Correlations

Highlights Does it still make sense to use historical yield betas for fixed income country allocation? Yes, favoring countries with higher government bond yield betas when global yields are falling, and vice versa, is still an appropriate way to manage fixed income risk – although betas do vary between global bond bull and bear markets. Can inflation breakevens and real yields continue moving in opposite directions? Yes, but that negative correlation will become less intense, especially in the US, with rising inflation expectations eventually becoming the more dominant influence on nominal bond yields. Will inflation breakevens continue to have a strong positive correlation with oil prices? Yes, but only for as long as non-energy inflation remains low and stable, which has made energy prices the only source of inflation variability in most developed countries. Feature Sleepy bond markets got a bit of a jolt over the past couple of weeks, with longer-maturity government bond yields moving higher across the developed markets, led by the US where the 30-year Treasury yield is now back to levels last seen in June. The move higher in US Treasury yields may be a sign that investors are taking the US election polling numbers – which now signal not only a Joe Biden victory on November 3, but also a swing of the US Senate to Democratic Party control – seriously. A so-called “Blue Sweep”, resulting in the full implementation of the Biden policy platform including a massive fiscal stimulus, is potentially bond bearish, and not only for US Treasuries, given the close correlation of US yields to other bond markets. There is a strong correlation between the level of bond yields, and the yield beta, for the major developed market countries. This brief burst of global bond market volatility, stemming from developments in the US, is a reminder that investors should always be aware of the importance of cross-market correlations when making trading and portfolio construction decisions. With that in mind, this week we ask some important questions about the critical correlations across global government bond markets that support our current investment recommendations – and under what conditions they could possibly change. Does It Still Make Sense To Use Historical Yield Betas For Fixed Income Country Allocation? Chart 1Developed Bond Yields Relative To The 'Global' Bond Yield Developed Bond Yields Relative To The 'Global' Bond Yield Developed Bond Yields Relative To The 'Global' Bond Yield One of the key elements underlying our bond country allocation recommendations is the concept of “yield beta”. Simply put, this is a measure of the sensitivity of changes in individual country bond yields to changes in the overall level of global bond yields. The way we measure yield betas is by using a regression (over a three-year rolling window) of monthly changes for an individual country’s 10-year bond yield on the monthly change of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index yield for the 7-10 year maturity bucket (as the proxy for the “global” 10-year yield). The regression coefficient on the individual country yield change is the yield beta. There is a strong correlation between the level of bond yields, and the yield beta, for the major developed market countries. Currently, the list of “high-yielders” – with 10-year government bond yields above the benchmark index yield – includes the US, Italy, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (Chart 1). The low-yielders, with 10-year yields below the benchmark index yield, are Germany, France, Spain, the UK and Japan. When we look at the yield betas for that same list of countries, we can also break up the list into high-beta and low-beta bond markets. When we rank the ten countries by their rolling three-year yield betas, the five highest betas belong to the same five countries with the highest yields, and vice versa (Chart 2). This is an intuitive correlation, as countries with higher yield betas are, by definition, more volatile and should require higher yields from investors to compensate for that additional volatility. Chart 2The Higher-Yielding Countries Also Have Higher Yield Betas The Higher-Yielding Countries Also Have Higher Yield Betas The Higher-Yielding Countries Also Have Higher Yield Betas The yield betas are not stable over time for all countries, however. The US has consistently remained the highest beta market, and Japan the lowest beta market, over the past twenty years. Other countries have seen their yield betas evolve over time. For example, France, Spain and, more recently, the UK have seen their yield betas decline in recent years, while Italy has gone from being low-beta to one of the higher-beta markets. In our view, the evolution of yield betas relates to the “activism” of policymakers in each country. Higher-beta, higher-yield countries also have central banks that move interest rates higher and lower with more frequency compared to the low-beta, low-yield countries. In our view, the evolution of yield betas relates to the “activism” of policymakers in each country. That high-beta group includes bond markets linked to the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada, the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand – all central banks that are not shy about aggressively cutting or hiking interest rates. The low-beta markets have central banks that move rates very infrequently, like the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan. Table 1Yield Betas For The Major Developed Markets Some Important Questions Regarding Bond Yield Correlations Some Important Questions Regarding Bond Yield Correlations One other interesting point on yield betas is that they do vary depending on the overall direction of global bond yields. As a way to show this, we estimated “upside” and “downside” yield betas for the same ten countries shown earlier. Those betas were calculated by sorting the monthly yield changes for all countries by months when the benchmark global bond index yield was rising or falling. Thus, upside yield beta comes from a regression of monthly yield changes for individual countries on changes in overall global bond yields, but only using data for months when global yields increased. The opposite is true for downside beta, where only data from months when the global benchmark index yield declined are used. The individual yield betas – for the overall sample and the upside and downside groupings – are presented in Table 1. One conclusion that comes from breaking up the data this way is that countries that were in the low-beta group when looking at the full set of data have relatively high yield betas during periods of rising global yields, like France and the UK (Chart 3). In addition, when looking at downside betas, US Treasuries have the highest beta, by far, when global yields are falling – with yields for euro area countries having relatively lower betas (Chart 4). Chart 3Yield Betas During Periods Of Rising Global Yields Yield Betas During Periods Of Rising Global Yields Yield Betas During Periods Of Rising Global Yields Chart 4Yield Betas During Periods Of Falling Global Yields Yield Betas During Periods Of Falling Global Yields Yield Betas During Periods Of Falling Global Yields Our conclusion from this analysis is that yield betas do have a useful role in making country allocation decisions for global fixed income investors. Specifically, adjusting allocations based on a view on the overall direction of global bond yields should help better manage portfolio risk and, potentially, improve returns. Chart 5Italy Has Become High-Beta As Spreads Have Narrowed Italy Has Become High-Beta As Spreads Have Narrowed Italy Has Become High-Beta As Spreads Have Narrowed A final point on Italy – the reason Italy has had such a high yield beta over the past few years is because Italian government bond yields have been driven more by the reduction of Italian sovereign credit risk – including the redenomination risk from a potential Italian exit from the euro (Chart 5). As Italian credit spreads have melted away from the levels reached during the 2011/12 European Debt Crisis, yields have fallen faster than others during periods of falling global yields, and vice versa. Looking ahead, with the ECB continuing to be an aggressive buyer of Italian bonds in its various asset purchase programs, and with the COVID-19 pandemic forcing the European Union into a deeper level of economic co-operation – which now includes grants to Italy – the sovereign risk premium on Italian government debt should continue to narrow. That means Italy will continue to trade as a high-beta market when global yields are falling, and a low-beta market when yields are rising, making Italy an ideal overweight candidate in global bond portfolios. Bottom Line: Favoring countries with higher government bond yield betas when global yields are falling, and vice versa, is still an appropriate way to manage fixed income risk – although betas do vary between global bond bull and bear markets. Can Inflation Breakevens And Real Yields Continue Moving In Opposite Directions? The behavior of real bond yields over the past few months garnered a lot of attention in 2020, particularly the sharp fall in US TIPS yields into deeply negative territory. This has occurred at the same time as a widening of inflation breakevens, which exhibited a deeply negative correlation with real yields. The result: narrow trading ranges for nominal government bond yields in most developed countries, with moves in real yields and inflation breakevens largely offsetting each other. Adjusting allocations based on a view on the overall direction of global bond yields should help better manage portfolio risk and, potentially, improve returns. Looking at the history of real yields and inflation breakevens, periods of a negative correlation between the two are not unusual. In Chart 6, we show the range of historic correlations between 10-year inflation-linked bond yields, and 10-year inflation breakevens, for the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Canada and Japan since 2010. The dark bars represent the range of rolling correlations over a three-year period, while the red diamonds are a more recent correlation over the past thirteen weeks. All countries shown have seen periods of negative correlation, with only Australia and France having the most recent correlation be far lower than the historic experience. Chart 6Negative Real Yield/Breakevens Correlations Are Not Unprecedented Some Important Questions Regarding Bond Yield Correlations Some Important Questions Regarding Bond Yield Correlations So if a negative real yield/inflation breakeven correlation is not that unusual, then what is the cause of it? We see two drivers: the amount of spare capacity in an economy and the central bank policy response to it. We can see this by looking at the data from the countries with the two largest inflation-linked bond markets, the US and UK. In the US, real TIPS yields and inflation breakevens have generally been positively correlated only during Fed tightening cycles, specifically after the Fed has raised the fed funds rate above the rate of realized core inflation (Chart 7). This was the case in the tightening cycles of the mid-2000s and 2016-18. During those episodes, the Fed pushed the real funds rate steadily higher, which also had the effect of pushing real TIPS bond yields higher, even as inflation expectations were stable-to-rising. Looking at the history of real yields and inflation breakevens, periods of a negative correlation between the two are not unusual. The opposite held true during Fed easing cycles since the advent of the TIPS market in the late 1990s, when the Fed always lowered the funds rate below realized inflation. The result was a period of a falling real funds rate, leading to lower real TIPS yields and eventually triggering an increase in inflation breakevens. In other words, the correlation between breakevens and real yields became negative. In the UK, the negative correlation between real index-linked Gilt yields and inflation breakevens has been consistently negative since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 8). The Bank of England has barely moved policy rates since that crisis, while keeping nominal policy rates below 1% - a level that was consistently below core UK inflation. Thus, the Bank of England has maintained negative real policy rates for the past twelve years, with real Gilt yields declining steadily and inflation breakevens rising – a negative correlation - over that period. Chart 7Fed Policy Influences The US Real Yield/Breakevens Correlation Fed Policy Influences The US Real Yield/Breakevens Correlation Fed Policy Influences The US Real Yield/Breakevens Correlation Chart 8A Persistently Negative Correlation Of UK Real Yields & Breakevens A Persistently Negative Correlation Of UK Real Yields & Breakevens A Persistently Negative Correlation Of UK Real Yields & Breakevens   For both the US (Chart 9) and UK (Chart 10), the rolling 3-year correlation between real yields and breakevens has itself been correlated to the unemployment gap, or the difference between the unemployment rate and the full-employment NAIRU rate, over the past two decades. This suggests that the ebbs and flows of labor market slack, and how the Fed and Bank of England have responded to them by easing or tightening monetary policy, also play a role in determining the real yield/breakevens correlation. Chart 9Real Yield/Breakevens Correlation Will Stay Negative In The US Real Yield/Breakevens Correlation Will Stay Negative In The US Real Yield/Breakevens Correlation Will Stay Negative In The US Chart 10Real Yield/Breakevens Correlation Will Stay Negative In The UK Real Yield/Breakevens Correlation Will Stay Negative In The UK Real Yield/Breakevens Correlation Will Stay Negative In The UK   In the case of the US, a more extended UK-like period of negative real policy rates and real bond yields is likely if the Fed is to be taken at their word that they will keep rates low to engineer a US inflation overshoot. We suspect that the correlation will not be perfectly negative, as has occurred at times this year, with inflation expectations rising alongside stable-to-falling real TIPS yields as the US economy recovers from the COVID-19 shock – especially if there is a major boost from fiscal stimulus after next month’s elections. Bottom Line: We continue to see a case for inflation breakevens and real yields to stay negatively correlated in the developed economies over at least the next few years, as the labor market slack created by the 2020 COVID-19 global recession is slowly absorbed. That negative correlation will become less intense, especially in the US, with rising inflation expectations eventually becoming the more dominant influence on nominal bond yields. Will Inflation Breakevens Continue To Have A Strong Positive Correlation With Oil Prices? While the negative correlation between real inflation-linked bond yields and real yields