oversupplied. Data from the American Enterprise Institute Housing Center show that the recent deceleration in home prices has been driven by falling prices for the most expensive homes. Homes in the lowest price tier have seen prices accelerate (Chart 8).7 The divergence is also evident in the supply data. New home inventories are roughly consistent with average historical levels, while existing home inventories are incredibly low (Chart 9). In fact, new home inventories now represent 6.4 months of demand while existing home inventories represent 4.3 months of demand (Chart 9, panel 3). Such a wide divergence is historically rare. Chart 8An Oversupply Of High ##br##Priced Homes... An Oversupply Of High Priced Homes... An Oversupply Of High Priced Homes... Chart 9...And An Undersupply Of Low Priced Homes ...And An Undersupply Of Low Priced Homes ...And An Undersupply Of Low Priced Homes   The divergence between an oversupply of new homes and an undersupply of existing homes is a result of new construction having focused on higher priced homes in recent years. The median price for a new home used to be only slightly above the median price for an existing home, but the difference shot up to above 75k during the past few years (Chart 9, bottom panel). More recently, the price differential between new and existing homes has started to fall, as builders are starting to recognize that the greater growth opportunity lies at the low-end of the market where demand is strong relative to supply. As this supply-side adjustment plays out, it will provide an additional boost to new homes sales and housing starts going forward. Appendix The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 3 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 3Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of June 27, 2019) The Long Awkward Middle Phase The Long Awkward Middle Phase Table 4 scales the raw residuals in Table 3 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of June 27 2019) The Long Awkward Middle Phase The Long Awkward Middle Phase Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 We use the 3/10 Treasury slope in place of the more commonly referenced 2/10 slope because it is a close proxy that provides an additional 14 years of historical data. 3 For more details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Got Your Back”, dated June 25, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our yield curve models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners”, dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Low-tier homes are those in the bottom 40% of the price distribution in each metro area. High-tier homes are those that are both in the top 20% of the price distribution and exceed the GSE loan limit by more than 25%. For further details: http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/HPA_market_conditions_report_June_2019.pdf Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Central banks globally have turned dovish, with the Fed virtually promising to cut rates in July. But this will be an “insurance” cut, like 1995 and 1998, not the beginning of a pre-recessionary easing cycle. The global expansion remains intact, with the fundamental drivers of U.S. consumption robust and China likely to ramp up its credit stimulus over the coming months. The Fed will cut once or twice, but not four times over the next 10 months as the futures markets imply. Underlying U.S. inflation – properly measured – is trending higher to above 2%. U.S. GDP growth this year will be around 2.5%. Inflation expectations will move higher as the crude oil price rises. Unemployment is at a 50-year low and the U.S. stock market at an historical peak. These factors suggest bond yields are more likely to rise than fall from current levels. The upside for U.S. equities is limited, but earnings growth should be better than the 3% the bottom-up consensus expects. The key for allocation will be when to shift in the second half into higher-beta China-related plays, such as Europe and Emerging Markets. For now, we remain overweight the lower-beta U.S. equity market, neutral on credit, and underweight government bonds. To hedge against the positive impact of China stimulus, we raise Australia to neutral, and re-emphasize our overweights on the Industrials and Energy sectors. Feature Overview Precautionary Dovishness – Or Looming Recession?   Recommendations Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Precautionary Dovishness – Or Looming Recession? Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Precautionary Dovishness – Or Looming Recession? Central banks everywhere have taken a decidedly dovish turn in recent weeks. June’s FOMC statement confirmed that “uncertainties about the outlook have increased….[We] will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion,” hinting broadly at a rate cut in July. The Bank of Japan’s Kuroda said he would “take additional easing action without hesitation,” and hinted at a Modern Monetary Theory-style combination of fiscal and monetary policy. European Central Bank President Draghi mentioned the possibility of restarting asset purchases. There are two possible explanations. Either the global economy is heading into recession, and central banks are preparing for a full-blown easing cycle. Or these are “insurance” cuts aimed at prolonging the expansion, as happened in 1995 and 1998, or similar to when the Fed went on hold for 12 months in 2016 (Chart 1). Our view is that it is most likely the latter. The reason for this is that the main drivers of the global economy, U.S. consumption ($14 trillion) and the Chinese economy ($13 trillion) are likely to be strong over the next 12 months. U.S. wage growth continues to accelerate, consumer sentiment is close to a 50-year high, and the savings rate is elevated (Chart 2); as a result core U.S. retail sales have begun to pick up momentum in recent months (Chart 3). Unless something exogenous severely damages consumer optimism, it is hard to see how the U.S. can go into recession in the near future, considering that consumption is 70% of GDP. Moreover, despite weaknesses in the manufacturing sector – infected by the China-led slowdown in the rest of the world – U.S. service sector growth and the labor market remain solid. This resembles 1998 and 2016, but is different from the pre-recessionary environments of 2000 and 2007 (Chart 4). There is also no sign on the horizon of the two factors that have historically triggered recessions: a sharp rise in private-sector debt, or accelerating inflation (Chart 5). Chart 1Insurance Cuts, Or Full Easing Cycle? Insurance Cuts, Or Full Easing Cycle? Insurance Cuts, Or Full Easing Cycle? Chart 2Consumption Fundamentals Are Strong... Consumption Fundamentals Are Strong... Consumption Fundamentals Are Strong... Chart 3...Leading To Rebound In Retail Sales ...Leading To Rebound In Retail Sales ...Leading To Rebound In Retail Sales Chart 4Manufacturing Weak, But Services Holding Up Manufacturing Weak, But Services Holding Up Manufacturing Weak, But Services Holding Up   Chart 5No Signs Of Usual Recession Triggers No Signs Of Usual Recession Triggers No Signs Of Usual Recession Triggers China’s efforts to reflate via credit creation have been somewhat half-hearted since the start of the year. Investment by state-owned companies has picked up, but the private sector has been spooked by the risk of a trade war and has slowed capex (Chart 6). China may have hesitated from full-blown stimulus because the authorities in April were confident of a successful outcome to trade talks with the U.S., and a bit concerned that the liquidity was going into speculation rather than the real economy. But we see little reason why they will not open the taps fully if growth remains sluggish and trade tensions heighten.1 Chinese credit creation clearly has a major impact on many components of global growth – in particular European exports, Emerging Markets earnings, and commodity prices – but the impact often takes 6-12 months to come through (Chart 7). A key question is when investors should position for this to happen. We think this decision is a little premature now, but will be a key call for the second half of the year. Chart 6China's Half-Hearted Reflation China's Half-Hearted Reflation China's Half-Hearted Reflation Chart 7China Credit Growth Affects The World China Credit Growth Affects The World China Credit Growth Affects The World Chart 8Fed Won't Cut As Much As Market Wants... Fed Won't Cut As Much As Market Wants... Fed Won't Cut As Much As Market Wants... The Fed has so clearly signaled rate cuts that we see it cutting by perhaps 50 basis points over the next few months (maybe all in one go in July if it wants to “shock and awe” the market). But the futures market is pricing in four 25 bps cuts by April next year. With GDP growth likely to be around 2.5% this year, unemployment at a 50-year low, trend inflation above 2%,2 and the stock market at an historical high, we find this improbable. Two cuts would be similar to what happened in 1995, 1998 and (to a degree) 2016 (Chart 8). In this environment, we think it likely that equities will outperform bonds over the next 12 months. When the Fed cuts by less than the market is expecting, long-term rates tend to rise (Chart 9). BCA’s U.S. bond strategists have shown that after mid-cycle rate cuts, yields typically rise: by 59 bps in 1995-6, 58 bps in 1998, and 19 bps in 2002.3 A combination of rising inflation, stronger growth ex-U.S., a less dovish Fed that the market expects, and a rising oil price (which will push up inflation expectations) makes it unlikely – absent an outright recession – that global risk-free yields will fall much below current levels. Moreover, June’s BOA Merrill Lynch survey cited long government bonds as the most crowded trade at the moment, and surveys of investor positioning suggest duration among active investors is as long as at any time since the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 10). Chart 9...So Bond Yields Are Likely To Rise ...So Bond Yields Are Likely To Rise ...So Bond Yields Are Likely To Rise Chart 10Investors Betting On Further Rate Decline Investors Betting On Further Rate Decline Investors Betting On Further Rate Decline The outlook for U.S. equities is not that exciting. Valuations are not cheap (with forward PE of 16.5x), but earnings should be revised up from the currently very cautious level: the bottom-up consensus forecasts S&P 500 EPS growth at only 3% in 2019 (and -3% YoY in Q2). We have sympathy for the view that there are three put options that will prop up stock prices in the event of external shocks: the Fed put, the Xi put, and the Trump put. Relating to the last of these, it is notable that President Trump tends to turn more aggressive in trade talks with China whenever the U.S. stock market is strong, but more conciliatory when it falls (Chart 11). For now, therefore, we remain overweight U.S. equities, as a lower beta way to play an environment that continues to be positive – but uncertain – for stocks. But we continue to watch for the timing to move into higher-beta China-related markets as the effects of China’s stimulus start to come through. Chart 11Trump Turns Softer When Market Falls Trump Turns Softer When Market Falls Trump Turns Softer When Market Falls   Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   What Our Clients Are Asking Chart 12Temporary Forces Drove Inflation Downturn Temporary Forces Drove Inflation Downturn Temporary Forces Drove Inflation Downturn Why Is Inflation So Low? After reaching 2% in July 2018, U.S. core PCE currently stands at 1.6%, close to 18 month lows. This plunge in inflation, along with increased worries about the trade war and continued economic weakness, has led the market to believe that the Fed Funds Rate is currently above the neutral rate, and that several rate cuts are warranted in order to move policy away from restrictive territory. We believe that the recent bout of low inflation is temporary. The main contributor to the fall in core PCE has been financial services prices, which shaved off up to 40 basis points from core PCE (Chart 12, panel 1). However, assets under management are a big determinant of financial services prices, making this measure very sensitive to the stock market (panel 2). Therefore, we expect this component of core PCE to stabilize as equity prices continue to rise. The effect of higher equity prices, and the stabilization of other goods that were affected by the slowdown of global growth in late 2018 and early 2019, may already have started to push inflation higher. Month-on-month core PCE grew at an annualized rate of 3% in April, the highest pace since the end of 2017. Meanwhile, trimmed mean PCE, a measure that has historically been a more stable and reliable gauge of inflationary pressures, is at a near seven-year high (panel 3). The above implies that the market might be overestimating how much the Fed is going to ease. We believe that the Fed will likely cut once this year to soothe the pain caused by the trade war on financial markets. However, with unemployment at 50-year lows, and inflation set to rise again, the Fed is unlikely to deliver the 92 basis points of cuts currently priced by the OIS curve for the next 12 months. This implies that investors should continue to underweight bonds. Chart 13Turning On The Taps Turning On The Taps Turning On The Taps Will China Really Ramp Up Its Stimulus? The direction of markets over the next 12 months (a bottoming of euro area and Emerging Markets growth, commodity prices, the direction