has gotten attention this year, the positive correlation between breakevens and oil prices has become familiar to investors over the past several years. That correlation has been persistently high and positive across all developed economies since the 2008 financial crisis. Prior to that, oil prices and inflation breakevens moved together less frequently and, at times, were even uncorrelated (Chart 11). In both the US and euro area, the lack of non-energy inflation is the main reason why breakevens and oil are so correlated. In our view, the reason why breakevens and oil became strongly correlated is relatively straightforward. Since the 2008 crisis and ensuing Great Recession, swings in oil prices have been the main driver of changes in realized inflation, with ex-energy inflation rates staying very low and stable. We can see that in the US, where ex-energy CPI inflation has been broadly stable around 2% for the past decade, even as headline CPI inflation has seen more variability and has even approached 0% after the collapse in oil prices in 2014/15 and 2020 (Chart 12). Chart 11A Persistent Strong Correlation Of Global Breakevens To Oil Real Yield/Breakevens Correlation Will Stay Negative In The UK Real Yield/Breakevens Correlation Will Stay Negative In The UK Chart 12Strong Oil/Breakevens Correlation While US Ex-Energy Inflation Is Low Strong Oil/Breakevens Correlation While US Ex-Energy Inflation Is Low Strong Oil/Breakevens Correlation While US Ex-Energy Inflation Is Low Chart 13Energy Has Become The Only Source Of Euro Area Inflation Energy Has Become The Only Source Of Euro Area Inflation Energy Has Become The Only Source Of Euro Area Inflation The same dynamics, only more intense, exist in the euro area. Ex-energy inflation has struggled to stay above 1% over the past decade, leaving changes in energy prices as an even greater determinant of realized headline inflation than in the US (Chart 13). In both the US and euro area, the lack of non-energy inflation is the main reason why breakevens and oil are so correlated. Until there is evidence of a more broad-based move higher in inflation rates outside of oil - which will almost certainly require an extended period of above-trend global growth and accommodative global fiscal and monetary policies - trading inflation breakevens off oil will still be a successful strategy. Bottom Line: Global inflation breakevens will maintain a strong positive correlation to oil prices, but only for as long as non-energy inflation remains low and stable, which has made energy prices the only source of inflation variability in most developed countries Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes   Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights While we are bearish on the US dollar in the long run, the greenback is primed for a rebound in the near term. Consistently, commodities prices will relapse and EM currencies will depreciate versus the US dollar. Global growth stocks will correct further because they are overbought/over-owned and expensive. The rest of the equity market will relapse because its fundamentals are poor, especially given the renewed rise in new infection cases across Europe and the US. Feature Global financial markets are in the process of a reset. Several segments have been through very sharp and considerable movements in recent months, and these movements are starting to partially unwind. The US dollar will rebound, commodities prices will correct and global equities will continue selling off. In brief, EM risk assets and currencies are entering a period of weakness, which will eventually lead to buying opportunities. Inter-Linkages Between Fixed-Income, Currencies And Commodities Chart I-1A Reset In US Inflation Expectations And Real Rates Is Overdue A Reset In US Inflation Expectations And Real Rates Is Overdue A Reset In US Inflation Expectations And Real Rates Is Overdue US inflation expectations have risen meaningfully, and US TIPS (real) yields have plummeted since April (Chart I-1). Consistent with plunging US real rates, the US dollar has sold off sharply (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Although our bias is that US inflation will rise in the coming years, for now, the rise in inflation expectations seems excessive. Given the tight correlation between oil prices and US breakeven inflation, as illustrated in the top panel of Chart I-1, lower crude prices will cause a drop in inflation expectations. Moreover, the absence of another large US fiscal stimulus will also lead to a downgrade in growth and inflation expectations. US nominal bond yields will likely remain largely range bound, and a drop in breakeven inflation will lead to higher real yields. The latter will help the US dollar to rebound from oversold levels, and EM currencies will depreciate against the dollar. In turn, a rebound in the greenback will be associated with lower commodities prices. Notably, investors’ net long positions in copper have become very elevated (Chart I-2). Investor sentiment on commodities in general is quite positive. Hence, from a contrarian perspective, commodities prices are primed for a pullback. In addition, Chinese imports of commodities will slow in the near term, reinforcing the correction in resources prices. China has evidently been stockpiling commodities, as its commodities imports have been considerably stronger than its underlying final demand. In particular, Chart I-3 demonstrates that mainland imports of copper, crude oil, steel and iron ore have been surging. Chinese imports of crude and industrial metals are likely to drop temporarily. Chart I-2Long Copper Is A Crowded Trade Long Copper Is A Crowded Trade Long Copper Is A Crowded Trade Chart I-3China Has Been Stockpiling Commodities China Has Been Stockpiling Commodities China Has Been Stockpiling Commodities   China’s booming intake of commodities in recent months was stipulated by the country’s previously depleted commodity inventories, low prices and the availability of cheap bank financing. Granted commodity inventories have been replenished and resource prices are no longer low, Chinese imports of crude and industrial metals are likely to drop temporarily.    That said, from a cyclical perspective, China’s economic recovery will continue, and final demand for resources will expand. Thus, we will see a material correction, not a crash, in commodities prices. EM credit spreads inversely correlate with commodities prices and currencies – EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads are shown as inverted on both panels of Chart I-4. As commodities prices retreat and the US dollar rebounds, EM credit markets will sell off. Chart I-4EM Credit Markets Will Weaken As EM Currencies And Commodities Sell Off EM Credit Markets Will Weaken As EM Currencies And Commodities Sell Off EM Credit Markets Will Weaken As EM Currencies And Commodities Sell Off EM local currency bond yields might slightly back up as EM currencies depreciate and US real yields rebound. However, economic conditions in many EM countries outside China remain extremely weak, and inflation is very subdued. Hence, any back up in EM domestic bond yields will be limited. Bottom Line: While we are bearish on the US dollar in the long run, the greenback is primed for a rebound in the near term. Consistently, commodities prices will relapse and EM currencies will sell off versus the US dollar. Notably, oil prices, as well as several EM and DM currencies, have rolled over at technical levels which typically herald a major reversal (Chart I-5A and I-5B). Chart I-5AFacing A Major Resistance Facing A Major Resistance Facing A Major Resistance Chart I-5BFacing A Major Resistance Facing A Major Resistance Facing A Major Resistance Finally, EM fixed-income markets will experience a correction that will provide a buying opportunity. The Equity Correction: More To Go The correction in global share prices has further to run. Market leaders – growth stocks – remain overbought, and it is reasonable to expect that they will at least retest their 200-day moving averages. Meanwhile, the parts of the global equity universe hardest-hit during March have failed to break above their 200-day moving average. This can be interpreted as an indication that they have not yet entered a bull market. These include: EM ex-TMT1 and global value stocks as well as the US Value Line Geometric Composite Index (Chart I-6). In short, growth stocks will correct further because they are overbought/over-owned and expensive; the rest of the equity market will relapse because its fundamentals are poor, especially given the renewed rise in new infection cases across Europe and the US. Chart I-6These Stocks Have Not Entered A Bull Market Yet These Stocks Have Not Entered A Bull Market Yet These Stocks Have Not Entered A Bull Market Yet Chart I-7Downside Risks To EM Equities Downside Risks To EM Equities Downside Risks To EM Equities In addition, the following indicators also point to further selloff in EM and DM share prices. Our Risk-On / Safe-Haven currency ratio2 has been falling since June and continues pointing to lower EM share prices (Chart I-7). The EM and DM advance-decline lines have relapsed below zero indicating a deteriorating equity market breadth (Chart I-8). This heralds lower stock prices. As EM corporate bond yields rise due to either weaker EM currencies or lower commodities prices, as we argued above, EM share prices will tumble (Chart I-9).      Chart I-8Deteriorating Breadth Points To Lower Share Prices Deteriorating Breadth Points To Lower Share Prices Deteriorating Breadth Points To Lower Share Prices Chart I-9Rising EM Corporate Bond Yields Will Reinforce EM Equity Selloff Rising EM Corporate Bond Yields Will Reinforce EM Equity Selloff Rising EM Corporate Bond Yields Will Reinforce EM Equity Selloff Bottom Line: Global and EM share prices are in a correction that has not run its course. Investment Strategy A meaningful setback in their EM currencies will lead us to recommend switching from receiving long-term rates to buying their cash local currency bonds (taking currency risks as well). EM Domestic Bonds: We continue recommending receiving 10-year swap rates in Mexico, Colombia, Russia, India, China, Korea and Malaysia. A meaningful setback in their EM currencies will lead us to recommend switching from receiving long-term rates to buying their cash local currency bonds (taking currency risks as well). EM Equities: Absolute-return investors should be cautious at the moment as EM share prices are set to deflate further. Within a global equity portfolio, we continue recommending a neutral allocation to EM. Better equity valuations in EM than in the US will be offset by a rebound in the US dollar, warranting a trading range in EM versus DM relative equity performance. Our country equity allocation within the EM universe is always presented at the end of our report (please refer to page 10).   EM Exchange Rates: Even though we expect a meaningful rebound in the nominal broad trade-weighted US dollar, we believe the safe-haven currencies – such as the JPY, CHF and the euro – will outperform EM currencies.  As such, we reiterate our strategy of shorting a basket of EM currencies versus an equally-weighted basket of JPY, CHF and the euro. Our short EM currency basket consists of BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, PHP, KRW and IDR. Finally, we recommend a neutral allocation to EM credit markets (US dollar bonds) versus US corporate credit. Absolute-return investors should accumulate this asset class on a weakness.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Technology, media and telecom stocks excluding information technology (IT) sector before December 2018 and excluding IT, media & entertainment and internet & direct marketing retail as of December 2018 2Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, IDR, MXN, RUB, CLP & ZAR total return indices relative to average of JPY & CHF; rebased to 100 at January 2000 Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights In a world with low expected returns from various asset classes and still-elevated target returns among largely underfunded pension funds, asset allocators may have to consider the use of leverage to meet liability requirements. Canadian pension funds have been more open to using leverage than their US counterparts, but even the very conservative Japanese Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) has an allocation to levered asset classes such as private equity, albeit at a very low weight. Retail investors do not have access to low-cost financing as institutional investors do. Still, they too can add leverage via ETFs and Liquid Alts mutual funds. When leverage is used at the asset-class level such as in alternative asset classes, financing costs play an important role in investment decisions. For pension funds with access to low-cost financing, “direct investing” in alternative assets is more advantageous than indirect investment via alternative funds. When leverage is used at the portfolio level, such as via a risk-parity structure, the financing cost impacts mostly just the return, but the leverage constraints impact both return and volatility. Risk-parity strategy is more advantageous when it’s used as one of the strategies in a total portfolio, rather than at the total-fund level because usually a sub-portfolio can have a much higher leverage ratio than the total fund. Leverage should be managed in a centralized risk-management system at the total-fund level, together with all other risk exposures. 1. Why Should Leverage Be Considered? In a Global Asset Allocation Special Report on long-term return assumptions,1 the key conclusion was that, for the next decade, investors would not be able to achieve the kind of return targets they were used to over the previous two decades because all asset classes would see much lower returns going forward, with the largest reductions coming from fixed-income and alternative assets such as farmland, REITs, and commodities. This is bad news for investors, especially pension fund investors with long-term liabilities to match. For example, according to Wilshire Consulting,2 at the end of 2018, the aggregate funded ratio (defined as the fund assets as a percentage of the fund obligations) of 134 US state retirement systems was 72.2%, which is better than the low at the end of 2016 (Chart 1). However, as shown in Chart 2, there were still about 11% of the funds with assets at less than 50% of liabilities. Chart 1US Pensions' Funded Status* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Chart 2US Pensions' Funded Ratio Distribution* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Over the past two decades, the risk-return profile of traditional assets like equities and government bonds has already been much less attractive than historical averages, as shown in Chart 3, but investors have diversified into credit and alternative asset classes (which contain embedded leverage) to enhance their portfolios’ risk-return profile. Chart 3Future Risk-Return Profiles Less Attractive Than Historical Averages Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? According to the above-mentioned Global Asset Allocation Special Report, with a conventional 50/30/20 (equities/bonds/alts) allocation, a US investor could comfortably achieve a 7% annual return over the past two decades. Now, alternative asset classes have become mainstream, likely producing a much lower future return. The same 50/30/20 portfolio would currently generate only about 4.9% annually, much less than what’s required to match liabilities. In fact, alternatives’ future return expectations have been cut to 6.1% from their past 20-year average of 15.1% annually, meaning that even if 100% of assets are fully invested in alternatives, the expected return will still be lower than the 7% that’s still assumed by some US state pension funds.3 Not to mention that at the end of 2018, over 34% of US retirement pension funds had long-term rate-of-return expectations higher than 7.5%, as shown in Chart 4. Chart 4Challenging Long-Term Return Expectations Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Chart 5Why Should Leverage Be Considered? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? According to Modern Portfolio Theory, to achieve a higher return investors can take higher risk in three different ways, as shown in Chart 5:  1) Allocating more funds to higher-return/higher-risk assets, i.e. moving upwards to the right along the efficient frontier (red line) – for example, a 60-40 equity/bond portfolio is well to the upper-right side of the “optimal” allocation; 2) Levering up one or more assets to alter the shape of the frontier (grey line) – for instance, incorporating private-equity and infrastructure funds that contain embedded leverage; and 3) Levering up the “optimal” (in terms of return per unit of risk) risky portfolio with funds borrowed at the total-fund level (green line). Risk parity is a close proximation. For more detail about the basics of leverage, please see Appendix 1 on pages 21-22. Chart 5 illustrates three different frontiers based on the assumed risk-return forecast for US equities, US Treasurys, and alternative assets.4 We can observe the following: When the target return is low (at target 1), leverage does not provide significant benefit no matter which form is used; As the return target moves up relative to what the underlying assets can provide (target 2), direct leverage produces a better return/risk profile than embedded leverage, which in turn is better than the portfolio without any leverage; When the target return is higher than what any efficient combination from the available asset classes can achieve (target 3), investors must consider the use of direct leverage. In theory, investors should always prefer to use leverage at the total-fund level to lever up the “optimal” portfolio. In reality, however, some investors are constrained from borrowing. In addition, some investors do not have the expertise or infrastructure to manage the additional complexity that results from the use of direct leverage. In fact, direct leverage has typically been considered dangerous by many investors. Misuse of leverage was attributed to some high-profile failures, such as Long-Term Capital Management in 1998 and Lehman Brothers in 2008. So how has leverage been used by asset allocators? What are the key factors that determine if and how leverage should be used? What are the key risks associated with the use of leverage, and how should leverage be managed? In the sections below, we first review how some pension funds and retail investors have been using leverage (we ignore hedge funds, even though they are the most obvious users of leverage, because they are a part of the “alternative” asset class with embedded leverage). From there, we attempt to address, 1) How does financing cost impact leverage at the asset-class level? and 2) How does financing cost impact the decision to use leverage at the portfolio level if investors are constrained by the amount of leverage that can be used? Finally, we suggest a centralized leverage management framework to monitor and manage leverage at the total-portfolio level. 2. Use of Leverage By Pension Funds Leverage can be applied in many different ways. In general, the use of leverage by pension funds can be grouped into four categories: First, with a focus on return-seeking. This is achieved mainly by using alternative asset funds such as private-equity funds, hedge funds, real-estate funds, and infrastructure funds. These funds have embedded leverage, but with much higher costs. They provide diversification and higher risk-adjusted returns, partly because of their embedded leverage and lock-up advantages. Large pension funds, especially the Canadian pension funds which all have excellent credit ratings and strong in-house talent, have also taken advantage of their solid balance sheets to acquire low-cost financing to invest directly in alternatives. For example, the first bond issued by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) in 2001 was $600 million at 5.7%, while the Canada Public Pension Investment Board (CPPIB) even issued euro-denominated bonds in both 2017 (2 billion euros, 7-year, 0.375% coupon) and 2018 (1 billion euros, 15-year, 1.5% coupon).5 Proceeds from these bond issues have mostly been used to invest in alternative assets, which now account for a large proportion of the major Canadian pension funds’ assets under management (Table 1). Table 1“Alternatives” Have Become Mainstream For The Canadians Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage?                     Most US state pension funds are more conservative than their Canadian peers. They too have been gradually adding exposure to alternatives with embedded leverage such as private equity, real estate, and hedge funds, as shown in Chart 6. Even Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF), the very conservative Japanese sovereign wealth fund, in its current operating guideline has a 5% allocation to alternatives such as private equity, real estate, and infrastructure.6 That’s an impressive amount considering its first investment in the space was in 2013, as shown in Chart 7. Chart 6The Americans Are Catching Up On Alternatives Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Chart 7GPIF’s Push Into Alternatives* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? However, the push into alternative asset classes by large pension funds has made it increasingly difficult to allocate funds to alternative assets. For example, CalPERS has only an 8% allocation to private equity,7  yet its most recent exposure as of June 2019 stood at only 7.1% – because it could not find enough suitable private-equity investments to build the asset class to the desired scale.8 Second, with a focus on liability matching. Pension funds who follow the liability-driven investing (LDI) approach often construct two portfolios. One is the liability-matching portfolio and the other is the active portfolio. The former matches the liabilities, while the latter generates alpha to cover management fees and to provide a cushion for estimation errors. Since most pension liabilities are indexed to inflation, liabilities are often modelled as a combination of nominal bonds and inflation-linked bonds with leverage. The leverage ratio can often be higher than two or three times because of the ultra-long duration of the liabilities versus the available bond instruments. For example, the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) uses an LDI approach, which is why its leverage ratio is much higher than some other pension plans, as shown in Chart 8.  Chart 8Use Of Leverage By Some Pension Funds Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Third, with a focus on risk diversification. Risk-based strategies such as risk parity generate a more diversified portfolio with lower absolute returns compared to a conventional 60/40 equity/bond portfolio, but in general have a much higher Sharpe ratio, and therefore require leverage to achieve the required return/risk objective.9 Even though most risk-parity believers dedicate a portion of their assets to risk-parity strategies (either internally with direct leverage or externally with embedded leverage), some pension funds have adopted such a risk-diversification approach at the total-fund level. Danish pension fund ATP and the Missouri State Employees Retirement System (MOSERS) are two examples. As shown in Chart 8, as of June 2019, MOSERS’ leverage was about 50%,10 a lot higher than CalPERS’ newly augmented total-fund leverage limit of 20% (from 5% previously),11 because CalPERS does not use the same approach to apply leverage. Fourth, with a focus on more tactical moves, such as tail-risk hedging, revenue generation, and opportunistic strategies to take advantage of short-term dislocations in the marketplace. These tactics are achieved mostly using derivatives such as futures, options, and swaps. For example, equity and bond futures or swaps are often used to tactically adjust asset allocation at the total-fund level without impacting the underlying asset-class management. 3. Use of Leverage By Retail Investors Retail investors do not enjoy low-cost financing as large institutions do. They can use lines of credit or margin accounts to invest, and they can also use derivatives if they are qualified to do so. For those who are not qualified or not comfortable using leverage themselves, there are two types of retail products with embedded leverage: Levered or inverse ETFs and “Liquid Alts” mutual funds or ETFs. Levered or Inverse ETFs: These products are rebalanced daily to a fixed leverage multiple, often -3X, -2X, -1X, 2X, and 3X of the underlying assets. As such, only daily performance matches the intended performance objective. Because of the daily realization of gain and loss, they are not suitable for long-term buy-and-hold investors because the longer the holding period, the larger the drift due to the compounding effect. For example, Chart 9 shows the Nasdaq-100 ETF (QQQ) and the associated levered ETFs. It’s interesting to note that in several annual periods ending in 2011, 2016, 2018 and 2019, QQQ’s one-year return was slightly positive, yet 3X ETF’s corresponding returns were negative! This is due to the “negative diversification return” effect as defined by Qian.12 Chart 9NASDAQ-100 Linked ETF Performances* NASDAQ-100 Linked ETF Performances* NASDAQ-100 Linked ETF Performances* Liquid Alternative Mutual Funds/ETFs: These are the “liquid” version of alternative investment strategies aimed at retail investors. They are easy to buy and sell. In Canada, since National Instrument 81-102 became effective in January 2019, retail investors who do not have the sophistication to directly invest in alternatives now have access to such investments via mutual funds and ETFs. As shown in Table 2,13 these funds can utilize leverage up to 3X based on gross aggregate exposure by borrowing or short-selling. In the US, liquid alts have been available to retail investors since 2013, and the market has grown rapidly to over US$225 billion.14 Now there are signs emerging that even some institutional investors are starting to look into liquid alts ETFs.15 Table 2Canadian Regulation On Liquid Alts Mutual Funds Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? 4. Leverage At Asset-Class Level Alternative funds, such as funds that invest in private equity, private debt, and infrastructure, typically use leverage. These funds carry a high cost because 1) investors in these funds must pay a premium for not managing leverage, and 2) these funds often have much higher financing costs. For example, the average financing cost for leveraged buyouts in 2014 was more than 5%,16 while the average risk-free rate in 2014 was 0.03%. Research has shown that private-asset performance can be proxied by using leverage and the corresponding public asset. In Table 3, the base case is based on the forecast for US equities and Treasurys without leverage, and a risk-free rate of 2.6%.17 Then equities are leveraged by 1.5 times to proximate private equity. The low-cost case has a financing cost of 1.57% (which is what the average 3-month T-Bill rate was in 2019), while the high-cost case with a financing cost of 3.92%, which is 2.5 times the low-cost rate. Table 3Assumed Returns/Risks* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Chart 10Financing-Cost Impact On The Use Of Embedded Leverage Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Chart 10 shows the corresponding frontiers of the three cases. It’s clear that leverage expands the frontier to the right, meaning that leverage helps to achieve a higher return with better diversification, albeit with higher volatility. However, the financing cost plays a very important role in the feasibility of the leverage decision. When the financing cost is low, leverage is better than the base case at any return-target level. When the financing cost is high, however, leverage is worse – so long as the return target is lower than what the underlying assets can achieve without leverage. This supports the shift to “direct investing” by some institutional investors with access to lower financing when investing in alternative asset classes. 5. Leverage At Portfolio Level Risk parity is an obvious example of using leverage at the portfolio level. As shown in our previous report on risk parity, there are different approaches to implementing risk parity, and they can generate different results – especially when there are more than two assets.18 To analyze the impact of leverage constraints and financing costs, we use a two-asset (US equity/Treasury) risk-parity portfolio as the basis of our analysis. One definitive conclusion we arrived at in our previous report was that risk-parity approach historically always outperforms in recessions. This conclusion has passed the real-time test in the most recent pandemic-induced recession. As shown in Chart 11A, risk-parity portfolios that target the same volatility as a 60/40 US equity/Treasury portfolio have outperformed the latter significantly. The same holds true for the portfolios that target the same volatility as an equity portfolio (Chart 11B).   