of the USD) are highly dependent on whether China further increases monetary stimulus in the event of a breakdown in trade negotiations with the U.S. But we hear much skepticism from clients: aren’t the Chinese authorities, rather, focused on reducing debt and clamping down on shadow banking? Aren’t they worried that liquidity will simply flow into speculation and have little impact on the real economy? Now the government has someone to blame for a slowdown (President Trump), won’t they use that as an excuse – and, to that end, are preparing the population for a period of pain by quoting as analogies the Long March in the 1930s and the Korea War (when China ground down U.S. willingness to prolong the conflict)? We think it unlikely that the Chinese government would be prepared to allow growth to slump. Every time in the past 10 years that growth has slowed (with, for example, the manufacturing PMI falling significantly below 50) they have always accelerated credit growth – on the basis of the worst-case scenario (Chart 13, panel 1). Why would they react differently this time, particularly since 2019 is a politically sensitive year, with the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic in October and several other important anniversaries? Moreover, the government is slipping behind in its target to double per capita income in the 10 years to end-2020 (panel 2). GDP growth needs to be 6.5-7% over the next 18 months to achieve the target. The government’s biggest worry is employment, where prospects are slipping rapidly (panel 3). This also makes it difficult for the authorities to retaliate against U.S. companies that have large operations, such as Apple or General Motors, since such measures would hurt their Chinese employees. Besides a significant revaluation of the RMB (which we think likely), China has few cards to play in the event of a full-blown trade war other than fully turning on the liquidity tap again. Chart 14 Aren’t There Signs Of Bubbliness In Equity Markets? Clients have asked whether the current market environment has been showing any classic signs of euphoria. These usually appear with lots of initial public offerings (IPO), irrational M&A activity, and excess investor optimism. The IPO market has some similarities to the years leading up to the dot-com bubble, but it is important to look below the surface. The percentage of IPOs with negative earnings in 2018 was similar to the previous peak in 1999. However, the average first-day return of IPOs in 2019, while still above the historical average, has been much lower than that during the dot-com bubble period (Chart 14, panel 1). There is also a difference in the composition of firms going public. There are now many IPOs for biotech firms that have heavily invested in R&D, and so have relatively low sales currently but await a breakthrough in their products; by their nature, these are loss-making (panel 2). Cross-sector, unrelated M&A activity has also often been a sign of bubble peaks. It is a consequence of firms stretching to find inorganic growth late in the cycle. Such deals are characterized by high deal premiums, and are usually conducted through stock purchases rather than in cash. The current average deal premium is below its historical average (panel 3). Additionally, 2018 and 2019-to-date M&A deals conducted using cash represented 60% and 90% of the total respectively, compared to only 17% between 1996 and 2000. Investor sentiment is also moderately pessimistic despite the rally in the S&P 500 since the beginning of the year (panel 4). This caution suggests that investors are fearful of the risk of recession rather than overly positive about market prospects, despite the U.S. market being at an historical high. Given the above, we do not see any signals of the sort of euphoria and bubbliness that typically accompanies stock market tops. Will Japan Benefit From Chinese Reflation? Japan has been one of the worst-performing developed equity markets since March 2009, when global equities hit their post-crisis bottom in both USD (Chart 15) and local currency terms. Now with increasing market confidence in China’s reflationary policies, clients are asking if Japan is a good China play given its close ties with the Chinese economy. Our answer is No. Chart 15 Chart 16Downgrade Japan To Underweight Downgrade Japan To Underweight Downgrade Japan To Underweight   It’s true that Japanese equities did respond to past Chinese reflationary efforts, but the outperformances were muted and short-lived (Chart 16, panel 1). Even though Japanese exports to China will benefit from Chinese reflationary policy (panel 5), MSCI Japan index earnings growth does not have strong correlation with Japanese exports to China, as shown in panel 4. This is not surprising given that exports to China account for only about 3% of nominal GDP in Japan (compared to almost 6% for Australia, for example). The MSCI Japan index is dominated by Industrials (21%) and Consumer Discretionary (18%). Financials, Info Tech, Communication Services and Healthcare each accounts for about 8-10%. Other than the Communication Services sector, all other major sectors in Japan have underperformed their global peers since the Global Financial Crisis (panels 2 and 3). The key culprit for such poor performance is Japan’s structural deflationary environment. Wage growth has been poor despite a tight labor market. This October’s consumption tax increase will put further downward pressure on domestic consumers. There is no sign of the two factors that have historically triggered recessions: a sharp rise in private-sector debt, or accelerating inflation. As such, we are downgrading Japan to a slight underweight in order to close our underweight in Australia (see page 16). This also aligns our recommendation with the output from our DM Country Allocation Quant Model, which has structurally underweighted Japan since its inception in January 2016. Global Economy Chart 17Is Consumption Enough To Prop Up U.S. Growth? Is Consumption Enough To Prop Up U.S. Growth? Is Consumption Enough To Prop Up U.S. Growth? Overview: The tight monetary policy of last year (with the Fed raising rates and China slowing credit growth) has caused a slowdown in the global manufacturing sector, which is now threatening to damage worldwide consumption and the relatively closed U.S. economy too. The key to a rebound will be whether China ramps up the monetary stimulus it began in January but which has so far been rather half-hearted. Meanwhile, central banks everywhere are moving to cut rates as an “insurance” against further slowdown. U.S.: Growth data has been mixed in recent months. The manufacturing sector has been affected by the slowdown in EM and Europe, with the manufacturing ISM falling to 52.1 in May and threatening to dip below 50 (Chart 17, panel 2). However, consumption remains resilient, with no signs of stress in the labor market, average hourly earnings growing at 3.1% year-on-year, and consumer confidence at a high level. As a result, retail sales surprised to the upside in May, growing 3.2% YoY. The trade war may be having some negative impact on business sentiment, however, with capex intentions and durable goods orders weakening in recent months. Euro Area: Current conditions in manufacturing continue to look dire. The manufacturing PMI is below 50 and continues to decline (Chart 18, panel 1). In export-focused markets like Germany, the situation looks even worse: Germany’s manufacturing PMI is at 45.4, and expectations as measured by the ZEW survey have deteriorated again recently. Solid wage growth and some positive fiscal thrust (in Italy, France, and even Germany) have kept consumption stable, but the recent tick-up in German unemployment raises the question of how sustainable this is. Recovery will be dependent on Chinese stimulus triggering a rebound in global trade. Chart 18Few Signs Of Recovery In Global Ex-U.S. Growth Few Signs Of Recovery In Global Ex-U.S. Growth Few Signs Of Recovery In Global Ex-U.S. Growth Japan: The slowdown in China continues to depress industrial production and leading indicators (panel 2). But maybe the first “green shoots” are appearing thanks to China’s stimulus: in April, manufacturing orders rose by 16.3% month-on-month, compared to -11.4% in March. Nonetheless, consumption looks vulnerable, with wage growth negative YoY each month so far this year, and the consumption tax rise in October likely to hit consumption further. The Bank of Japan’s six-year campaign of maximum monetary easing is having little effect, with core core inflation stuck at 0.5% YoY, despite a small pickup in recent months – no doubt because the easy monetary policy has been offset by a steady tightening of fiscal policy. Emerging Markets: China’s growth has slipped since the pickup in February and March caused by a sharp increase in credit creation. Seemingly, the authorities became more confident about a trade agreement with the U.S., and worried about how much of the extra credit was going into speculation, rather than the real economy. The manufacturing PMI, having jumped to almost 51 in March, has slipped back to 50.2. A breakdown of trade talks would undoubtedly force the government to inject more liquidity. Elsewhere in EM, growth has generally been weak, because of the softness in Chinese demand. In Q1, GDP growth was -3.2% QoQ annualized in South Africa, -1.7% in Korea, and -0.8% in both Brazil and Mexico. Only less China-sensitive markets such as Russia (3.3%) and India (6.5%) held up. Interest rates: U.S. inflation has softened on the surface, with the core PCE measure slipping to 1.6% in April. However, some of the softness was driven by transitory factors, notably the decline in financial advisor fees (which tend to move in line with the stock market) which deducted 0.5 points from core PCE inflation. A less volatile measure, the trimmed mean PCE deflator, however, continues to trend up and is above the Fed’s 2% target. Partly because of the weaker historical inflation data, inflation expectations have also fallen (panel 4). As a result, central banks everywhere have become more dovish, with the Australian and New Zealand reserve banks cutting rates and the Fed and ECB raising the possibility they may ease too. The consequence has been a big fall in 10-year government bonds yields: in the U.S. to only 2% from 3.1% as recently as last September. Global Equities Chart 19Worrisome Earnings Prospects Worrisome Earnings Prospects Worrisome Earnings Prospects Remain Cautiously Optimistic, Adding Another China Hedge: Global equities managed to eke out a small gain of 3.3% in Q2 despite a sharp loss of 5.9% in May. Within equities, our defensive country allocation worked well as DM equities outperformed EM by 2.9% in Q2. Our cyclical tilt in global sector positioning, however, did not pan out, largely due to the 2% underperformance in global Energy as the oil price dropped by 2% in Q2. Going forward, BCA’s House View remains that global economic growth will pick up sometime in the second half thanks to accommodative monetary policies globally and the increasing likelihood of a large stimulus from China to counter the negative effect from trade tensions. This implies that equities are likely to rally again after a period of congestion within a trading range, supporting a cautiously optimistic portfolio allocation for the next 9-12 months. The “optimistic” side of our allocation is reflected in two aspects: 1) overweight equities vs. bonds at the asset class level; and 2) overweight cyclicals vs. defensives at the global sector level. However, corporate profit margins are rolling over and earnings growth revisions have been negative (Chart 19). Therefore, the “cautious” side of our allocation remains a defensive country allocation, reflected by overweighting DM vs. EM. Our macro view hinges largely on what happens to China. There is an increasing likelihood that China may be on a reflationary path to stimulate economic growth. We upgraded global Industrials in March to hedge against China’s re-acceleration. Now we upgrade Australia to neutral from a long-term underweight, by downgrading Japan to a slight underweight from neutral, because Australia will benefit more from China’s reflationary policies (see next page). Chart 20Australian Equities: Close The Underweight Australian Equities: Close The Underweight Australian Equities: Close The Underweight Upgrade Australian Equities To Neutral The relative performance of MSCI Australian equities to global equities has been closely correlated with the CRB metal price most of the time. Since the end of 2015, however, the CRB metals index has increased by more than 40%, yet Australian equities did not outperform (Chart 20, panel 1). Why? The MSCI Australian index is concentrated in Financials (mostly banks) and Materials (mostly mining), as shown in panel 2. Aussie Materials have outperformed their global peers, but the banks have not (panel 3). The banks are a major source of financing for the mining companies (hence the positive correlation with metal prices). They are also the source of financing for the Aussie housing markets, which have weighed down on the banks’ performance over the past few years due to concerns about stretched valuations. We have been structurally underweight Australian equities because of our unfavorable view on industrial commodities, and also our concerns on the Australian housing market and the problems of the banks. This has served us well, as Australian equities have done poorly relative to the global aggregate since late 2012. Now interest rates in Australia