Chart 11AUS Risk Parity With Same Vol As US 60/40 US Risk Parity With Same Vol As US 60/40 US Risk Parity With Same Vol As US 60/40 Chart 11BUS Risk Parity With Same Vol As US Stocks US Risk Parity With Same Vol As US Stocks US Risk Parity With Same Vol As US Stocks However, as described in the previous Special Report on risk parity, we did not impose any cap on the use ofleverage. As such, some strategies that use a relatively short lookback period to calculate historical statistics required very high leverage ratios at some time periods in our back-tests. What would happen if we set a cap on the leverage ratio? And what if the financing cost is higher than the 3-month T-bill rate assumed in most academic research, and also in our previous report? Chart 12A and Chart 12B show the results when leverage is capped at three times and the financing cost is Libor +25 basis points. It’s clear that Chart 12A looks the same as Chart 11A because the leverage cap is higher than the required leverage employed, while the cost impact is negligible for such a short period. But Chart 12B shows that, even though the risk-parity portfolio still outperformed, the outperformance has been much less so far this year because the required leverage was a lot higher than three times. Chart 12AImpact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Low-Vol Target Risk-Parity Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Low-Vol Target Risk-Parity Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Low-Vol Target Risk-Parity Chart 12BImpact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On High-Vol Target Risk-Parity Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On High-Vol Target Risk-Parity Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On High-Vol Target Risk-Parity The impact of financing costs in Chart 12A is barely seen because the time period was short and the interest rate was low. What is the long-run impact of leverage restrictions and financing costs then? Chart 13A and Chart 13B show the long-run statistics from April 1945 to July 2020 based on a 180-month look-back period for two portfolios: RPL1, the risk-parity portfolio with the same volatility target as a 60/40 US equity/Treasury portfolio; and RPL2, the risk-parity portfolio with the same volatility as MSCI US equity index. Chart 13C shows the risk-adjusted returns for three portfolios with constant volatility targets at 10%, 12%, and 15%, respectively. Chart 13ALong-Term Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Risk-Parity With Low Vol Target* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Chart 13BLong-Term Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Risk-Parity With High Vol Target* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage?     Chart 13CLong-Tem Impact Of Financing Cost And Leverage Constraint On Risk-Parity Portfolio* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Some observations are worth highlighting: Financing costs mainly impact average return, but have very little impact on volatility. As such, higher financing costs reduce risk-adjusted returns. When there is no financing cost, all risk-parity portfolios with different volatility targets should have the same risk-adjusted return as the underlying unlevered risk-parity portfolio. When financing costs are present, however, this is no longer the case. Leverage constraints impact both returns and volatility in the same direction – i.e., stricter constraints on leverage reduce both return and volatility, and vice versa. The magnitude of the impact from leverage constraints, however, varies because the target volatility of the portfolio plays a key role in the required leverage. For a constant-volatility target, a tighter control on leverage will reduce volatility more than return, resulting in a higher risk-adjusted return (Chart 13C); for a variable-volatility target such as RPL1 and RPL2, however, the same conclusion cannot be drawn (Charts 13A and 13B) Long-run statistics do not tell the full story because they really depend on the period chosen. Chart 14A shows the dynamic impact of financing when there were no constraints on leverage, and Chart 14B shows the dynamic impact of leverage when there were no additional financing costs. Chart 15 shows the combined impact when leverage is capped at three times and the financing cost at Libor+25 basis points. They are for five different risk-parity portfolios with different volatility targets with a lookback window length of 180 months. (For different lookback window, please see Appendix 2 on pages 23-25). Chart 14ADynamic Impact Of Financing On Risk Parity Without Leverage Constraint* Dynamic Impact Of Financing On Risk Parity Without Leverage Constraint* Dynamic Impact Of Financing On Risk Parity Without Leverage Constraint* Chart14BDynamic Impact Of Leverage Cap On Risk Parity Without Extra Financing * Dynamic Impact Of Leverage Cap On Risk Parity Without Extra Financing * Dynamic Impact Of Leverage Cap On Risk Parity Without Extra Financing * Chart 15Dynamic Impact Of Financing On Risk Parity With Leverage Being Capped At 3X Dynamic Impact Of Financing On Risk Parity With Leverage Being Capped At 3X Dynamic Impact Of Financing On Risk Parity With Leverage Being Capped At 3X It is interesting to note the following: When there is no restriction on leverage, additional financing cost eats away cumulative total return in a much more significant way when an risk parity portfolio has a higher-volatility target than a lower-volatility target (Chart 14A). This is simply because a higher-volatility target requires higher leverage. When there was no additional cost of financing, constraint on leverage ate away total returns – mostly in the early years of the back-test when required leverage was often very high. In recent years, the impact was significant only when the leverage cap dropped to three times or lower. Also, the higher the volatility target, the more reduction in return risk-parity portfolio would suffer compared to its base case (Chart 14B). When the lookback window length is changed, the impact of leverage and financing cost also changes. The shorter the window length, the larger the impact (Charts in Appendix 2). A 180-month lookback period was the preferred choice in our previous report, and it is still more appropriate to use than 36 months or 360 months. Since additional cost and restriction on leverage eat away total return so much, is it really worthwhile to even consider using a risk-parity approach at all? Charts 16A and 16B show that overall total returns were worse during the entire period from April 1945 to July 2020, when additional cost and leverage constraints are applied. Since the burst of the tech bubble, however, risk-parity portfolios with the same volatility target as US 60/40 and also MSCI US have generated higher total returns than US 60/40 and MSCI US, respectively.  Chart16ADoes Risk-Parity With Same Vol As US 60/40 Outperform US 60/40? Does Risk-Parity With Same Vol As US 60/40 Outperforms US 60/40? Does Risk-Parity With Same Vol As US 60/40 Outperforms US 60/40? Chart 16BDoes Risk-Parity With Same Vol As MSCI USI Outperform MSCI US? Does Risk-Parity With Same Vol As MSCI US Outperforms MSCI US? Does Risk-Parity With Same Vol As MSCI US Outperforms MSCI US? We are in a low interest-rate environment, and rates may stay low for a long time to come. In addition, when futures contracts are used to implement leverage, the implied cost is very close to 3-month T-Bills; Libor or Libor + may be present mostly when swaps are used due to factors such as supply/demand and counterparty risk. As such, financing costs will likely play less of a role than leverage constraints until interest rates rise significantly. Given that total-fund leverage is much lower than individual strategy/portfolio leverage, the implication is that risk-parity is more advantageous when it is used as a strategy in a sub-portfolio other than at the total fund level. 6. Suggestion For Leverage Management In a low-return environment, asset allocators face more challenges to meet return targets than in the past. Unless return targets are lowered to what the underlying assets can reasonably provide, asset allocators may have to consider the use of leverage to beef up overall portfolio returns. However, leverage is also a double-edged sword because it also increases portfolio volatility. As such, we suggest a centralized risk-management system to monitor and manage all risks, including risks associated with leverage, in line with our suggestion on currency hedging outlined in our 2017 Special Report. Appendix 1: Leverage Basics Leverage is an investment strategy of using borrowed money – specifically, the use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital – to increase the potential return of an investment. It also amplifies the loss potential if the levered investment does not work out as expected. This is why it is also often called a “double-edged sword.” Leverage has many different forms and is used in many different places. For example, residential home mortgages are a form of leverage that the general public understands very well, yet the leverage embedded in a futures contract may sound alien to some retail investors. For asset allocators, the most important decision on leverage is whether to apply leverage directly at the total-portfolio level or use assets with embedded leverage. For example, issuing bonds to lever up a diversified portfolio (a mean-variance optimal portfolio or a suboptimal risk-parity portfolio) is an example of the former. On the other hand, investing in a private equity fund is an example of the latter. Research has shown that for large pension funds with excellent credit ratings, the latter is less efficient than the former due to the much higher cost of financing.1  For example, in 2014, the average cost of financing for leveraged buyouts was in excess of 5% when the short-term interest rate was close to zero.2 It’s not surprising that pension investors have formed joint ventures to invest in alternative assets directly instead of relying on specialty funds. In terms of financing, there is on-balance-sheet leverage and off-balance-sheet leverage. On-balance-sheet leverage raises liabilities, such as via bond issuance. Off-balance-sheet leverage uses the balance sheet of a counterparty, such as OTC financial derivatives. A repo agreement is a repurchase agreement that involves selling a security (often a government bond) to a counterparty (a lender) with the promise of buying it back after a pre-defined period at a pre-defined price. It’s often used for short-term liquidity management.  Depending on the form of financing, the measurement of leverage differs. Accounting leverage or balance-sheet leverage is calculated as total assets divided by net assets. This measurement is accurate only if on-balance-sheet leverage is used for long-only investments. When off-balance-sheet leverage is used or when shorting is involved, then accounting leverage severely understates the actual leverage. For example, Appendix Table A1 below is a snapshot from the 2018 annual report of Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP). The notional value of its derivatives was $333 billion, which is over 10 times the fair value of these instruments, and over four times the fund’s net asset value. Appendix Table A1HOOPP's Use Of Derivatives* Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? So, when derivatives are used, accounting leverage is often adjusted for derivative exposure by taking the delta-adjusted notional value of derivative contracts.3 When there are short positions, leverage can be measured as Gross and Net Leverage after derivatives exposure is delta-adjusted. Gross Leverage is defined as the total exposure of long and short positions divided by net assets. This is accurate when the long and short positions are totally separate active bets. Net Leverage, is defined as the net exposure between long and short positions, divided by net assets. This is an accurate measure of leverage when the long and short positions are taken as hedges for one another. 1  Dr. Serguei Zernov, “Leverage to Meet the Pension Promise,” Global Risk Institute, Jan 24, 2019. 2  L’her, J.F., Stoyanova, R., Shaw, K., Scott, W. and Lai, C, “A bottom-up approach to the risk-adjusted performance of the buyout fund market”, Financial Analysts Journal, July/August 2016. 3  Andrew Ang, Sergiy Gorovyy and Gregoty B. van Inwegen, “Hedge Fund Leverage,” Journal of Financial Economics, January 25, 2011. Appendix 2: Impact Of Leverage Caps And Financing Costs With Different Lookback Window Lengths In Section 5, Chart 14A, Chart 14B and Chart 15 were presented using a lookback window of 180 months, a prefered window length based on our previous research on risk parity. However, practioners have been using different lookback windows. Below are the corresponding charts showing lookback windows of 360 months and 36 months, respectively. It’s easy to see that, the shorter the lookback window, the more significant the impact of  both financing costs and leverage constraints. The reason is simple: a shorter lookback window generates much higher leverage compared to a longer lookback window. APPENDIX 2 Chart 1AImpact Of Financing With 360-Month Lookback Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? APPENDIX 2 Chart 1BImpact Of Financing With 36-Month Lookback Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage?   APPENDIX 2 Chart 2AImpact Of Leverage Cap With 360-Month Lookback Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? APPENDIX 2 Chart 2BImpact Of Leverage Cap with 36-Month Lookback Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage?   APPENDIX 2 Chart 3AImpact Of Financing When Leverage Capped At 3X With 360-Month Lookback Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? APPENDIX 2 Chart 3BImpact Of Financing When Leverage Capped At 3X With 36-Month Lookback Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage? Can Asset Allocators Afford Not To Use Leverage?   Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined,” dated June 25, 2019. 2 Ned McGuire and Brice Shirimbere, "2019 Wilshire Consulting Report on State Retirement Systems: Funding Levels and Asset Allocation," Wilshire Associates, March 2019. 3 “State Pension Funds adjust to ‘New Normal’ of Lower Returns,” Chief Investment Officer, January 2, 2020, 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined,” dated June 25, 2019. 5 Martha Porado, “A look at how Canadian pension funds are using leverage,” dated Aug 10, 2018. 6GPIF (Government Pension Investment Fund) 2018 annual report. 7 "2017-18 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,"CalPERS. p106, 2018 annual report. 8 "CalPERS Falling Short of Private Equity Goals," dated November 18, 2019. 9 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Demystifying Risk Parity," dated May 8, 2019. 10 https://www.mosers.org/funding/annual-reports 11 Arleen Jacobius, "CalPERS shifts $150 billion as part of new strategic asset allocation," Pensions And Investments, dated August 20, 2019. 12 Edward Qian, “Rebalance and Diversification Returns of Leveraged Portfolios,” Investment Insight, Panagora, December 2011. 13https://www.mackenzieinvestments.com/content/dam/mackenzie/en/2019/03/mm-investing-in-liquid-alternatives-en.pdf 14 https://perspectives.scotiabank.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Liquid-A… 15 "5 Use Cases for Liquid Alt ETFs," Institutional Investor dated November 18, 2019. 16 L’ her et al, “A bottom-up approach to the risk-adjusted performance of the buyout fund market,” Financial Analysts Journal, 72(4), 2016. 17 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined,” dated June 25, 2019. 18 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, Demystifying Risk Parity," dated May 8, 2019.

Highlights The underperformance of value versus growth has been a reason behind the dollar bull market rather than a consequence of it. The rationale is that the catalyst for any sector to outperform is return on capital rather than the cost of capital. The outperformance of health care and technology has been on the back of rising profits, rather than just investor exuberance and/or low bond yields. Cyclical currencies with a high concentration of value sectors have tracked the relative performance of their representative bourses. A reversal will require value sectors to start outperforming on a sustainable basis. It is encouraging that leadership changes in equity markets occur more often than not. Historically, these tend to take place every decade. Bombed-out valuations suggest some deep-value sectors have become sufficiently cheap to compensate for a pessimistic profit scenario. An outperformance of value versus growth will favor cyclical currencies. We are long a basket of petrocurrencies, the SEK, and GBP. We are also short USD/JPY as portfolio insurance (and as a play on the cyclical Japanese market). Feature The usual market narrative is that for non-US stocks to outperform, the dollar has to decline. This also applies to value stocks that have a higher weighting outside the US, compared to growth stocks. At the center of this premise is that the dollar is a reserve currency. As a result, three reasons emblem the view. First, a fall in the dollar eases financing costs for non-US corporations borrowing in dollars. Second, commodities tend to do well when the dollar declines, benefiting emerging market and commodity-producing countries. And finally, a lower dollar boosts the common-currency returns for US-based investors, leading to more capital deployment in offshore markets. On the surface, this makes sense. But digging deeper into the thesis, it appears that a lower US dollar is a necessary but not sufficient condition for non-US (or value) stocks to outperform. The reason is that profit growth (the ultimate driver of stock prices) is more contingent on productivity gains rather than translation effects. As such, the value-versus-growth debate is important, not only for the sectors involved, but for currency strategy as well. A Two-Decade Postmortem Chart 1 plots the MSCI global value index versus its growth counterpart, superimposed against the US dollar. Two trends become apparent: The relative performance of value versus growth typically bottoms or peaks ahead of turns in the US dollar. The relationship between the value/growth ratio and the US dollar is not always in sync. There was a period of decoupling after the financial crisis, and, more recently, in 2015-2016. This was also the case in the ‘80s and around the Asian crisis in the late ‘90s. Flows tend to gravitate to capital markets with the highest expected returns, and this is certainly the case when value or growth style tilts are concerned. This is important for currency strategy, since sector composition can drive a country’s equity returns. Meanwhile, both equity and currency relative performances tend to be in sync (Chart 2A and Chart 2B). Chart 1Value/Growth Turns Before The Dollar Value/Growth Turns Before The Dollar Value/Growth Turns Before The Dollar Chart 2ACurrencies Follow Relative Equity Performance Currencies Follow Relative Equity Performance Currencies Follow Relative Equity Performance Chart 2BCurrencies Follow Relative Equity Performance Currencies Follow Relative Equity Performance Currencies Follow Relative Equity Performance According to the MSCI classification, information technology and health care are the biggest components of the growth index – a whopping 49%. This is in stark contrast to financials and industrials, which make up 33% of the value index. Not surprisingly, currencies with a heavy value weighting in their domestic bourses (Table 1) have suffered indiscriminately compared to their growth counterparts, over the last decade. Table 1Sector Weights Across G10 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate Take the US and Switzerland, which have the highest equity concentration in traditional growth sectors, at over 60%. Both the US dollar and Swiss franc have held up remarkably well in trade-weighted terms since the onset of the dollar bull market (Chart 3). Likewise, it would have been a miracle for petrocurrencies (CAD, NOK and AUD) to hold up amid the recent underperformance in energy and financials. This suggests that at minimum, the underperformance of value versus growth has been a reason for the dollar bull market rather than a consequence of it. Chart 3Style Tilt Drives Currency Performance Style Tilt Drives Currency Performance Style Tilt Drives Currency Performance Chicken And Egg Problem? What about the narrative that a decline in the dollar greases the engine of non-US stocks? Yes, but not entirely. It is certainly the case that most global trade and financing is conducted in US dollars, and so a fall in the US dollar (commensurate with lower interest rates) leads to easier global financial conditions. As Chart 4 clearly illustrates, corporate spreads abroad have been tightly correlated to dollar volatility. A lower dollar also eases repayment costs for non-US borrowers. A lower dollar also boosts resource prices through the numeraire effect (Chart 5). Meanwhile, rising commodity prices flatter industries tied to the resource value chain such as industrials, materials, and energy. Second-round economic effects also buffet other cyclical industries such as retail and hospitality, which help boost the domestic equity index. That said, the rally in commodities, value stocks, and emerging market share prices in 2016-2017 occurred despite a dollar that was flat-to-higher – so the causality versus effect link is not always trivial. Part of the reason is that, over the past few years, both emerging market and other non-US corporates have diversified their sources of debt funding. Euro- and yen-denominated debt have been surging (Chart 6), which has kept their cost of capital low, even as the dollar has risen. Chart 4The Dollar And Funding Stresses The Dollar And Funding Stresses The Dollar And Funding Stresses Chart 5Tied To The Hip Tied To The Hip Tied To The Hip Chart 6Lots Of Non-US Debt Lots Of Non-US Debt Lots Of Non-US Debt It is also important to note that in commodity bull markets, prices tend to rise in all currencies, including domestically (Chart 7). This is crucial for sector outperformance since the translation effect for profits will otherwise be negative, given local-currency fixed and variable costs. This suggests that demand is the driving force behind bull markets in commodity prices and cyclical stocks, rather than a lower greenback. Chart 7Commodity Bull Markets In Different Currencies Commodity Bull Markets In Different Currencies Commodity Bull Markets In Different Currencies Chart 8China And Commodities China And Commodities China And Commodities This demand has come in the form of Chinese stimulus. Chart 8 shows a close correlation between excess liquidity in China (a measure of the centripetal force from Chinese credit) and resource share valuations. Ergo, a key barometer for value to outperform growth is that Chinese demand picks up, plugging the hole in exactly the sectors that have borne the brunt of deleveraging in recent years A look at corporate balance sheets and income statements corroborates this view. Growth has outperformed value on the back of a re-rating, but also on profitability. Chart 9A and Chart 9B rank G10 equity bourses on the basis of return on equity and their corresponding price-to-book ratios. Not surprisingly, the winners of the last decade have had the biggest returns on equity, as was the case for the winners during the prior decade. Chart 9AMarkets Bid Up High Returns To Capital Markets Bid Up High Returns To Capital Markets Bid Up High Returns To Capital Chart 9BMarkets Bid Up High Returns To Capital Markets Bid Up High Returns To Capital Markets Bid Up High Returns To Capital As such, the catalyst for any sector to outperform is return on capital rather than the cost of capital. Structural Shift? There is some evidence that the underperformance of value versus growth could be structural. For one, being a value manager seems to be following the fate of telephone switchboard operators in the early 1900s. Perhaps the advent of computer trading systems has systematically eroded the value premium. As such it is becoming more and more difficult, even for the most skillful value managers, to beat their own index. An inability for value sectors to outperform will be a key risk to a dollar-bearish view. Work done on our in-house Equity Trading Strategy platform corroborates this view. Since about 2014, a long/short strategy based on the best value stocks relative to the worst in terms of a swath of fundamental valuation metrics has been flat compared to a more blended strategy (Chart 10). According to our quantitative specialists, the best value can be found in European countries such as Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany (Chart 11). Surprisingly, their proprietary value model rate Switzerland and New Zealand quite highly, despite a clear defensive bias in these equity markets. Unsurprisingly, some of the countries that have had the weakest currencies in the last decade such as Sweden and the Eurozone members have highly favored value sectors. Chart 10A Dearth Of Value Managers A Dearth Of Value Managers A Dearth Of Value Managers Chart 11Lots Of Value Outside The US Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate Going forward, a few things could change. One of the primary reasons why growth has outperformed value has been the drop in bond yields, which has increased the appeal of companies with low payout ratios and much more backdated cash flows (Chart 12). But as countries from Japan to Australia implement yield-curve controls at the zero bound, the capitalized dividend from low yields is bound to be exhausted. Meanwhile, any rise in yields will favor deep-value sectors like banks (due to rising net interest margins) and commodities (due to inflation protection). Chart 12A Lower Discount Favors Long-Duration Assets A Lower Discount Favors Long-Duration Assets A Lower Discount Favors Long-Duration Assets Second, falling global trade and the proliferation of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investing has hammered traditional industries such as energy and autos. Part of this trend is structural, but there is also a cyclical component. For the auto industry in particular, auto sales are strongly (inversely) correlated to the unemployment rate, and as more economies reopen, car sales should pick up. Meanwhile, traditional auto and energy companies are stepping up their electric vehicle and alternative energy strategies, meaning the first-mover advantage for the avant-gardes like Tesla and Nikola could be eroded. Finally, valuation tends to be a key catalyst near recessions. Given that over the years, one of the more consistent drivers of long-term equity returns has been the valuation starting point, this favors non-US stocks (Chart 13A, Chart 13B, Chart 13C, Chart 13D). Not surprisingly, the currencies that are the most undervalued in our models1 also have cheap equity markets. Even if one focuses solely on growth sectors such as technology and health care, non-US companies are still more attractive, according to our Equity Trading Strategy platform (Chart 14). This suggests some measure of convergence is due. Chart 13AProspective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Chart 13BProspective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Chart 13CProspective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Chart 13DProspective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate Chart 14Attractive Growth Stocks Outside The US Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate It is encouraging that leadership changes in equity markets occur more often than not. Historically, these tend to occur every decade. Bombed-out valuations suggest some deep-value sectors have become sufficiently cheap to compensate for a pessimistic profit scenario. Portfolio Construction An outperformance of value versus growth will favor cyclical currencies. The catalyst will have to be improving return on capital from value sectors, but the valuation starting point is already quite compelling. Meanwhile, even traditional growth sectors are still cheaper outside the US. We are already selectively long a basket of petrocurrencies, the SEK, and GBP. We are also short USD/JPY as portfolio insurance (and as a play on the cyclical Japanese market). Should value stocks gain more widespread appeal, we will add the Eurozone and emerging market currencies to this basket. Elsewhere, a tactical trading opportunity has also opened up to go short the NZD/CAD cross. Little known is that the New Zealand stock market is the most defensive in the world (previously referenced in Table 1). This has helped keep the New Zealand dollar higher than would have otherwise been the case. Should value start to outperform growth, this will favor the CAD/NZD cross (Chart 15). Chart 15CAD/NZD And Relative Stocks CAD/NZD And Relative Stocks CAD/NZD And Relative Stocks While we commend Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19 in New Zealand, the economy will soon start to bump against supply-side constraints. More specifically, COVID-19 has accentuated the immigration cliff in New Zealand, an important hit to the labor dividend for the economy (Chart 16). As such, the neutral rate of interest is bound to head lower. Chart 16A Top For NZD/CAD? A Top For NZD/CAD? A Top For NZD/CAD? This is in stark contrast to Canada, where the current government was pro-immigration even before widespread lockdowns. Meanwhile, in the commodity space, our bias is that energy will fare better than agriculture, boosting relative Canadian terms of trade. Go short NZD/CAD for a trade.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report , "Updating Our Intermediate-Term Models", dated July 3, 2020.

Highlights Global Bond Yields: The growing divide between falling negative real bond yields and rising inflation expectations in the US and other major developed economies may be a sign of investors pricing in slower long-run potential economic growth in the aftermath of the COVID-19 recession – and, thus, lower equilibrium real interest rates. Stay overweight inflation-linked bonds versus nominal equivalents. Currency-hedged spread product: A broad ranking of currency-hedged global spread product yields, adjusted for volatility and credit quality, shows that the most attractive yields (hedged into USD, EUR, GBP and JPY) are on offer in emerging market USD-denominated investment grade corporates and high-yield company debt in the US and UK. Feature Global bond yields are testing the downside of the narrow trading ranges that have persisted since May. As of last Friday, the yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index was at 0.41%, only 3 basis points (bps) above the 2020 low seen back in March. The 10-year US Treasury yield closed yesterday at 0.56%, only 6bps above the year-to-date low. Chart of the Week A Massive Shock To Growth ... And Interest Rates A Massive Shock To Growth ... And Interest Rates Concerns about global growth, with the number of new COVID-19 cases still surging in the US and new breakouts occurring in countries like Spain and Australia, would seem to be the logical culprit for the decline in yields. The first reads on global GDP data for the 2nd quarter released last week were historically miserable, with declines of -33% (annualized) in the US and -10% in the euro area (non-annualized). That represents a very deep hole of lost output, literally wiping out several years of growth. Even with the sharp improvements seen recently in cyclical indicators like global manufacturing PMIs, especially in China and Europe, a return to pre-pandemic levels of global economic output is many years away. Central banks will have no choice but to keep policy rates near 0% for at last the next couple of years, as is the current forward guidance provided by the Fed, ECB and others. Lower global bond yields may simply be reflecting the reality that it will take a long time to heal the economic wounds from the pandemic. However, there may be a more insidious reason why bond yields are falling. Investors may be permanently marking down their expectations for long-term potential economic growth, and equilibrium interest rates, in response to the devastation caused by the COVID-19 recession. Last week, Fitch Ratings lowered its estimates for long-term potential GDP growth, used to determine sovereign credit ratings, by 0.5 percentage points for the US (now 1.4%), 0.5 percentage points for the euro area (now 0.7%) and 0.7 percentage points in the UK (now 0.7%).1 These are declines similar in magnitude to the plunge in the OECD’s potential growth rate estimates seen after the 2009 Great Recession (Chart of the Week). Bond yields in the US and Europe witnessed a fundamental repricing in response, with nominal 5-year yields, 5-years forward breaking 200bps below the 4-6% range that prevailed in the US and Europe during the decade prior to the Great Recession. A similar re-rating of global bond yields to structurally lower levels may now be happening, with investors now believing that central banks will have difficulty raising rates much (if at all) in the future - even after the pandemic has ended. The Message From Declining Negative Real Bond Yields Chart 2The Real Rate/Breakevens Divergence Continues The Real Rate/Breakevens Divergence Continues The Real Rate/Breakevens Divergence Continues The typical signals about economic growth from government bond yields are now less clear because of the aggressive policy responses to the COVID-19 crisis. 