have come down significantly. Lower mortgage rates should help stabilize house prices, which suffered in Q1 their worst year-on-year decline, 7.7%, in over three decades. Australian equity earnings growth is still slowing relative to the global earnings, but the speed of slowing down has decreased significantly. With 6% of GDP coming from exports to China, Aussie profit growth should benefit from reflationary policies from China (panel 4). Relative valuation, however, is not cheap (panel 5). All considered, we are closing our underweight in Australian equities as another hedge against a Chinese-led re-acceleration in economic growth. This is financed by downgrading Japan to a slight underweight (for more on Japan, see What Our Clients Are Asking, on page 11). Government Bonds Chart 21Limited Downside In Yields Limited Downside In Yields Limited Downside In Yields Maintain Slight Underweight On Duration: After the Fed signaled at its June meeting that rates cuts were likely on the way, the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield dropped to 1.97% overnight on June 20, the lowest since November 2016. Overall, the 10-year yield dropped by 40 bps in Q2 to end the quarter at 2%. BCA’s Fed Monitor is now indicating that easier monetary policy is required. But that is already more than discounted in the 92 bps of rate cuts over the next 12 months priced in at the front end of the yield curve, and by the current low level of Treasury yields. (Chart 21). We see the likelihood of one or two “insurance” cuts by the Fed, but the current environment (with a record-high stock market, tight corporate spreads, 50-year low unemployment rate, and 2019 GDP on track to reach 2.5%) is not compatible with a full-out cutting campaign. In addition, the latest Merrill Lynch survey indicated that long duration is the most crowded global trade. Given BCA’s House View that the U.S. economy is not heading into a recession but rather experiencing a manufacturing slowdown mainly due to external shocks, the path of least resistance for Treasury yields is higher rather than lower. Investors should maintain a slight underweight on duration over the next 9-12 months. Chart 22Favor Linkers Over Nominal Bonds Favor Linkers Over Nominal Bonds Favor Linkers Over Nominal Bonds Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds: Global inflation expectations have dropped anew in the second quarter, with the 10-year CPI swap rate now sitting at 1.55%, 41 bps lower than its 2018 high of 1.96%. However, historically, the change in the crude oil price tends to have a good correlation with inflation expectations. BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service revised down its 2019 Brent crude forecast to an average of US$73 per barrel from US$75, but this implies an average of US$79 in H2. (Chart 22). This would cause a significant rise in inflation expectations in the second half, supporting our preference for inflation-linked over nominal bonds. We also favor linkers in Japan and Australia over their respective nominal bonds. Corporate Bonds Chart 23Profit Growth Should Still Outpace Debt Growth Profit Growth Should Still Outpace Debt Growth Profit Growth Should Still Outpace Debt Growth We turned cyclically overweight on credit within a fixed-income portfolio in February. Since then, corporate bonds have produced 120 basis points of excess return over duration-matched Treasuries. We believe this bullish stance on credit will continue to pay dividends. The global leading economic indicators have started to stabilize while multiple credit impulses have started to perk up all over the world. Historically, improving global growth has been positive for corporate bonds (Chart 23, panel 1). A valid concern is the deceleration in profit growth in the U.S., as the yearly growth of pre-tax profits has fallen from 15% in 2018 Q4 to 7% in the first quarter of this year. In general, corporate bonds suffer when profit growth lags debt growth, as defaults tends to rise in this environment. Is this scenario likely over the coming year? We do not believe so. While weak global growth at the end of 2018 and beginning of 2019 is likely to weigh on revenues, the current contraction in unit labor costs should bolster profit margins and keep profit growth robust (panel 2). Additionally, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey shows that C&I loan demand has decreased significantly this year, suggesting that the pace of U.S. corporate debt growth is set to slow (panel 3). How long will we remain overweight? We expect that the Federal Reserve will do little to no tightening over the next 12 months. This will open a window for credit to outperform Treasuries in a fixed-income portfolio. We have also reduced our double underweight in EM debt, since an acceleration of Chinese monetary stimulus would be positive for this asset class. Commodities Chart 24Watch Oil And Be Wary Of Gold Watch Oil And Be Wary Of Gold Watch Oil And Be Wary Of Gold Energy (Overweight): Supply/demand fundamentals continue to be the main driver of crude oil prices. However, it seems as though the market is discounting something else. President Trump’s tweets, OPEC+ coalition statements, and concerns about future demand growth are contributing to price swings (Chart 24, panel 1). According to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, weak demand has reduced oil prices by $2/barrel this year. That should be offset, however, by a much larger contribution from supply cuts, speculative demand, and a deteriorating geopolitical environment. We see crude prices tilted to the upside, as OPEC’s ability to offset any supply disruptions (besides Iran and Venezuela) is limited (panel 2). We expect Brent to average $73 in 2019 and $75 in 2020. Industrial Metals (Neutral): A stronger USD accompanied by weakening global growth since 2018 has put downward pressure on industrial metal prices, which are down about 20% since January 2018. However, we now have renewed belief that the Chinese authorities will counter with a reflationary response though credit and fiscal stimulus. That should push industrial metal prices higher over the coming 12 months (panel 3). Precious Metals (Neutral): Allocators to gold are benefiting from the current environment of rising geopolitical risk, dovish central banks, a weaker USD, and the market’s flight to safety. Escalated trade tensions, falling global yields, and lower growth prospects are some of the factors that have supported the bullion’s 18% return since its September 2018 low. Until evidence of a bottom in global growth emerges, we expect the copper-to-gold ratio – another barometer for global growth – to continue falling (panel 4). The months ahead could see a correction, as investors take profits with gold in overbought territory. Nevertheless, we continue to recommend gold as both an inflation hedge as well as against any uncertain escalated political tensions. Currencies Chart 25Stronger Global Growth Will Weigh On The Dollar Stronger Global Growth Will Weigh On The Dollar Stronger Global Growth Will Weigh On The Dollar U.S. dollar: The trade-weighted dollar has been flat since we lowered our recommendation from positive to neutral in April. We expect that the Fed will cut rates at least once this year, easing financial conditions, and boosting economic activity. This will eventually prove negative for the dollar. However as long as the global economy is weak the greenback should hold up. Stay neutral for now. Euro: Since we turned bullish on the euro in April, EUR/USD has appreciated by 1.5%. Overall, we continue to be bullish on EUR/USD on a cyclical timeframe. Forward rate expectations continue to be near 2014 lows, suggesting that there is little room for U.S. monetary policy to tighten further vis-à-vis euro area monetary policy, creating a floor under the euro (Chart 25, panel 1). EM Currencies: We continue to be negative on emerging market currencies. However, some indicators suggest that Chinese weakness, the main engine behind the EM currency bear market might be reaching its end. Chinese marginal propensity to spend (proxied by M1 growth relative to M2 growth), has bottomed and seems to have stabilized (panel 2). The bond market has taken note of this development, as Chinese yields are now rising relative to U.S. ones (panel 3). Historically, both of these developments have resulted in a rally for emerging market currencies. Thus, while we expect the bear market to continue for the time being, the pace of decline is likely to ease, making EM currencies an attractive buy by the end of the year. Accordingly, we are reducing our underweight in EM currencies from double underweight to a smaller underweight position. Alternatives Chart 26 Return Enhancers: Hedge funds historically display a negative correlation with global growth momentum. Despite growth slowing over the past year, hedge funds underperformed the overall GAA Alternatives Index as well as private equity. Hedge funds usually outperform other risky alternatives during recessions or periods of high credit market stress. Credit spreads have been slow to rise in response to the slowing economy and worsening political environment. A pickup in spreads should support hedge fund outperformance (Chart 26, panel 2). Inflation Hedges: As we approach the end of the cycle, we continue to recommend investors reduce their real estate exposure and increase allocations towards commodity futures. Our May 2019 Special Report4 analyzed how different asset classes perform in periods of rising inflation. Our expectation is that inflation will pick up by the end of the year. An allocation to commodity futures, particularly energy, historically achieved excess returns of nearly 40% during periods of mild inflation (panel 3). Volatility Dampeners: Realized volatility in the catastrophe bond market is generally low. In fact, absent any catastrophe losses, catastrophe bonds provide stable returns, with volatility that is comparable to global bonds (panel 4). In a December 2017 Special Report,5 we tested for how the inclusion of catastrophe bonds in a traditional 60/40 equity-bond portfolio would have impacted portfolio risk-return characteristics. Replacing global equities with catastrophe bonds reduced annualized volatility by more than 1.5%. Risks To Our View Chart 27What Risk Of Recession? What Risk Of Recession? What Risk Of Recession? Our main scenario is sanguine on global growth, which means we argue that bond yields will not fall much below current levels. The risks to this view are mostly to the downside. There could be a full-blown recession. Most likely this would be caused either by China failing to do stimulus, or by U.S. rates being more restrictive than the Fed believes. Both of these explanations seem implausible. As we argue elsewhere, we think it unlikely that China would simply allow growth to slow without reacting with monetary and fiscal stimulus. If current Fed policy is too tight for the economy to withstand, it would imply that the neutral rate of interest is zero or below, something that seems improbable given how strong U.S. growth has been despite rising rates. Formal models of recession do not indicate an elevated risk currently (Chart 27). We continue to watch for the timing to move into higher-beta China-related markets as the effects of China’s stimulus start to come through. Even if growth is as strong as we forecast, is there a possibility that bond yields fall further. This could come about – for a while, at least – if the Fed is aggressively dovish, oil prices fall (perhaps because of a positive supply shock), inflation softens further, and global growth remains sluggish. Absent a recession, we find those outcomes unlikely. The copper-to-gold ratio has been a good indicator of U.S. bond yields (Chart 28). It suggests that, at 2%, the 10-year Treasury yield has slightly overshot. In fact, in June copper prices started to rebound, as the market began to price in growing Chinese demand. Chart 28Can Bond Yields Fall Any Further? Can Bond Yields Fall Any Further? Can Bond Yields Fall Any Further? Chart 29Are Analysts Right To Be So Gloomy? Are Analysts Right To Be So Gloomy? Are Analysts Right To Be So Gloomy?   For U.S. equities to rise much further, multiple expansion will not be enough; the earnings outlook needs to improve. Analysts are still cautious with their bottom-up forecasts, expecting only 3% EPS growth for the S&P500 this year (Chart 29). This seems easy to beat. But a combination of further dollar strength, worsening trade war, further slowdown in Europe and Emerging Markets, and higher U.S. wages would put it at risk. Footnotes 1 Please see What Our Clients Are Asking on page 9 of this Quarterly for further discussion on why we are confident China will ramp up stimulus if necessary. 2 Trimmed Mean PCE inflation, a better indicator of underlying inflation than the Core PCE deflator, is above 2%. Please see What Our Clients Are Asking on page 8 of this Quarterly for details. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Track Records,” dated June 18, available at usb.