0% policy rates, dovish forward guidance on the timing of any future rate increases, large scale asset purchases (QE), and more extreme measures like yield curve control to peg bond yields, have all acted to suppress the level and volatility of nominal global bond yields. Within those calm nominal yields, however, the dynamic that has been in place since May - rising inflation breakevens and falling real bond yields – is growing in intensity. The 10-year US TIPS real yield is now at a new all-time low of -1.02%, while the 10-year TIPS breakeven is now up to 1.58%, the highest since February before the pandemic began to roil financial markets (Chart 2). Similar trends are evident in most other major developed economy bond markets, with the gap between falling real yields and widening breakevens growing at a notably faster pace in Canada and Australia. More often than not, longer-term real yields tend to move in the same direction as inflation expectations when economic growth is improving. The former responds to faster economic activity, often with an associated pick up in private sector credit demand. At the same time, rising inflation expectations discount higher economic resource utilization (i.e. lower unemployment) and confidence that inflation will start to pick up. A deeply negative correlation between longer-term real yields and inflation expectations is unusual, but not unprecedented. A deeply negative correlation between longer-term real yields and inflation expectations is unusual, but not unprecedented. In Chart 3, we show the range of rolling three-year correlations between 10-year inflation-linked (real) government bond yields and 10-year inflation breakevens in the US, Germany, France, Italy, the UK, Japan, Canada and Australia for the post-crisis period. The triangles in the chart are the latest three-year correlation, while the diamonds are a more recent measure showing the 13-week correlation. There are a few key takeaways from this chart: Chart 3Negative Real Yield/Breakevens Correlations Are Not Unprecedented Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? All countries shown have experienced a sustained period of negative correlation between real yields and inflation breakevens; The correlation has mostly been positive in Australia and has always been negative in Japan; Most importantly, the deeply negative correlations seen over the past three months – with rising breakevens all but fully offsetting falling real yields – are at or below the range of historical experience for all countries shown. Chart 4TIPS Yields May Stay Negative For Some Time TIPS Yields May Stay Negative For Some Time TIPS Yields May Stay Negative For Some Time In the current virus-stricken world, where many businesses that have closed during the pandemic may never reopen, there will be abundant spare global economic capacity for several years. In the US, measures of spare capacity like the unemployment gap (the unemployment rate minus the full-employment NAIRU rate) have been a reliable leading directional indicator of the long-run correlation between real TIPS yields and TIPS breakevens over the past decade (Chart 4). The surge in US unemployment seen since the spring, which has pushed the jobless rate into double-digit territory, suggests that the current deeply negative correlation between US real yields and inflation breakevens can persist over the next 6-12 months. Given the large increases in unemployment seen in other countries, the negative correlations between real yields and inflation breakevens should also continue outside the US. As for inflation expectations, those remain correlated in the short-run to changes in oil prices and exchange rates in all countries. On that front, there is still some room for breakevens to widen to reach the fair value levels implied by our models.2 A good conceptual way to think about inflation breakevens on a more fundamental level, however, is as a “vote of confidence” in a central bank’s monetary policy stance. If investors perceive policy settings to be too tight, markets will price in slower growth and lower inflation expectations, and vice versa. Every developed market central bank is now setting policy rates near or below 0% - and promising to keep them there until at least the end of 2022. Thus, the trend of rising global inflation breakevens can continue as a reflection of very dovish central banks that will be more tolerant of increases in inflation and not tighten policy pre-emptively. Currently, real 10-year inflation-linked bond yields are below the New York Fed’s estimates of the neutral real short-term rate, or “r-star”, in the US and the UK (Chart 5), as well as in the euro area and Canada (Chart 6).3 In the US and euro area, real yields have followed the broad trend of r-star, but the gap between the two is relatively moderate with r-star estimated to be only 0.5% in the US and 0.2% in the euro zone (where the ECB is setting a negative nominal interest rate on European bank deposits at the central bank – a policy choice that the Fed has been very reluctant to consider). Chart 5Negative Real Bond Yields Are Below R* In The US & UK ... Negative Real Bond Yields Are Below R* In The US & UK ... Negative Real Bond Yields Are Below R* In The US & UK ... Chart 6... As Well As In The Euro Area & Canada ... As Well As In The Euro Area & Canada ... As Well As In The Euro Area & Canada A more interesting study is in the UK where 10yr inflation-linked Gilt yields have fallen below -2.5%, but without the Bank of England implementing any negative nominal policy rates. In the UK, inflation expectations have been relatively high – running in the 2.5-3% range prior to the COVID-19 recession – as the Bank of England has consistently kept overnight interest rates below actual CPI inflation since the 2008 financial crisis. Thus, nominal Gilt yields have stayed relatively low for longer, as real yields and inflation expectations have remained negatively correlated for a long period with the Bank of England maintaining a consistently negative real policy rate. Chart 7Spillovers From Negative TIPS Yields Into Other Assets Spillovers From Negative TIPS Yields Into Other Assets Spillovers From Negative TIPS Yields Into Other Assets If the Fed were to do the same in the US, keeping the funds rate very low even as inflation rises, then a similar dynamic could take place where real TIPS yields continue to fall and TIPS breakevens continue to rise as the market prices in a sustained negative real fed funds rate. That may already be happening, with Fed Chair Jerome Powell hinting last week that the Fed is in the process of completing its inflation strategy review – with a shift towards rate hikes occurring only after realized inflation has sustainably increased to the Fed’s 2% target. A forecast of inflation heading to 2% because of falling unemployment will no longer be enough.4 Other factors may be at work depressing real bond yields while boosting inflation expectations, such as the massive QE bond buying programs of the Fed, ECB and other central banks. Yet even QE programs are essentially an aggressive form of forward guidance designed to drive down longer-term bond yields by lowering expectations of future interest rates. In sum, it is increasingly likely that the current phase of negative global real bond yields may become longer lasting if markets believe that equilibrium real policy rates are now negative. Bond investors will expect central banks to sit on their hands and do nothing in that environment, even if inflation starts to increase. This not only has implications for bond markets, but other asset classes as well based on what is happening in the US. The steady decline in the in the 10-year US TIPS yield has boosted the valuation of assets that typically have been considered inflation hedges, like equities and gold (Chart 7). The fall in TIPS yields also suggests that more weakness in the US dollar is likely to come over the next 6-12 months – another reflationary factor that should help lift global inflation expectations and boost the attractiveness of inflation-linked bonds. The current phase of negative global real bond yields may become longer lasting if markets believe that equilibrium real policy rates are now negative. Bottom Line: The growing divide between falling negative real bond yields and rising inflation expectations in the US and other major developed economies may be a sign of investors pricing in slower long-run potential economic growth in the aftermath of the COVID-19 recession – and, thus, lower equilibrium real interest rates. Stay overweight inflation-linked bonds versus nominal equivalents. Searching For Value In Global Spread Product Last week, we looked at the impact of currency hedging on the attractiveness of government bond yields across the developed markets.5 We concluded that US Treasuries still offered superior yields to most other countries’ sovereign bonds, even with the US dollar in a weakening trend and after hedging out currency risk. We also presented a cursory look at the relative attractiveness of the major global spread product categories in that report, but without factoring in any considerations on the relative credit quality or volatility between sectors. This week, we will look at the relative value of global spread products hedged into USD, GBP, EUR and JPY, but after controlling for those credit and volatility risks. We conducted a similar analysis in early 2018,6 ranking the currency-hedged yields for a wide variety of global spread products by the ratio of yields to trailing volatility. This time, instead of looking at the just that simple valuation metric, we use regression models to make a judgment on how under- or over-valued spread products are relative to their “fair value”. To recap the methodology of this analysis, we take the Bloomberg Barclays index yield-to-maturity (YTM) for each spread product category, hedged into the four currencies used in this analysis, and divide it by the annualized trailing volatility of those yields over both short-term (1-year) and long-term (3-year) windows. In order to hedge the yields into each currency, we used the annualized differentials between spot and 3-month forward exchange rates, which is the all-in cost of hedging. We then compare those currency-hedged, volatility-adjusted yields to two measures of risk: the index credit rating and duration times spread (DTS) for each spread product. Table 1 summarizes the attractiveness of each product when hedged into different currencies. The rank is based on the average of four different valuation measures.7 The higher the rank, the more attractive the sector is in terms of yield relative to risk measures such as both short-term and long-term volatilities, credit ratings, and DTS. Table 1Ranking Currency-Hedged, Risk-Adjusted Global Spread Product Yields Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? A few interesting points come from the table: Emerging market (EM) USD-denominated investment grade (IG) corporate debt ranks at or near the top of the rankings, for all currencies; the opposite holds true for EM USD-denominated sovereign bonds Almost all European spread products rank poorly for non-euro denominated investors US & UK high-yield (HY) rank highly for all currencies US real estate related assets (MBS and CMBS) also rank well for all investor groups In general, US products are more attractive than European credit sectors. This is mainly because US spread products offer higher yields than European ones even after accounting for volatility and the weakening US dollar. Almost all European spread products rank poorly for non-euro denominated investors. Chart 8 shows the unhedged YTM on the x-axis and the option-adjusted spread (OAS) on the y-axis (Table 2 contains the abbreviations used in this chart and all remaining charts in this report). Unsurprisingly, the YTM and OAS follow a very tight linear relationship. However, when yields are hedged into different currencies and risk measures are factored in, the result changes. Chart 8Global Spread Product Yields & Spreads Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Charts 9A to 12B show the details of spread product analysis with different currency hedges and risk factors. To limit the number of charts shown, we show only currency-hedged yields adjusted by long-term trailing volatility (the rankings do not change significantly when using a shorter-term volatility measure). The y-axis in all charts shows the volatility-adjusted yields, while the x-axis shows credit ratings and DTS. Sectors that are close to upper-right in each chart are more attractive (undervalued), while spread products that are close to bottom-left are less attractive (overvalued). Chart 9AGlobal Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into USD, Adjusted For Credit Quality Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Chart 9BGlobal Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into USD, Adjusted For Duration-Times-Spread Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Chart 10AGlobal Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into EUR, Adjusted For Credit Quality Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Chart 10BGlobal Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into EUR, Adjusted For Duration-Times-Spread Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Chart 11AGlobal Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into GBP, Adjusted For Credit Quality Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Chart 11BGlobal Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into GBP, Adjusted For Duration-Times-Spread Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Chart 12AGlobal Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into JPY, Adjusted For Credit Quality Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Chart 12BGlobal Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into JPY, Adjusted For Duration-Times-Spread Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Table 2Global Spread Products In Our Analysis Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? An interesting result is that when comparing the three major high-yield products (US-HY, EMU-HY and UK-HY), US-HY is the most attractive in USD terms, but UK-HY is more attractive when hedged into GBP, EUR, and JPY. Another observation is that higher quality bonds such as government-related and agency debt in the US and euro area are overvalued and less attractive given how low their yields are, regardless of their low volatility. The results from this analysis may differ from our current recommendations. For example, we currently only have a neutral recommendation on EM corporates, but based on this analysis, EM corporates offer the most attractive return in USD terms. This analysis is purely based on YTM and traditional risk factors without considering other concerns that could make EM assets riskier such as the spread of COVID-19 in major EM countries. However, these rankings do line up with our major spread product call of overweighting US IG and HY corporate debt versus euro area equivalents. Based on this analysis, EM corporates offer the most attractive return in USD terms.  Bottom Line: A broad ranking of currency-hedged global spread product yields, adjusted for volatility and credit quality, shows that the most attractive yields (hedged into USD, EUR, GBP and JPY) are on offer in emerging market USD-denominated investment grade corporates and high-yield company debt in the US and UK.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1https://www.fitchratings.com/research/sovereigns/coronavirus-impact-on-gdp-will-be-felt-for-years-to-come-27-07-2020 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations", dated June 23, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresarch.com. 3 We use the French 10-year inflation-linked bond as the proxy for the entire euro area, as this is the oldest inflation-linked bond market in the region and thus has the most data history. 4https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-weighs-abandoning-pre-emptive-rate-moves-to-curb-inflation-11596360600?mod=hp_lead_pos6 5 Please see BCA Research Weekly Report, “What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors”, dated July 28, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresarch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Policymakers Are Now Selling Put Options On Volatility, Not Asset Prices", dated March 6, 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 7 Hedged YTM/Short-term trailing volatility vs. Credit Rating; Hedged YTM/Long-term trailing volatility vs. Credit Rating; Hedged YTM/Long-term trailing volatility vs. Duration; Hedged YTM/Long-term trailing volatility vs. Duration. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth? Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The underperformance of value versus growth has been a reason behind the dollar bull market rather than a consequence of it. The rationale is that the catalyst for any sector to outperform is return on capital rather than the cost of capital. The outperformance of health care and technology has been on the back of rising profits, rather than just investor exuberance and/or low bond yields. Cyclical currencies with a high concentration of value sectors have tracked the relative performance of their representative bourses. A reversal will require value sectors to start outperforming on a sustainable basis. It is encouraging that leadership changes in equity markets occur more often than not. Historically, these tend to take place every decade. Bombed-out valuations suggest some deep-value sectors have become sufficiently cheap to compensate for a pessimistic profit scenario. An outperformance of value versus growth will favor cyclical currencies. We are long a basket of petrocurrencies, the SEK, and GBP. We are also short USD/JPY as portfolio insurance (and as a play on the cyclical Japanese market). Feature The usual market narrative is that for non-US stocks to outperform, the dollar has to decline. This also applies to value stocks that have a higher weighting outside the US, compared to growth stocks. At the center of this premise is that the dollar is a reserve currency. As a result, three reasons emblem the view. First, a fall in the dollar eases financing costs for non-US corporations borrowing in dollars. Second, commodities tend to do well when the dollar declines, benefiting emerging market and commodity-producing countries. And finally, a lower dollar boosts the common-currency returns for US-based investors, leading to more capital deployment in offshore markets. On the surface, this makes sense. But digging deeper into the thesis, it appears that a lower US dollar is a necessary but not sufficient condition for non-US (or value) stocks to outperform. The reason is that profit growth (the ultimate driver of stock prices) is more contingent on productivity gains rather than translation effects. As such, the value-versus-growth debate is important, not only for the sectors involved, but for currency strategy as well. A Two-Decade Postmortem Chart I-1Value/Growth Turns Before The Dollar Value/Growth Turns Before The Dollar Value/Growth Turns Before The Dollar Chart I-1 plots the MSCI global value index versus its growth counterpart, superimposed against the US dollar. Two trends become apparent: The relative performance of value versus growth typically bottoms or peaks ahead of turns in the US dollar. The relationship between the value/growth ratio and the US dollar is not always in sync. There was a period of decoupling after the financial crisis, and, more recently, in 2015-2016. This was also the case in the ‘80s and around the Asian crisis in the late ‘90s. Flows tend to gravitate to capital markets with the highest expected returns, and this is certainly the case when value or growth style tilts are concerned. This is important for currency strategy, since sector composition can drive a country’s equity returns. Meanwhile, both equity and currency relative performances tend to be in sync (Chart I-2A and Chart I-2B). Chart I-2ACurrencies Follow Relative Equity Performance Currencies Follow Relative Equity Performance Currencies Follow Relative Equity Performance Chart I-2BCurrencies Follow Relative Equity Performance Currencies Follow Relative Equity Performance Currencies Follow Relative Equity Performance According to the MSCI classification, information technology and health care are the biggest components of the growth index – a whopping 49%. This is in stark contrast to financials and industrials, which make up 33% of the value index. Not surprisingly, currencies with a heavy value weighting in their domestic bourses (Table I-1) have suffered indiscriminately compared to their growth counterparts, over the last decade. Table I-1Sector Weights Across G10 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate Take the US and Switzerland, which have the highest equity concentration in traditional growth sectors, at over 60%. Both the US dollar and Swiss franc have held up remarkably well in trade-weighted terms since the onset of the dollar bull market (Chart I-3). Likewise, it would have been a miracle for petrocurrencies (CAD, NOK and AUD) to hold up amid the recent underperformance in energy and financials. Chart I-3Style Tilt Drives Currency Performance Style Tilt Drives Currency Performance Style Tilt Drives Currency Performance This suggests that at minimum, the underperformance of value versus growth has been a reason for the dollar bull market rather than a consequence of it. Chicken And Egg Problem? What about the narrative that a decline in the dollar greases the engine of non-US stocks? Yes, but not entirely. It is certainly the case that most global trade and financing is conducted in US dollars, and so a fall in the US dollar (commensurate with lower interest rates) leads to easier global financial conditions. As Chart I-4 clearly illustrates, corporate spreads abroad have been tightly correlated to dollar volatility. A lower dollar also eases repayment costs for non-US borrowers. Chart I-4The Dollar And Funding Stresses The Dollar And Funding Stresses The Dollar And Funding Stresses A lower dollar also boosts resource prices through the numeraire effect (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, rising commodity prices flatter industries tied to the resource value chain such as industrials, materials, and energy. Second-round economic effects also buffet other cyclical industries such as retail and hospitality, which help boost the domestic equity index. That said, the rally in commodities, value stocks, and emerging market share prices in 2016-2017 occurred despite a dollar that was flat-to-higher – so the causality versus effect link is not always trivial. Part of the reason is that, over the past few years, both emerging market and other non-US corporates have diversified their sources of debt funding. Euro- and yen-denominated debt have been surging (Chart I-6), which has kept their cost of capital low, even as the dollar has risen. Chart I-5Tied To The Hip Tied To The Hip Tied To The Hip Chart I-6Lots Of Non-US Debt Lots Of Non-US Debt Lots Of Non-US Debt It is also important to note that in commodity bull markets, prices tend to rise in all currencies, including domestically (Chart I-7). This is crucial for sector outperformance since the translation effect for profits will otherwise be negative, given local-currency fixed and variable costs. This suggests that demand is the driving force behind bull markets in commodity prices and cyclical stocks, rather than a lower greenback. Chart I-7Commodity Bull Markets In Different Currencies Commodity Bull Markets In Different Currencies Commodity Bull Markets In Different Currencies This demand has come in the form of Chinese stimulus. Chart I-8 shows a close correlation between excess liquidity in China (a measure of the centripetal force from Chinese credit) and resource share valuations. Ergo, a key barometer for value to outperform growth is that Chinese demand picks up, plugging the hole in exactly the sectors that have borne the brunt of deleveraging in recent years. Chart I-8China And Commodities China And Commodities China And Commodities A look at corporate balance sheets and income statements corroborates this view. Growth has outperformed value on the back of a re-rating, but also on profitability. Chart I-9A and Chart I-9B rank G10 equity bourses on the basis of return on equity and their corresponding price-to-book ratios. Not surprisingly, the winners of the last decade have had the biggest returns on equity, as was the case for the winners during the prior decade. Chart I-9AMarkets Bid Up High Returns To Capital Markets Bid Up High Returns To Capital Markets Bid Up High Returns To Capital Chart I-9BMarkets Bid Up High Returns To Capital Markets Bid Up High Returns To Capital Markets Bid Up High Returns To Capital As such, the catalyst for any sector to outperform is return on capital rather than the cost of capital. Structural Shift? There is some evidence that the underperformance of value versus growth could be structural. For one, being a value manager seems to be following the fate of telephone switchboard operators in the early 1900s. Perhaps the advent of computer trading systems has systematically eroded the value premium. As such it is becoming more and more difficult, even for the most skillful value managers, to beat their own index. An inability for value sectors to outperform will be a key risk to a dollar-bearish view. Work done on our in-house Equity Trading Strategy platform corroborates this view. Since about 2014, a long/short strategy based on the best value stocks relative to the worst in terms of a swath of fundamental valuation metrics has been flat compared to a more blended strategy (Chart I-10). According to our quantitative specialists, the best value can be found in European countries such as Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany (Chart I-11). Surprisingly, their proprietary value model rate Switzerland and New Zealand quite highly, despite a clear defensive bias in these equity markets. Unsurprisingly, some of the countries that have had the weakest currencies in the last decade such as Sweden and the Eurozone members have highly favored value sectors. Chart I-10A Dearth Of Value Managers A Dearth Of Value Managers A Dearth Of Value Managers Chart I-11Lots Of Value Outside The US Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate Going forward, a few things could change. One of the primary reasons why growth has outperformed value has been the drop in bond yields, which has increased the appeal of companies with low payout ratios and much more backdated cash flows (Chart I-12). But as countries from Japan to Australia implement yield-curve controls at the zero bound, the capitalized dividend from low yields is bound to be exhausted. Meanwhile, any rise in yields will favor deep-value sectors like banks (due to rising net interest margins) and commodities (due to inflation protection). Chart I-12A Lower Discount Favors Long-Duration Assets A Lower Discount Favors Long-Duration Assets A Lower Discount Favors Long-Duration Assets Second, falling global trade and the proliferation of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investing has hammered traditional industries such as energy and autos. Part of this trend is structural, but there is also a cyclical component. For the auto industry in particular, auto sales are strongly (inversely) correlated to the unemployment rate, and as more economies reopen, car sales should pick up. Meanwhile, traditional auto and energy companies are stepping up their electric vehicle and alternative energy strategies, meaning the first-mover advantage for the avant-gardes like Tesla and Nikola could be eroded. Finally, valuation tends to be a key catalyst near recessions. Given that over the years, one of the more consistent drivers of long-term equity returns has been the valuation starting point, this favors non-US stocks (Chart I-13A, Chart I-13B, Chart I-13C, Chart I-13D). Not surprisingly, the currencies that are the most undervalued in our models1 also have cheap equity markets. Even if one focuses solely on growth sectors such as technology and health care, non-US companies are still more attractive, according to our Equity Trading Strategy platform (Chart I-14). This suggests some measure of convergence is due. Chart I-13AProspective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Chart I-13BProspective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Chart I-13CProspective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Chart I-13DProspective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Prospective Returns Higher Outside The US Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate Chart I-14Attractive Growth Stocks Outside The US Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate It is encouraging that leadership changes in equity markets occur more often than not. Historically, these tend to occur every decade. Bombed-out valuations suggest some deep-value sectors have become sufficiently cheap to compensate for a pessimistic profit scenario. Portfolio Construction Chart I-15CAD/NZD And Relative Stocks CAD/NZD And Relative Stocks CAD/NZD And Relative Stocks An outperformance of value versus growth will favor cyclical currencies. The catalyst will have to be improving return on capital from value sectors, but the valuation starting point is already quite compelling. Meanwhile, even traditional growth sectors are still cheaper outside the US. We are already selectively long a basket of petrocurrencies, the SEK, and GBP. We are also short USD/JPY as portfolio insurance (and as a play on the cyclical Japanese market). Should value stocks gain more widespread appeal, we will add the Eurozone and emerging market currencies to this basket. Elsewhere, a tactical trading opportunity has also opened up to go short the NZD/CAD cross. Little known is that the New Zealand stock market is the most defensive in the world (previously referenced in Table I-1). This has helped keep the New Zealand dollar higher than would have otherwise been the case. Should value start to outperform growth, this will favor the CAD/NZD cross (Chart I-15). While we commend Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19 in New Zealand, the economy will soon start to bump against supply-side constraints. More specifically, COVID-19 has accentuated the immigration cliff in New Zealand, an important hit to the labor dividend for the economy (Chart I-16). As such, the neutral rate of interest is bound to head lower. Chart I-16A Top For NZD/CAD? A Top For NZD/CAD? A Top For NZD/CAD? This is in stark contrast to Canada, where the current government was pro-immigration even before widespread lockdowns. Meanwhile, in the commodity space, our bias is that energy will fare better than agriculture, boosting relative Canadian terms of trade. Go short NZD/CAD for a trade.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report , "Updating Our Intermediate-Term Models", dated July 3, 2020. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the US have been robust: The ISM non-manufacturing PMI jumped from 45.4 to 57.1 in June, with the new orders component surging from 41.9 to 61.6 and the employment component at 43.1 versus 31.8 earlier. JOLTS job openings increased from 5 million to 5.4 million in May. Initial jobless claims fell from 1413K to 1314K for the week ended July 3rd. The DXY index fell by 1% this week, alongside the outperformance of non-US equities, particularly emerging market stocks. Recent data have shown budding signs of a recovery as many countries gradually reopen their economies. As a counter-cyclical currency, this has pressured the dollar. Report Links: DXY: False Breakdown Or Cyclical Bear Market? - June 5, 2020 Cycles And The US Dollar - May 15, 2020 Capitulation? - April 3, 2020 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been mostly positive: The Markit services PMI increased from 47.3 to 48.3 in June. The Sentix investor confidence index rebounded from -24.8 to -18.2 in July. Retail sales fell by 5.1% year-on-year in May. However, this is a 17.8% increase on a month-on-month basis.  The euro increased by 0.6% against the US dollar this week. While recent data have been promising, the Summer 2020 Economic Forecast released by the European Union sounded quite pessimistic this week. The Summer Forecast projects that the euro area will contract by 8.7% in 2020 and grow by 6.1% in 2021, much worse than the spring forecast. That said, a mild second wave could trigger the European Union to revise these estimates higher. Meanwhile, the ECB remains committed to lowering the cost of capital for Eurozone countries. Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been mostly negative: The current account balance surged from ¥262.7 billion to ¥1176.8 billion in May, as imports fell faster than exports. The preliminary coincident index fell from 80.1 to 74.6 in May, while the leading economic index increased from 77.7 to 79.3. Machinery orders fell by 16.3% year-on-year in May, following a 17.7% decrease the previous month. Moreover, preliminary machine tool orders in June continued to fall by 32% year-on-year. USD/JPY fell by 0.5% this week. The June Eco Watchers Survey released this Wednesday shows that the current conditions index increased sharply from 15.5 to 38.8. Moreover, the outlook index rose to 44 in June from 36.5 the previous month. The Survey sounded cautiously optimistic and indicated that while COVID-19 continues to be a downside risk, activities are starting to pick up in recent months. Report Links: The Near-Term Bull Case For The Dollar - February 28, 2020 Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the UK have been positive: The Markit services PMI ticked up marginally from 47 to 47.1 in June. The construction PMI surged from 28.9 to 55.3. Halifax house prices increased by 2.5% year-on-year in June. The British pound jumped by 1.3% against the US dollar this week. The Bank of England chief economist, Andy Haldane, has warned about second, third or even fourth wave of COVID-19 infections. However, he also acknowledged that the UK economy has received a boost since restaurants and bars have reopened. We remain bullish on the pound as an undervalued currency, but are monitoring Brexit developments closely as they continue to add more volatility to trading patterns. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been mostly negative: The AiG services performance index was flat at 31.5 in June. Home loans fell by 7.6% month-on-month in May, following a 4.4% decline the previous month. The Australian dollar rose by 0.6% against the US dollar this week. On Tuesday, the RBA held its interest rate unchanged at 0.25%, as widely expected. The Bank sounded optimistic about the recovery and the government’s effective measures to contain the virus. That said, with Melbourne returning into lockdown, a dose of skepticism is warranted. We continue to favor the Australian dollar as a key barometer for procyclical trades, but domestic factors could be a risk to this view. Report Links: On AUD And CNY - January 17, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been positive: The ANZ preliminary business confidence index recovered from -34.4 to -29.8 in July. The New Zealand dollar rose by 0.9% against the US dollar this week. The Q2 NZIER Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion (QSBO) indicated that economic activities plunged sharply in Q2. According to the survey, a net 63% of businesses expect conditions to deteriorate, compared with 70% in the previous survey. While confidence has picked up slightly, business sentiment remains downbeat with less intensions to invest and hire, particularly in the subdued construction sector. As such, a tactical opportunity is opening for short NZD trades at the crosses. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been positive: The Ivey PMI surged from 39.1 to 58.2 in June. The Markit manufacturing PMI also increased from 40.6 to 47.8 in June. Bloomberg Nanos confidence increased from 46 to 46.2 for the week ended July 3rd. Housing starts picked up from 195.5K in May to 211.7K in June. The Canadian dollar appreciated by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. The BoC Business Outlook Survey was released this week and survey results suggest that “business sentiment is strongly negative in all regions and sectors” due falling energy prices. Most firms believe that production could pick up quickly but sales might take longer to recover. That said, both interest rate differentials and recovering oil prices are bullish for the Canadian dollar for now.  Report Links: More On Competitive Devaluations, The CAD And The SEK - May 1, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 The Loonie: Upside Versus The Dollar, But Downside At The Crosses Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been positive: FX reserves increased from CHF 817 billion to CHF 850 billion in June. The unemployment rate declined from 3.4% to 3.2% in June. Total sight deposits increased from CHF 683 billion to CHF 687 billion for the week ended July 3rd. The Swiss franc appreciated by 0.7% against the US dollar this week. The Swiss franc has been quite resilient recently despite the rebound in risk sentiment since the March lows. The expensive franc remains a headache for the SNB and the Swiss economy. We are looking to go long EUR/CHF at 1.055. Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been negative: Manufacturing output fell by 3% month-on-month in May. The Norwegian krone surged by 1.3% against the US dollar this week. We remain bullish on the krone due to its cheap valuation and signs of a recovery in energy prices. Our Nordic Basket is now around 10% in the money and we also went long a petrocurrency basket including the Norwegian krone last week. Report Links: A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been negative: Industrial production fell by 15.5% year-on-year in May. Manufacturing new orders plunged by 18.4% year-on-year in May. The Swedish krona surged by 1.3% against the US dollar this week. Like the Norwegian krone, the Swedish krona is tremendously undervalued and remains one of our favorite G10 currencies at the moment. As a small open economy, Sweden relies heavily on exports and imports. While global trade was hit hard during COVID-19, signs of stabilization bode well for the Swedish krona. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Rising Short-Term Risks Rising Short-Term Risks The SPX remains in churning mode, consolidating the massive gains since the March 23 lows. Easy fiscal and monetary policies are still the dominant macro themes underpinning markets, and thus any letdown in either loose policies poses a threat to the 1000 point three-month SPX run-up (bottom panel). Importantly, correlations have gone vertical of late with the CBOE’s implied correlation index – gauging the S&P 500 constituents’ pairwise correlations – surging to 70% (implied correlation index shown inverted, top panel). This is cause for concern as it has historically been a precursor to SPX pullbacks. Typically, stocks move in tandem, especially during risk off phases when everything becomes one big macro trade. Bottom Line: Odds are high that stocks will be range bound this summer. Beyond that, on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon we remain constructive on the return prospects of the broad market. Please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report for more details.

The Fed’s efforts to jawbone the US dollar are paying off as investors have been shedding their greenback exposure over the past several weeks. In recent research,1 we have also been highlighting that although Powell would never admit it, the Fed is trying to devalue the greenback and reflate the global economy. The knock-on effect of a depreciating USD is to rekindle S&P sales. According to S&P Dow Jones Indices,2 the SPX derives approximately 43% of its sales from abroad making the US dollar among the key macro profitability drivers (Chart 1, middle panel, US dollar shown advanced and inverted). One of the mechanisms to undermine the greenback is to flood the market with dollars. Ample US dollar based liquidity has historically served as a catalyst to reignite global growth and consequently S&P earnings (Chart 1, bottom panel). Chart 1US Dollar - The Key Driver US Dollar - The Key Driver US Dollar - The Key Driver Chart 2Bearish Across All Timeframes Bearish Across All Timeframes Bearish Across All Timeframes The Dollar: A Bearish Case The fate of the US dollar is yet to be sealed, but piling evidence suggests that the path of least resistance will be lower. Looking at structural (five years+) dynamics, swelling twin deficits emit a bearish USD signal. In more detail, prior to COVID-19 outbreak, the US twin deficits were estimated to gradually rise towards the 7.5% mark (Chart 2, top panel, dotted red line), but now the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates3 that the US fiscal deficit alone will be approximately 11% of nominal GDP for 2020. In other words, the recent pandemic has exacerbated already structurally bearish dynamics for the US dollar. Switching gears from a structural to a medium term horizon (2-3 years), BCA’s four-factor macro model, is sending an unambiguous bearish message regarding the greenback’s fate (Chart 2, middle panel). Finally, on a short-term time horizon, the USD is lagging the money multiplier by approximately 3 months. The COVID-19 induced recession and resulting money printing will likely exert extreme downward pressure on the US dollar (Chart 2, bottom panel). Summarizing, when looking across three different time horizons, the evidence is pointing toward a weakening US dollar for the foreseeable future. SPX Sectors And US Dollar Correlations With a rising probability of a US dollar bear market on the horizon, it pays to look back in time and examine which S&P GICS1 sectors benefited from a depreciating US dollar. The purpose of this Special Report is to shed light on the empirical evidence of SPX sectors and USD correlations and serve as a roadmap of sector winners and losers during USD bear markets. Table 1 provides foreign sales exposure for each of the sectors. All else equal, a falling greenback should be synonymous with technology, materials, and energy sectors outperforming as they are the most internationally exposed sectors. In contrast, should the USD change its course and head north, financials, telecom, REITs, and utilities will be the key beneficiaries. Why? Because most of these industries are landlocked in the US and thus in a relative sense should benefit when the US dollar roars. Table 1S&P 500 GICS1 Foreign Sales As A Percent Of Total Sales* US Dollar Bear Market: What To Buy & What To Sell US Dollar Bear Market: What To Buy & What To Sell To confirm the above hypothesis, we have identified three previous US dollar bear markets (Chart 3) and computed GICS1-level sector relative returns (Table 2). Chart 3US Dollar Bear Markets US Dollar Bear Markets US Dollar Bear Markets Table 2S&P 500 Gics1 Returns* During US Dollar Bear Markets US Dollar Bear Market: What To Buy & What To Sell US Dollar Bear Market: What To Buy & What To Sell Looking at median return profile reveals that our hypothesis held as all three: technology, materials, and energy decisively outperformed the market when the US dollar headed south. Similarly, domestically focused and predominately defensive industries such as utilities and telecoms underperformed the market with the consumer staples sector being a notable outlier – something that we address in the consumer staples section of the report. What follows next is a detailed discussion on each of the GICS1 sectors historical relationship with the US dollar, ranked in order of foreign sales exposure from highest to lowest. For completion purposes, we also provided S&P 500 GICS1 relative sector performance against the US dollar charts since 1970 in the Appendix.     Arseniy Urazov Research Associate arseniyu@bcaresearch.com   Technology (Neutral)  Technology sits atop the foreign sales exposure table garnering 58% of revenues from abroad, which is a full 15% percentage points higher than S&P 500 (Table 1). In two out of the three periods of USD bear markets that we examined, tech stocks bested the broad market and the median outperformance sat over 9%. Nevertheless, the correlation between the US dollar and relative share prices is muted over a longer-term horizon (see Appendix Chart A1 below). Likely, one reason for the inconclusive long-term correlation between tech and the greenback is that the majority of tech gadgets are manufactured overseas (Chart 4, third panel). Therefore, an appreciating currency boosts margins via deflating input costs. Tack on the resilient nature of demand for tech hardware goods and especially software and services which preserves high selling prices and offsets and negative P&L losses from a rising greenback. We are currently neutral the S&P technology sector and employ a barbell portfolio approach preferring software and services and avoiding hardware and equipment. Chart 4Technology Technology Technology Materials (Neutral) The materials sector behaves similarly to its brother the energy sector as both move in the opposite direction of the greenback (Chart 5, top panel). Consequently, materials stocks have outperformed the market during periods of US dollar weakness that we analyzed. The third panel of Chart 5 shows that our materials exports proxy is the flip image of the greenback. This tight inverse relationship is exacerbated by the negative impact of a firming dollar on underlying metals commodity prices (Chart 5, second panel). As a result, materials profit margins widen when the dollar falls and narrow when it rises. Ultimately, S&P materials earnings reflect this USD-commodity dynamic (Chart 5, bottom panel) We are currently neutral the S&P materials index. Chart 5Materials Materials Materials Energy (Overweight) The energy sector enjoys a tight inverse correlation with the US dollar (Chart 6, top panel) as it is the third most globally exposed sector as shown in Table 1 with 51% of sales coming from abroad. As nearly all of the global oil trade is conducted in US dollars, a weakening USD underpins the price of crude oil (Chart 6, second panel). In turn, US energy sector exports rise reflecting the fall in the greenback (Chart 6, third panel). Finally, the S&P energy companies enjoy a boost to their income statements (Chart 6, bottom panel), which explains the sizable median sector outperformance of 43% during dollar bear markets as highlighted in Table 2. We are currently overweight the S&P energy sector and have recently capitalized on 40%+ combined gains in the long XOP/short GDX pair trades.4 Chart 6Energy Energy Energy Industrials (Overweight) US industrials stocks’ foreign sales exposure is on a par with the S&P 500, which explains why the sector only barely outperformed the broad market during periods of dollar weakness. Still, the correlation between this manufacturing-heavy sector and the greenback is negative (Chart 7, top & second panels). Similar to its deep cyclical brethren (materials and energy), the link comes via the commodity channel. A softening dollar boosts global growth, which in turn supports higher commodity prices. Not only do US capital goods producers benefit from overall rising demand (i.e. infrastructure spending), but also via market share gains in global markets as the falling greenback results in a comparative input cost advantage (Chart 7, third panel). Finally, P&L translation gain effects act as another fillip to industrials stocks profits when dollar heads south. We are currently overweight the S&P industrials index. Chart 7Industrials Industrials Industrials Health Care (Overweight) The defensive health care sector is positively correlated with the dollar as its foreign sales revenues are below the ones of the SPX (Chart 8, top panel). Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that the relationship between the sector’s exports and the USD has been mostly positive, which is counterintuitive (Chart 8, middle panel). Keep in mind that pharma and biotech represent roughly half the index and derive 75%+ of their profits domestically as they dictate pricing terms to the US government (it is written into law). This is not the case in Europe where the NHS and the German government for example, have a big say on what pharmaceuticals can charge for their drugs. The bottom panel of Chart 8 summarizes the domestic nature of the health care sector, highlighting the tight positive relationship between the sector’s earnings and the greenback. We are currently modestly overweight the S&P health care sector. Chart 8Health Care Health Care Health Care Consumer Discretionary (Overweight) While the impact of the US dollar on the consumer discretionary sector varied over time switching from a positive to a negative and vice versa, today the sector enjoys a positive correlation with the currency (Chart 9, top panel). The 33% foreign sales exposure may appear as a significant proportion, but it is still a full 10% percentage points below the SPX (Table 1). The implication is that even though the exports benefit from a falling dollar (Chart 9, middle panel), this bump is not enough to drive sector outperformance. Likely, the key reason why consumer discretionary stocks currently enjoy a