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated May 22, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report “A Primer On Catastrophe Bonds,” dated December 12, 2017 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com   GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights We update our long-range forecasts of returns from a range of asset classes – equities, bonds, alternatives, and currencies – and make some refinements to the methodologies we used in our last report in November 2017. We add coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, and include Emerging Markets debt, gold, and global Real Estate in our analysis for the first time. Generally, our forecasts are slightly higher than 18 months ago: we expect an annual return in nominal terms over the next 10-year years of 1.7% from global bonds, and 5.9% from global equities – up from 1.5% and 4.6% respectively in the last edition. Cheaper valuations in a number of equity markets, especially Japan, the euro zone, and Emerging Markets explain the higher return assumptions. Nonetheless, a balanced global portfolio is likely to return only 4.7% a year in the long run, compared to 6.3% over the past 20 years. That is lower than many investors are banking on. Feature Since we published our first attempt at projecting long-term returns for a range of asset classes in November 2017, clients have shown enormous interest in this work. They have also made numerous suggestions on how we could improve our methodologies and asked us to include additional asset classes. This Special Report updates the data, refines some of our assumptions, and adds coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, as well as gold, global Real Estate, and global REITs. Our basic philosophy has not changed. Many of the methodologies are carried over from the November 2017 edition, and clients interested in more detailed explanations should also refer to that report.1 Our forecast time horizon is 10-15 years. We deliberately keep this vague, and avoid trying to forecast over a 3-7 year time horizon, as is common in many capital market assumptions reports. The reason is that we want to avoid predicting the timing and gravity of the next recession, but rather aim to forecast long-term trend growth irrespective of cycles. This type of analysis is, by nature, as much art as science. We start from the basis that historical returns, at least those from the past 10 or 20 years, are not very useful. Asset allocators should not use historical returns data in mean variance optimizers and other portfolio-construction models. For example, over the past 20 years global bonds have returned 5.3% a year. With many long-term government bonds currently yielding zero or less, it is mathematically almost impossible that returns will be this high over the coming decade or so. Our analysis points to a likely annual return from global bonds of only 1.7%. Our approach is based on building-blocks. There are some factors we know with a high degree of certainly: such as the return on U.S. 10-year Treasury yields over the next 10 years (to all intents and purposes, it is the current yield). Many fundamental drivers of return (credit spreads, the small-cap premium, the shape of the yield curve, profit margins, stock price multiples etc.) are either steady on average over the cycle, or mean revert. For less certain factors, such as economic growth, inflation, or equilibrium short-term interest rates, we can make sensible assumptions. Most of the analysis in this report is based on the 20-year history of these factors. We used 20 years because data is available for almost all the asset classes we cover for this length of time (there are some exceptions, for example corporate bond data for Australia and Emerging Markets go back only to 2004-5, and global REITs start only in 2008). The period from May 1999 to April 2019 is also reasonable since it covers two recessions and two expansions, and started at a point in the cycle that is arguably similar to where we are today. Some will argue that it includes the Technology bubble of 1999-2000, when stock valuations were high, and that we should use a longer period. But the lack of data for many assets classes before the 1990s (though admittedly not for equities) makes this problematic. Also, note that the historical returns data for the 20 years starting in May 1999 are quite low – 5.8% for U.S. equities, for example. This is because the starting-point was quite late in the cycle, as we probably also are now.   We make the following additions and refinements to our analysis: Add coverage of the U.K., Australia, and Canada for both fixed income and equities. Add coverage of Emerging Markets debt: U.S. dollar and local-currency sovereign bonds, and dollar-denominated corporate credit. Among alternative assets, add coverage of gold, global Direct Real Estate, and global REITs. Improve the methodology for many alt asset classes, shifting from reliance on historical returns to an approach based on building blocks – for example, current yield plus an estimation of future capital appreciation – similar to our analysis of other asset classes. In our discussion of currencies, add for easy reference of readers a table of assumed returns for all the main asset classes expressed in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD (using our forecasts of long-run movements in these currencies). Added Sharpe ratios to our main table of assumptions. The summary of our results is shown in Table 1. The results are all average annual nominal total returns, in local currency terms (except for global indexes, which are in U.S. dollars). Table 1BCA Assumed Returns Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Unsurprisingly, given the long-term nature of this exercise, our return projections have in general not moved much compared to those in November 2017. Indeed, markets look rather similar today to 18 months ago: the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield was 2.4% at end-April (our data cut-off point), compared to 2.3%, and the trailing PE for U.S. stocks 21.0, compared to 21.6. If anything, the overall assumption for a balanced portfolio (of 50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% equal-weighted alts) has risen slightly compared to the 2017 edition: to 4.7% from 4.1% for a global portfolio, and to 4.9% from 4.6% for a purely U.S. one. That is partly because we include specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia, and Canada, where returns are expected to be slightly higher than for the markets we limited our forecasts to previously, the U.S, euro zone, Japan, and Emerging Markets (EM). Equity returns are also forecast to be higher than 18 months ago, mainly because several markets now are cheaper: trailing PE for Japan has fallen to 13.1x from 17.6x, for the euro zone to 15.5x from 18.0x, and for Emerging Markets to 13.6x from 15.4x (and more sophisticated valuation measures show the same trend). The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, based on our analysis, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. We include Sharpe ratios in Table 1 for the first time. We calculate them as expected return/expected volatility to allow for comparison between different asset classes, rather than as excess return over cash/volatility as is strictly correct, and as should be used in mean variance optimizers. Chart 1Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns For volatility assumptions, we mostly use the 20-year average volatility of each asset class. As discussed above, historical returns should not be used to forecast future returns. But volatility does not trend much over the long-term (Chart 1). We looked carefully at volatility trends for all the asset classes we cover, but did not find a strong example of a trend decline or rise in any. We do, however, adjust the historic volatility of the illiquid, appraisal-based alternative assets, such as Private Equity, Real Estate, and Farmland. The reported volatility is too low, for example 2.6% in the case of U.S. Direct Real Estate. Even using statistical techniques to desmooth the return produces a volatility of only around 7%. We choose, therefore, to be conservative, and use the historic volatility on REITs (21%) and apply this to Direct Real Estate too. For Private Equity (historic volatility 5.9%), we use the volatility on U.S. listed small-cap stocks (18.6%). Looking at the forecast Sharpe ratios, the risk-adjusted return on global bonds (0.55) is somewhat higher than that of global equities (0.33). Credit continues to look better than equities: Sharpe ratio of 0.70 for U.S. investment grade debt and 0.62 for high-yield bonds. Nonetheless, our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. Over the past 20 years a global balanced portfolio (defined as above) returned 6.3% and a similar U.S. portfolio 7.0%. We expect 4.7% and 4.9% respectively in future. Investors working on the assumption of a 7-8% nominal return – as is typical among U.S. pension funds, for example – need to become realistic. Below follow detailed descriptions of how we came up with our assumptions for each asset class (fixed income, equities, and alternatives), followed by our forecasts of long-term currency movements, and a brief discussion of correlations. 1. Fixed Income We carry over from the previous edition our building-block approach to estimating returns from fixed income. One element we know with a relatively high degree of certainty is the return over the next 10 years from 10-year government bonds in developed economies: one can safely assume that it will be the same as the current 10-year yield. It is not mathematical identical, of course, since this calculation does not take into account reinvestment of coupons, or default risk, but it is a fair assumption. We can make some reasonable assumptions for returns from cash, based on likely inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate in different countries. After this, our methodology is to assume that other historic relationships (corporate bond spreads, default and recovery rates, the shape of the yield curve etc.) hold over the long run and that, therefore, the current level reverts to its historic mean. The results of our analysis, and the assumptions we use, are shown in Table 2. Full details of the methodology follow below. Table 2Fixed Income Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Projected returns have not changed significantly from the 2017 edition of this report. In the U.S., for the current 10-year Treasury bond yield we used 2.4% (the three-month average to end-April), very similar to the 2.3% on which we based our analysis in 2017. In the euro zone and Japan, yields have fallen a little since then, with the 10-year German Bund now yielding roughly 0%, compared to 0.5% in 2017, and the Japanese Government Bond -0.1% compared to zero. Overall, we expect the Bloomberg Barclays Global Index to give an annual nominal return of 1.7% over the coming 10-15 years, slightly up from the assumption of 1.5% in the previous edition. This small rise is due to the slight increase in the U.S. long-term risk-free rate, and to the inclusion for the first time of specific estimates for returns in the U.K., Australia, and Canada. Fixed Income Methodologies Cash. We forecast the long-run rate on 3-month government bills by generating assumptions for inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate. For inflation, in most countries we use the 20-year average of CPI inflation, for example 2.2% in the U.S. and 1.7% in the euro zone. This suggests that both the Fed and the ECB will slightly miss their inflation targets on the downside over the coming decade (the Fed targets 2% PCE inflation, but the PCE measure is on average about 0.5% below CPI inflation). Of course, this assumes that the current inflation environment will continue. BCA’s view is that inflation risks are significantly higher than this, driven by structural factors such as demographics, populism, and the advent of ultra-unorthodox monetary policy.2 But we see this as an alternative scenario rather than one that we should use in our return assumptions for now. Japan’s inflation has averaged 0.1% over the past 20 years, but we used 1% on the grounds that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) should eventually see some success from its quantitative easing. For the equilibrium real rate we use the New York Fed’s calculation based on the Laubach-Williams model for the U.S., euro zone, U.K., and Canada. For Japan, we use the BoJ’s estimate, and for Australia (in the absence of an official forecast of the equilibrium rate) we take the average real cash rate over the past 20 years. Finally, we assume that the cash yield will move from its current level to the equilibrium over 10 years. Government Bonds. Using the 10-year bond yield as an anchor, we calculate the return for the government bond index by assuming that the spread between 7- and 10-year bonds, and between 3-month bills and 10-year bonds will average the same over the next 10 years as over the past 20. While the shape of the yield curve swings around significantly over the cycle, there is no sign that is has trended in either direction (Chart 2). The average maturity of government bonds included in the index varies between countries: we use the five-year historic average for each, for example, 5.8 years for the U.S., and 10.2 years for Japan. Spread Product. Like government bonds, spreads and default rates are highly cyclical, but fairly stable in the long run (Chart 3). We use the 20-year average of these to derive the returns for investment-grade bonds, high-yield (HY) bonds, government-related securities (e.g. bonds issued by state-owned entities, or provincial governments), and securitized bonds (e.g. asset-backed or mortgage-backed securities). For example, for U.S. high-yield we use the average spread of 550 basis points over Treasuries, default rate of 3.8%, and recovery rate of 45%. For many countries, default and recovery rates are not available and so we, for example, use the data from the U.S. (but local spreads) to calculate the return for high-yield bonds in the euro zone and the U.K. Inflation-Linked Bonds. We use the average yield over the past 10 years (not 20, since for many countries data does not go back that far and, moreover, TIPs and their equivalents have been widely used for only a relatively short period.) We calculate the return as the average real yield plus forecast inflation. Chart 2Yield Curves Yield Curves Yield Curves Chart 3Credit Spreads & Default Rates Credit Spreads & Defaykt Rates Credit Spreads & Defaykt Rates     Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Bond Indexes. We use the weights of each category and country (from among those we forecast) to derive the likely return from the index. The composition of each country’s index varies widely: for example, in the euro zone (27% of the global bond index), government bonds comprise 66% of the index, but in the U.S. only 37%. Only the U.S. and Canada have significant weightings in corporate bonds: 29% and 50% respectively. This can influence the overall return for each country’s index. Table 3Emerging Market Debt Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Emerging Market Debt. We add coverage of EMD: sovereign bonds in both local currency and U.S. dollars, and USD-denominated EM corporate debt. Again, we take the 20-year average spread over 10-year U.S. Treasuries for each category. A detailed history of default and recovery is not available, so for EM corporate debt we assume similar rates to those for U.S. HY bonds. For sovereign bonds, we make a simple assumption of 0.5% of losses per year – although in practice this is likely to be very lumpy, with few defaults for years, followed by a rush during an EM crisis. For EM local currency debt, we assume that EM currencies will depreciate on average each year in line with the difference between U.S. inflation and EM inflation (using the IMF forecast for both – please see the Currency section below for further discussion on this). After these calculations, we conclude that EM USD sovereign bonds will produce an annual return of 4.7%, and EM USD corporate bonds 4.5% – in both cases a little below the 5.6% return assumption we have for U.S. high-yield debt (Table 3).   2. Equities Our equity methodologies are largely unchanged from the previous edition. We continue to use the return forecast from six different methodologies to produce an average assumed return. Table 4 shows the results and a summary of the calculation for each methodology. The explanation for the six methodologies follows below. Table 4Equity Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined The results suggest slightly higher returns than our projections in 2017. We forecast global equities to produce a nominal annual total return in USD of 5.9%, compared to 4.6% previously. The difference is partly due to the inclusion for the first time of specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia and Canada, which are projected to see 8.0%, 7.4% and 6.0% returns respectively. The projection for the U.S. is fairly similar to 2017, rising slightly to 5.6% from 5.0% (mainly due to a slightly higher assumption for productivity growth in future, which boosts the nominal GDP growth assumption). Japan, however, does come out looking significantly more attractive than previously, with an assumed return of 6.2%, compared to 3.5% previously. This is mostly due to cheaper valuations, since the growth outlook has not improved meaningfully. Japan now trades on a trailing PE of 13.1x, compared to 17.6x in 2017. This helps improve the return indicated by a number of the methodologies, including earnings yield and Shiller PE. The forecast for euro zone equities remains stable at 4.7%. EM assumptions range more widely, depending on the methodology used, than do those for DM. On valuation-based measures (Shiller PE, earnings yield etc.), EM generally shows strong return assumptions. However, on a growth-based model it looks less attractive. We continue to use two different assumptions for GDP growth in EM. Growth Model (1) is based on structural reform taking place in Emerging Markets, which would allow productivity growth to rebound from its current level of 3.2% to the 20-year average of 4.1%; Growth Model (2) assumes no reform and that productivity growth will continue to decline, converging with the DM average, 1.1%, over the next 10 years. In both cases, the return assumption is dragged down by net issuance, which we assume will continue at the 10-year average of 4.9% a year. Our composite projection for EM equity returns (in local currencies) comes out at 6.6%, a touch higher than 6.0% in 2017. Equity Methodologies Equity Risk Premium (ERP). This is the simplest methodology, based on the concept that equities in the long run outperform the long-term risk-free rate (we use the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield) by a margin that is fairly stable over time. We continue to use 3.5% as the ERP for the U.S., based on analysis by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton of the average ERP for developed markets since 1900. We have, however, tweaked the methodology this time to take into account the differing volatility of equity markets, which should translate into higher returns over time. Thus we use a beta of 1.2 for the euro zone, 0.8 for Japan, 0.9 for the U.K., 1.1 for both Australia and Canada, and 1.3 for Emerging Markets. The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. Growth Model. This is based on a Gordon growth model framework that postulates that equity returns are a function of dividend yield at the starting point, plus the growth of earnings in future (we assume that the dividend payout ratio stays constant). We base earnings growth off assumptions of nominal GDP growth (see Box 1 for how we calculate these). But historically there is strong evidence that large listed company earnings underperform nominal GDP growth by around 1 percentage point a year (largely because small, unlisted companies tend to show stronger growth than the mature companies that dominate the index) and so we deduct this 1% to reach the earnings growth forecast. We also need to adjust dividend yield for share buybacks which in the U.S., for tax reasons, have added 0.5% to shareholder returns over the past 10 years (net of new share issuance). In other countries, however, equity issuance is significantly larger than buybacks; this directly impacts shareholders’ returns via dilution. For developed markets, the impact of net equity issuance deducts 0.7%-2.7% from shareholder returns annually. But the impact is much bigger in Emerging Markets, where dilution has reduced returns by an average of 4.9% over the past 10 years. Table 5 shows that China is by far the biggest culprit, especially Chinese banks. Table 5Dilution In Emerging Markets Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined BOX 1 Estimating GDP Growth We estimate nominal GDP growth for the countries and regions in our analysis as the sum of: annual growth in the working-age population, productivity growth, and inflation (we assume that capital deepening remains stable over the period). Results are shown in Table 6. Table 6Calculations Of Trend GDP Growth Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined For population growth, we use the United Nations’ median scenario for annual growth in the population aged 25-64 between 2015 and 2030. This shows that the euro zone and Japan will see significant declines in the working population. The U.S. and U.K. look slightly better, with the working population projected to grow by 0.3% and 0.1% respectively. There are some uncertainties in these estimates. Stricter immigration policies would reduce the growth. Conversely, greater female participation, a later retirement age, longer working hours, or a rise in the participation rate would increase it. For emerging markets we used the UN estimate for “less developed regions, excluding least developed countries”. These countries have, on average, better demographics. However, the average number hides the decline in the working-age population in a number of important EM countries, for example China (where the working-age population is set to shrink by 0.2% a year), Korea (-0.4%), and Russia (-1.1%). By contrast, working population will grow by 1.7% a year in Mexico and 1.6% in India. For productivity growth, we assume – perhaps somewhat optimistically – that the decline in productivity since the Global Financial Crisis will reverse and that each country will return to the average annual productivity growth of the past 20 years (Chart 4). Our argument is that the cyclical factors that depressed productivity since the GFC (for example, companies’ reluctance to spend on capex, and shareholders’ preference for companies to pay out profits rather than to invest) should eventually fade, and that structural and technical factors (tight labor markets, increasing automation, technological breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, big data, and robotics) should boost productivity. Based on this assumption, U.S. productivity growth would average 2.0% over the next 10-15 years, compared to 0.5% since 1999. Note that this is a little higher than the Congressional Budgetary Office’s assumption for labor productivity growth of 1.8% a year. Chart 4AProductivity Growth (I) Productivity Growth (I) Productivity Growth (I) Chart 4BProductivity Growth (II) Productivity Growth (II) Productivity Growth (II) Our assumptions for inflation are as described above in the section on Fixed Income. The overall results suggest that Japan will see the lowest nominal GDP growth, at 0.9% a year, with the U.S. growing at 4.4%. The U.K. and Australia come out only a little lower than the U.S. For emerging markets, as described in the main text, we use two scenarios: one where productivity grow continues to slow in the absence of reforms, especially in China, from the current 3.2% to converge with the average in DM (1.1%) over the next 10-15 years; and an alternative scenario where reforms boost productivity back to the 20-year average of 4.1%.   Growth Plus Reversion To Mean For Margins And Profits. There is logic in arguing that profit margins and multiples tend to revert to the mean over the long term. If margins are particularly high currently, profit growth will be significantly lower than the above methodology would suggest; multiple contraction would also lower returns. Here we add to the Growth Model above an assumption that net profit margin and trailing PE will steadily revert to the 20-year average for each country over the 10-15 years. For most countries, margins are quite high currently compared to history: 9.2% in the U.S., for example, compared to a 20-year average of 7.7%. Multiples, however, are not especially high. Even in the U.S. the trailing PE of 21.0x, compares to a 20-year average of 20.8x (although that admittedly is skewed by the ultra-high valuations in 1999-2000, and coming out of the 2007-9 recession – we would get a rather lower number if we used the 40-year average). Indeed, in all the other countries and regions, the PE is currently lower than the 20-year average. Note that for Japan, we assumed that the PE would revert to the 20-year average of the U.S. and the euro zone (19.2), rather than that of Japan itself (distorted by long periods of negative earnings, and periods of PE above 50x in the 1990s and 2000s).  Earnings Yield. This is intuitively a neat way of thinking about future returns. Investors are rewarded for owning equity, either by the company paying a dividend, or by reinvesting its earnings and paying a dividend in future. If one assumes that future return on capital will be similar to ROC today (admittedly a rash assumption in the case of fast-growing companies which might be tempted to invest too aggressively in the belief that they can continue to generate rapid growth) it should be immaterial to the investor which the company chooses. Historically, there has been a strong correlation between the earnings yield (the inverse of the trailing PE) and subsequent equity returns, although in the past two decades the return has been somewhat higher that the EY suggested, and so in future might be somewhat lower. This methodology produces an assumed return for U.S. equities of 4.8% a year. Shiller PE. BCA’s longstanding view is that valuation is not a good timing tool for equity investment, but that it is crucial to forecasting long-term returns. Chart 5 shows that there is a good correlation in most markets between the Shiller PE (current share price divided by 10-year average inflation-adjusted earnings) and subsequent 10-year equity returns. We use a regression of these two series to derive the assumptions. This points to returns ranging from 5.4% in the case of the U.S. to 12.5% for the U.K. Composite Valuation Indicator. There are some issues that make the Shiller PE problematical. It uses a fixed 10-year period, whereas cycles vary in length. It tends to make countries look cheap when they have experienced a trend decline in earnings (which may continue, and not mean revert) and vice versa. So we also use a proprietary valuation indicator comprising a range of standard parameters (including price/book, price/cash, market cap/GDP, Tobin’s Q etc.), and regress this against 10-year returns. The results are generally similar to those using the Shiller PE, except that Japan shows significantly higher assumed returns, and the U.K. and EM significantly lower ones (Chart 6). Chart 5Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Chart 6Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return     3. Alternative Investments We continue to forecast each illiquid alternative investment separately, but we have made a number of changes to our methodologies. Mostly these involve moving away from using historical returns as a basis for our forecasts, and shifting to an approach based on current yield plus projected future capital appreciation. In direct real estate, for example, in 2017 we relied on a regression of historical returns against U.S. nominal GDP growth. We move in this edition to an approach based on the current cap rate, plus capital appreciation (based on forecasts of nominal GDP growth), and taking into account maintenance costs (details below). We also add coverage of some additional asset classes: global ex-U.S. direct real estate, global ex-U.S. REITs, and gold. Table 7 summarizes our assumptions, and provides details of historic returns and volatility. Table 7Alternatives Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined It is worth emphasizing here that manager selection is far more important for many alternative investment classes than it is for public securities (Chart 7). There is likely to be, therefore, much greater dispersion of returns around our assumptions than would be the case for, say, large-cap U.S. equities. Chart 7For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key Hedge Funds Chart 8Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge fund returns have trended down over time (Chart 8). Long gone is the period when hedge funds returned over 20% per year (as they did in the early 1990s). Over the past 10 years, the Composite Hedge Fund Index has returned annually 3.3% more than 3-month U.S. Treasury bills. But that was entirely during an economic expansion and so we think it is prudent to cut last edition’s assumption of future returns of cash-plus-3.5%, to cash-plus-3% going forward. Direct Real Estate Our new methodology for real estate breaks down the return, in a similar way to equities, into the current cash yield (cap rate) plus an assumption of future capital growth. For the cap rate, we use the average, weighted by transaction volumes, of the cap rates for apartments, office buildings, retail, industrial real estate, and hotels in major cities (for example, Chicago, Los Angeles, Manhattan, and San Francisco for the U.S., or Osaka and Tokyo for Japan). We assume that capital values grow in line with each’s country’s nominal GDP growth (using the IMF’s five-year forecasts for this). We deduct a 0.5% annual charge for maintenance, in line with industry practice. Results are shown in Table 8. Our assumptions point to better returns from real estate in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Not only is the cap rate in the U.S. higher, but nominal GDP growth is projected to be higher too. Table 8Direct Real Estate Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined REITs We switch to a similar approach for REITs. Previously we used a regression of REITs against U.S. equity returns (since REITs tend to be more closely correlated with equities than with direct real estate). This produced a rather high assumption for U.S. REITs of 10.1%. We now use the current dividend yield on REITs plus an assumption that capital values will grow in line with nominal GDP growth forecasts. REITs’ dividend yields range fairly narrowly from 2.9% in Japan to 4.7% in Canada. We do not exclude maintenance costs since these should already be subtracted from dividends. The result of using this methodology is that the assumed return for U.S. REITs falls to a more plausible 8.5%, and for global REITs is 6.2%. Private Equity & Venture Capital Chart 9Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around It makes sense that Private Equity returns are correlated with returns from listed equities. Most academic studies have shown a premium over time for PE of 5-6 percentage points (due to leverage, a tilt towards small-cap stocks, management intervention, and other factors). However, this premium has swung around dramatically over time (Chart 9). Over the past 10 years, for example, annual returns from Private Equity and listed U.S. equities have been identical: 12%. However, there appears to be no constant downtrend and so we think it advisable to use the 30-year average premium: 3.4%. This produces a return assumption for U.S. Private Equity of 8.9% per year. Over the same period, Venture Capital has returned around 0.5% more than PE (albeit with much higher volatility) and we assume the same will happen going forward.   Structured Products In the context of alternative asset classes, Structured Products refers to mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securities. We use the projected return on U.S. Treasuries plus the average 20-year spread of 60 basis points. Assumed return is 2.7%. Farmland & Timberland Chart 10Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP As with Real Estate and REITs, we move to a methodology using current cash yield (after costs) plus an assumption for capital appreciation linked to nominal GDP forecasts. The yield on U.S. Farmland is currently 4.4% and on Timberland 3.2%. Both have seen long-run prices grow significantly more slowly than nominal GDP growth. Since 1980, for example, farm prices have risen at a compound rate of 3.9% per acre, compared to U.S. nominal GDP growth of 5.2% and global GDP growth of 5.5% (Chart 10). We assume that this trend will continue, and so project farm prices to grow 1.5 percentage points a year more slowly than global GDP (using global, not U.S., economic growth makes sense since demand for food is driven by global factors). This produces a total return assumption of 6%. For timberland, we did not find a consistent relationship with nominal GDP growth and so assumed that prices would continue to grow at their historic rate over the past 20 years (the longest period for which data is available). We project timberland to produce an annual return of 4.8%. Commodities & Gold For commodities we use a very different methodology (which we also used in the previous edition): the concept that commodities prices consistently over time have gone through supercycles, lasting around 10 years, followed by bear markets that have lasted an average of 17 years (Chart 11). The most recent super-cycle was 2002-2012. In the period since the supercycle ended, the CRB Index has fallen by 42%. Comparing that to the average drop in the past three bear markets, we conclude that there is about 8% left to fall over the next nine years, implying an annual decline of about 1%. Our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. We add gold to our assumptions, since it is an asset often held by investors. However, it is not easy to project long-term returns for the metal. Since the U.S. dollar was depegged from gold in 1968, gold too has gone through supercycles, in the 1970s and 2002-11 (Chart 12). We find that change in real long-term interest rates negatively affects gold (logically since higher rates increase the opportunity cost of owning a non-income-generating asset). We use, therefore, a regression incorporating global nominal GDP growth and a projection of the annual change in real 10-year U.S. Treasury yields (based on the equilibrium cash rate plus the average spread between 10-year yields and cash). This produces an assumption of an annual return from gold of 4.7% a year. We continue to see this asset class more as a hedge in a portfolio (it has historically had a correlation of only 0.1 with global equities and 0.24 with global bonds) rather than a source of return per se.  Chart 11Commodities Still In A Bear Market Commodities Still In A Bear Market Commodities Still In A Bear Market Chart 12Gold Also Has Supercycles Gold Also Has Supercycles Gold Also Has Supercycles   4. Currencies Chart 13Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP All the return projections in this report are in local currency terms. That is a problem for investors who need an assumption for returns in their home currency. It is also close to impossible to hedge FX exposure over as long a period as 10-15 years. Even for investors capable of putting in place rolling currency hedges, GAA has shown previously that the optimal hedge ratio varies enormously depending on the home currency, and that dynamic hedges (i.e. using a simple currency forecasting model) produce better risk-adjust returns than a static hedge.3  Fortunately, there is an answer: it turns out that long-term currency forecasting is relatively easy due to the consistent tendency of currencies, in developed economies at least, to revert to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) over the long-run, even though they can diverge from it for periods as long as five years or more (Chart 13). We calculate likely currency movements relative to the U.S. dollar based on: 1) the current divergence of the currency from PPP, using IMF estimates of the latter; 2) the likely change in PPP over the next 10 years, based on inflation differentials between the country and the U.S. going forward (using IMF estimates of average CPI inflation for 2019-2024 and assuming the same for the rest of the period). The results are shown in Table 9. All DM currencies, except the Australian dollar, look cheap relative to the U.S. dollar, and all of them, again excluding Australia, are forecast to run lower inflation that the U.S. implying that their PPPs will rise further. This means that both the euro and Japanese yen would be expected to appreciate by a little more than 1% a year against the U.S. dollar over the next 10 years or so. Table 9Currency Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined PPP does not work, however, for EM currencies. They are all very cheap relative to PPP, but show no clear trend of moving towards it. The example of Japan in the 1970s and 1980s suggests that reversion to PPP happens only when an economy becomes fully developed (and is pressured by trading partners to allow its currency to appreciate). One could imagine that happening to China over the next 10-20 years, but the RMB is currently 48% undervalued relative to PPP, not so different from its undervaluation 15 years ago. For EM currencies, therefore, we use a different methodology: a regression of inflation relative to the U.S. against historic currency movements. This implies that EM currencies are driven by the relative inflation, but that they do not trend towards PPP. Based on IMF inflation forecasts, many Emerging Markets are expected to experience higher inflation than the U.S. (Table 10). On this basis, the Turkish lira would be expected to decline by 7% a year against the U.S. dollar and the Brazilian real by 2% a year. However, the average for EM, which we calculated based on weights in the MSCI EM equity index, is pulled down by China (29% of that index), Korea (15%) and Taiwan (12%). China’s inflation is forecast to be barely above that in the U.S, and Korean and Taiwanese inflation significantly below it. MSCI-weighted EM currencies, consequently, are forecast to move roughly in line with the USD over the forecast horizon. One warning, though: the IMF’s inflation forecasts in some Emerging Markets look rather optimistic compared to history: will Mexico, for example, see only 3.2% inflation in future, compared to an average of 5.7% over the past 20 years? Higher inflation than the IMF forecasts would translate into weaker currency performance. Table 10EM Currencies Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined In Table 11, we have restated the main return assumptions from this report in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD terms for the convenience of clients with different home currencies. As one would expect from covered interest-rate parity theory, the returns cluster more closely together when expressed in the individual currencies. For example, U.S. government bonds are expected to return only 0.8% a year in EUR terms (versus 2.1% in USD terms) bringing their return closer to that expected from euro zone government bonds, -0.4%. Convergence to PPP does not, however, explain all the difference between the yields in different countries. Table 11Returns In Different Base Currencies Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined 5. Correlations Chart 14Correlations Are Hard To Forecast Correlations Are Hard To Forecast Correlations Are Hard To Forecast We have not tried to forecast correlations in this Special Report. As discussed, historical returns from different asset classes are not a reliable guide to future returns, but it is possible to come up with sensible assumptions about the likely long-run returns going forward. Volatility does not trend much over the long term, so we think it is not unreasonable to use historic volatility data in an optimizer. But correlation is a different matter. As is well known, the correlation of equities and bonds has moved from positive to negative over the past 40 years (mainly driven by a shift in the inflation environment). But the correlation between major equity markets has also swung around (Chart 14). Asset allocators should preferably use rough, conservative assumptions for correlations – for example, 0.1 or 0.2 for the equity/bond correlation, rather than the average -0.1 of the past 20 years. We plan to do further work to forecast correlations in a future edition of this report.  But for readers who would like to see – and perhaps use – historic correlation data, we publish below a simplified correlation matrix of the main asset classes that we cover in this report (Table 12). We would be happy to provide any client with the full spreadsheet of all asset classes . Table 12Correlation Matrix Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “What Returns Can You Expect?”, dated 15 November 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated 22 May 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see GAA Special Report, “Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors,” dated 29 September 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com  

Highlights Fed: The Fed will cut rates in July, and possibly once more this year. This extra stimulus will help boost global growth in the second half of 2019. Credit: With inflation expectations low, the Fed will not risk upsetting financial markets by striking a hawkish tone. This will be a boon for corporate bonds. We no longer advocate a cautious near-term allocation to corporate credit. Spreads have likely peaked. Duration: The economic environment bears a greater resemblance to prior mid-cycle slowdowns than to prior pre-recession periods. As such, the Fed will not deliver more than the 89 basis points of rate cuts that are already discounted for the next 12 months. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Feature More Houdini Than Bullwinkle When Fed Chair Jay Powell reached into his hat at last week’s FOMC meeting, most – including us – thought he might emerge looking like Bullwinkle the cartoon moose.1 Instead, he pulled a rabbit, delivering a dovish surprise to markets that already expected a lot. The yield curve was discounting 80 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months heading into last Wednesday’s announcement. Then, the Fed’s statement and Powell’s press conference pushed our 12-month discounter all the way down to -94 bps (Chart 1). The 10-year Treasury yield also dropped 8 bps post-FOMC, while the 2-year yield fell a whopping 14 bps. The Fed will go to great lengths to signal that monetary conditions remain accommodative. The Fed communicated its dovish pivot through both the post-meeting statement and its interest rate projections. In the post-meeting statement, the Fed replaced its pledge to be “patient” with a promise to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion”. A re-phrasing that is clearly designed to signal a rate cut in July. FOMC participants also revised their interest rate projections sharply lower (Chart 2). In March, 11 out of 17 participants expected the Fed to stay on hold for the balance of 2019, while 4 participants called for one rate hike and 2 called for two rate hikes. Now, 8 out of 17 participants continue to expect a steady fed funds rate, but 7 are calling for two rate cuts this year. Only one participant is still looking for a 2019 hike. Chart 1A Dovish Magic Show Dovish Magic Show Dovish Magic Show Chart 2Dots Revised Lower Dots Revised Lower For 2020 Dots Revised Lower For 2020   In his press conference, Chair Powell explicitly linked the Fed’s dovish pivot to “trade developments” and “concerns about global growth”. Bond investors will undoubtedly heed this message, and Treasury yields will be extra sensitive to any trade-related news that comes out of this weekend’s G20 summit, as well as to any fluctuations in the global growth data (see section titled “No PMI Recovery Yet” below). Ultimately, our baseline expectation is that there will be enough progress in trade negotiations at the G20 summit to keep the U.S. from imposing a further $300 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports. However, an all-encompassing deal, which rolls back existing tariffs, is not in the cards. Table 1Fed Funds Futures: What's Priced In? The Fed’s Got Your Back The Fed’s Got Your Back But even such a muddle-though scenario, when combined with a Fed rate cut in July and continued credit easing out of China, will be sufficient to support global growth in the second half of this year. This will prevent the Fed from delivering the 79 bps of rate cuts that are priced-in for between now and next February (Table 1). We remain short the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. And Now Here’s Something We Hope You’ll Really Like Our main takeaway from the FOMC meeting is that the Fed will go to great lengths to signal that monetary conditions remain accommodative. We posited back in March that the new battleground for monetary policy is between inflation expectations and financial conditions.2 That is, the Fed will only move to a restrictive policy stance in response to above-target inflation expectations or “bubbly” financial asset prices. While the Fed’s reflationary efforts will cause corporate bond spreads to tighten in the coming months, they will not immediately translate into a higher 10-year Treasury yield. At present, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain well below target levels and financial markets are far from “bubbly” (Chart 3): The Financial Conditions component of our Fed Monitor is close to neutral (Chart 3, panel 2). The S&P 500 12-month forward P/E ratio has rebounded this year, but is not close to the highs seen in late-2017/early-2018 (Chart 3, panel 3). The GZ measure of the excess premium in corporate bond spreads after accounting for expected default losses is low, but above where it traded throughout most of the 2000s (Chart 3, bottom panel). The upshot is that the Fed will continue to act as a tailwind for risk assets, and we therefore remove our prior recommendation to stay cautious on credit spreads in the near-term. It is now likely that credit spreads have peaked, a message confirmed by our list of “peak credit spread” indicators (Chart 4): Chart 3No Rush For Fed To Tighten No Movement On The Fed's Battleground No Movement On The Fed's Battleground Chart 4Credit Spreads Have Likely Peaked Credit Spreads Have Likely Peaked Credit Spreads Have Likely Peaked   The price of gold has decisively broken-out to the upside, a sign that the market views monetary policy as reflationary (Chart 4, panel 2). Such a breakout has preceded the last two peaks in corporate bond spreads. The dollar’s uptrend has abated, signaling that the market views U.S. monetary policy as less out of step with the rest of the world (Chart 4, panel 3). Global industrial mining stocks have rebounded (Chart 4, panel 4). The CRB Raw Industrials index is the sole holdout (Chart 4, bottom panel). A rebound in this index would confirm our intuition that credit spreads have peaked. Chart 5Waiting For Improving Global Growth Waiting For Improving Global Growth Waiting For Improving Global Growth While the Fed’s reflationary efforts will cause corporate bond spreads to tighten in the coming months, they will not immediately translate into a higher 10-year Treasury yield. The ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials index and Gold correlates very tightly with the 10-year yield, and it continues to plummet (Chart 5). The CRB/Gold ratio will only rise when gains in the CRB index start to outpace gains in Gold. In other words, the Fed’s reflationary policy stance needs to translate into an improving global growth outlook. This could take a few months, though we ultimately continue to think that Treasury yields will be higher on a 6-12 month horizon. As explained in the next section, as long as the U.S. economy avoids recession, mid-cycle rate cuts tend to be followed by higher Treasury yields. A History Of Rate Cuts Part 2 In last week’s report we looked at every Fed rate cut since 1995 and showed how the 10-year Treasury yield reacted during the subsequent 21-day, 65-day, 130-day and 261-day periods.3 Our main conclusion was that the 10-year Treasury yield tended to rise following mid-cycle rate cuts, such as those that occurred in 1995-98 and 2003, and decline following rate cuts that led into a U.S. recession. For reference, we have attached last week’s analysis as an Appendix to this report, along with a new table showing how the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master index performed relative to cash following each post-1995 rate cut. The 2/10 Treasury slope tends to steepen quite sharply in the immediate aftermath of a mid-cycle rate cut, before starting to flatten after a few months have passed. This week, we delve a little deeper and look at the market’s interest rate expectations around each prior cut, and also at how the 2/10 Treasury slope responded in each case. Rate Expectations At The Time Of Fed Rate Cuts Table 2 shows the 12-month change in the fed funds rate that the market was discounting prior to each Fed rate cut announcement since 1995. It also shows the actual change in the fed funds rate that occurred over the subsequent 12-month period, and the difference between what occurred and what was expected – the 12-month fed funds surprise. Table 2A History Of Rate Cuts: Rate Expectations The Fed’s Got Your Back The Fed’s Got Your Back According to our Golden Rule of Bond Investing, a dovish surprise (actual change < expectations) should coincide with a falling 10-year Treasury yield, and a hawkish surprise (actual change > expectations) should coincide with a rising 10-year yield.4 The table shows that this indeed occurred in 26 out of 29 episodes. As was the case last week, the mid-1990s rate cuts immediately capture our attention. We have previously noted the resemblance between today’s economic environment and that of the mid-1990s.5 It’s interesting that the market is currently priced for a similar number of rate cuts as at that time. Once again, we expect those expectations will be disappointed. The Global Manufacturing PMI is the measure of global growth that lines up best with the 10-year Treasury yield. Yield Curve: Steeper Now = Flatter Later Another interesting trend is that the 2/10 Treasury slope steepened dramatically in the run-up to, and following, last week’s FOMC meeting. It is now back up to 29 bps after having troughed at 11 bps near the end of last year (Chart 6). It is also worth noting that the 2/10 Treasury slope has yet to invert this cycle. Such an inversion has occurred prior to every U.S. recession since at least 1960. Table 3 shows how the 2/10 Treasury slope has responded to Fed rate cuts in the past, and it reveals an interesting pattern. The slope tends to steepen quite sharply in the immediate aftermath of a mid-cycle rate cut, before starting to flatten after a few months have passed. The 2003 episode is a prime example. The 2/10 slope steepened by 62 bps in the month following the rate cut, but a year later it was 14 bps below where it started. Chart 6The Fed Steepens The Curve On Track: Steeper Now... On Track: Steeper Now... Table 3A History Of Rate Cuts: 2/10 Treasury Slope The Fed’s Got Your Back The Fed’s Got Your Back   In contrast, the 2/10 steepening that immediately follows a “pre-recession” rate cut tends to be milder, but the steepening then accelerates as time passes and the Fed eases further.  The observed yield curve patterns line up well with theory. We would expect rapid curve steepening immediately following a mid-cycle rate cut, as the market prices in a quick return to tighter policy settings. Then, the curve should eventually flatten as the Fed reverses its initial cuts. In contrast, a rate cut that precedes a recession should not lead to much initial steepening, because the market would not be expecting a quick recovery. The steepening would then accelerate as more rate cuts are eventually delivered. The fact that the 2/10 slope has steepened a lot in recent weeks is another datapoint in favor of “mid-cycle” rather than “pre-recession” market behavior. No PMI Recovery Yet We remain confident that the combination of a July Fed rate cut and Chinese credit stimulus will put a floor under global growth in the second half of the year. However, no such global growth rebound is yet evident in the crucial manufacturing PMI data. The Global Manufacturing PMI is the measure of global growth that lines up best with the 10-year Treasury yield, and it remains in a free-fall, even breaking below the 50 boom/bust line in May (Chart 7). Flash PMI data paint an equally dim picture for June: The Euro Area Manufacturing PMI is expected to tick up in June, but only to 47.8 from 47.7 in May (Chart 7, panel 2). The U.S. Manufacturing PMI is expected to fall to 50.1 in June, from 50.5 in May (Chart 7, panel 3). The Japanese Manufacturing PMI is expected to fall to 49.5 in June, from 49.8 in May (Chart 7, bottom panel). There is no Flash PMI data for China, but the Chinese index stood at 50.2 in May, only a hair above the 50 boom/bust line. On the bright side, financial markets are starting to price-in the beginnings of a reflation trade. Gold is rallying strongly, as we noted above, and an index of high-beta currency pairs (RUB/USD, ZAR/USD and BRL/USD) is off its lows. Both of these moves signal that the policy backdrop is becoming more supportive, and both have led upswings in the Global Manufacturing PMI in the past (Chart 8). Chart 7No Rebound In Sight Yet... No Rebound In Sight Yet... No Rebound In Sight Yet... Chart 8...But Financial Markets Are Already Looking Ahead ...But Financial Markets Alread Are Looking Ahead ...But Financial Markets Alread Are Looking Ahead   Bottom Line: Treasury yields will probably need to see a rebound in the Global Manufacturing PMI before moving higher, but a few reflationary indicators suggest that such a rebound will occur in the second half of the year. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com     Appendix Table 4A History Of Rate Cuts: 10-Year Treasury Yield The Fed’s Got Your Back The Fed’s Got Your Back Table 5A History Of Rate Cuts: Treasury Excess Returns The Fed’s Got Your Back The Fed’s Got Your Back   Footnotes 1      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx3sOqW5zj4 2      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Track Records”, dated June 18, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Tracking The Mid-1990s”, dated June 11, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights June FOMC Meeting: To appease markets, the Fed will at least have to signal that it stands ready to cut rates in July. While this is possible, there is a significant risk that the committee fails to deliver. We continue to advocate a cautious approach to corporate credit spreads in the near-term (0-3 months). Rate Cuts: The historical track record suggests that the 10-year Treasury yield can rise or fall in the immediate aftermath of a Fed rate cut. With a U.S. recession still far off, we see a good chance that Treasury yields will rise during the next 6-12 months, even if the Fed lowers rates in June or July. Treasury Yields: Yields have fallen a lot since the beginning of November, but the move isn't terribly anomalous relative to history. We use statistics to place recent price action in its appropriate historical context. Feature The Fed This Week Chart 1Credit Spreads At Risk Credit Spreads At Risk Credit Spreads At Risk Tomorrow’s FOMC meeting is the main event in financial markets this week, with investors of all stripes eager to learn whether the Fed will deliver on the rate cut expectations that have already been priced into bond yields. As we’ve written in prior reports, our immediate concern is that the Fed may not sound dovish enough to appease markets, leading to further near-term widening in corporate bond spreads.1 Corporate bond excess returns have far outpaced commodity prices of late (Chart 1), leaving the sector vulnerable to any hawkish surprise. What’s Priced In, And Can The Fed Deliver? How dovish must the Fed be to prevent a sell-off in corporate credit? A look at current fed funds futures pricing shows that the market is looking for nearly three 25 basis point rate cuts spread over the next six FOMC meetings (Table 1). Roughly, the market expects one rate cut at either the June or July meeting, a second rate cut in either September or October, and a third rate cut in either December or January. To appease markets, the Fed will at least have to revise its 2019 funds rate projections down and signal that it stands ready to cut rates in July (Chart 2). While this is possible, there is a significant risk that the committee fails to deliver. We continue to advocate a cautious approach to corporate credit markets in the near-term (0-3 months). Table 1Fed Funds Futures: What's Priced In? Track Records Track Records Chart 2Watch For Dot Plot Revisions Watch For Dot Plot Revisions Watch For Dot Plot Revisions   Fed Rate Cuts: A Track Record While we are cautious on corporate spreads in the near-term, we are also not willing to chase Treasury yields lower from current levels. Our view is that while the Fed might deliver a rate cut at one of the next few meetings, it is unlikely to lower rates by more than the 84 bps that are priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Ultimately, we expect Treasury yields to be higher on a 6-12 month horizon, even if the Fed cuts rates during the next few months. In response to this outlook, a few clients have asked whether it is possible for Treasury yields to rise so soon after a Fed rate cut. While we see no theoretical reason why it shouldn't be possible, it is always a good idea to stress test a theory against the historical track record. We therefore compiled a list of every Fed rate cut since 1995, and looked at how the 10-year Treasury yield reacted to each event. The results are displayed in Tables 2A-2D. Chart Chart Chart   Chart Table 2A shows the rate cuts that the Fed delivered in the mid-1990s, in response to persistently low U.S. inflation and slowing growth in the rest of the world. At the time, overall U.S. economic growth was quite solid and the U.S. economy didn’t fall into recession until 2001. The divergence between relatively strong U.S. economic growth and slower growth in the rest of the world makes the period look very similar to today, and we have long argued that the current cycle should be viewed in the context of the mid-1990s.2 Table 2A reveals that, on average, the 10-year Treasury yield tended to rise in the months following a rate cut, often even in the first 21 days. The historical track record suggests that the 10-year Treasury yield can rise or fall in the immediate aftermath of a Fed rate cut. Table 2C shows the rate cuts that were delivered during the economic recovery of the mid-2000s, and it paints a similar picture as Table 2A. In particular, the 10-year Treasury yield rose dramatically following the 2003 rate cut, and the Fed actually started to hike interest rates almost exactly one year after the 2003 cut. Tables 2B & 2D show the rate cuts that led into the 2001 and 2008 recessions. Not surprisingly, yields were much more likely to fall after the Fed cut rates in those episodes. Bottom Line: The historical track record suggests that the 10-year Treasury yield can rise or fall in the immediate aftermath of a Fed rate cut. The yield is much more likely to fall if the cut occurs in the run-up to a recession. With a U.S. recession still far off, we see a good chance that Treasury yields will rise during the next 6-12 months, even if the Fed lowers rates at one of the next few FOMC meetings. Treasury Yield Moves: A Track Record In recent weeks a BCA client who had been shaking his head at the large drop in Treasury yields reached out to see if we could put the recent moves in historical context. Specifically, he wondered how often such large yield moves have occurred in the past, and whether there is a tendency for moves of this magnitude to mean-revert. Our U.S. Investment Strategy team took a stab at answering these questions. The below analysis first appeared in last week's U.S. Investment Strategy report, but is re-printed here for the interest of U.S. bond clients.3 The ongoing decline in bond yields has felt like a big deal in real time, but it isn’t historically. The sharp decline in the 10-year Treasury yield that began in early November can be viewed as three separate declines (Chart 3). In the first, the 10-year yield fell by 68 basis points (“bps”) over a span of 37 trading days. After retracing a third of the decline over the next 11 sessions, it slid by another 40 bps over 48 days. Following a one-half retracement over the ensuing 13 days, it shed 53 basis points in 32 days, capped off by a 36-bps decline across the final eight sessions (Table 3). Chart 3The Path To 2.07% The Path To 2.07% The Path To 2.07% Table 3A Lower 10-Year Treasury Yield In Three Steps Track Records Track Records Using the daily 10-year Treasury yield series beginning in 1962, we compared the individual yield declines for prior 37-, 48- and 32-day periods, as well as for the aggregate 141-day session spanning the entire stretch from the November 8th peak to the June 3rd trough. We also looked at the May 21st to June 3rd crescendo relative to past eight-day segments. The standardized moves range from three-quarters of a standard deviation below the mean for the 48-day middle leg to 1.5 and 1.8 for the 37- and 8-day moves, respectively (Table 4). All in all, the entire move grades out to 1.3 standard deviations below the mean – a somewhat unusual move, but nothing too special. Table 4Standardized Values Of Nominal 10-Year Treasury Yield Declines Track Records Track Records The current decline’s relative stature is undermined by the wild volatility of the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, when bond yields and annual inflation reached double-digit levels (Chart 4). To try to place the current episode on a more equal framework, we also calculated standardized moves in real (inflation-adjusted) yields. On a real basis, however, the current moves made even less of a splash. The 8-day decline (z-score = -1.2) was the only component that was more than a standard deviation from the mean, and the overall move amounted to just 0.7 standard deviations below the mean (Chart 5). Chart 4No Historical Anomaly In The Current Market No Historical Anomaly In The Current Market No Historical Anomaly In The Current Market Chart 5Little Impact In Terms Of Real Yields Little Impact In Terms Of Real Yields Little Impact In Terms Of Real Yields We are familiar with the electronic financial media’s increasingly popular convention of stating daily yield moves in proportion to the previous day’s closing yield.4 That convention has the advantage of fitting snugly aside stock price quotes on TV and computer screens, but it is ultimately nonsensical. The proportional change in a bond’s yield relative to its starting yield doesn’t come close to approximating the change in the value of that bond. Comparing proportional changes in bond yields across timeframes would be a way of putting today’s yield moves on a more equal footing with yield moves in the high-inflation, high-coupon era of the late seventies and early eighties, but it conveys no practical information. The standardized moves in real yields and Treasury index returns haven’t been a big deal. Our next steps were instead to compare Treasury total returns and the change in the slope of the yield curve to past flattening and steepening episodes. The moves here were also unavailing over both seven- and one-month periods, as the high-coupon ‘70s and ‘80s still dominated (Chart 6). In terms of the change in the 10-year Treasury yield, both nominal and real; Treasury index total returns; and the slope of the yield curve (3-month rate to 10-year yield), both the aggregate move since last October and its three component moves have amounted to one-standard-deviation events. They would only have had about a one-in-six chance of occurring randomly in a normally distributed population, but they do not represent unsustainable moves that cry out to be reversed. Chart 6Little Impact In Terms Of Treasury Total Returns, ... Little Impact In Terms Of Treasury Total Returns, ... Little Impact In Terms Of Treasury Total Returns, ... Digging a little deeper to consider total returns across different regions of the yield curve, we do find one apparent anomaly at the long end of the curve. The long Treasury index has outperformed the intermediate Treasury index by a two-standard-deviation margin over both a seven-month and a one-month timeframe (Chart 7). On a standalone basis, the long Treasury index has beaten the seven-month mean return by one-and-a-half standard deviations, and the one-month mean return by two standard deviations (Chart 8). The two-standard-deviation results would only be expected to occur one out of forty times, and thereby validate our client’s sense that something has been going on. Chart 7... But The Spread Between Long- And Intermediate-Index Returns Is Wide, ... ... But The Spread Between Long- And Intermediate-Index Returns Is Wide, ... ... But The Spread Between Long- And Intermediate-Index Returns Is Wide, ... Chart 8... And Long-Maturity Returns Have Been Elevated ... And Long-Maturity Returns Have Been Elevated ... And Long-Maturity Returns Have Been Elevated The margin by which long-maturity Treasuries have outperformed intermediate-maturity Treasuries is unusual, and history suggests it will be partially unwound over the next six to twelve months. Moving on to the second part of his inquiry, we reviewed the standalone performance of the long Treasury index, and the relative long-versus-intermediate performance, over subsequent six- and twelve-month periods. We focused our analysis on instances when historical z-scores were greater than or equal to their current levels to try to determine if we should expect current performance to reverse and, if so, how sharply. On a standalone basis, long Treasury index performance has gently reverted to the mean over the subsequent six and twelve months, posting returns over those periods within +/- 0.2 standard deviations of its long-run average (Table 5). Table 5Standardized Values Of Future Long-Maturity Treasury Index Returns Track Records Track Records Outlying relative long-versus-intermediate performance like we’ve witnessed over the last seven months has reversed more convincingly. The long Treasury index has underperformed its intermediate-maturity counterpart over six and twelve months when its z-scores were greater than or equal to their current levels over a seven- and one-month basis, falling roughly 0.5 standard deviations below the mean (Table 6). The future does not have to resemble the past, especially over small sample sizes, but relative long-end underperformance would accord with our constructive view of the U.S. economy. Table 6Standardized Values Of Future Difference Between Long- And Intermediate-Maturity Treasury Index Returns Track Records Track Records Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Hedge Near-Term Credit Exposure”, dated May 28, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Tracking The Mid-1990s”, dated June 11, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Context”, dated June 10, 2019, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 4      If a bond yielding 3% at Friday’s close ends Monday’s session with a yield of 2.94%, 6 bps lower, its yield is shown as having declined 2% on the day (-.0006/.03 = -2%). Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification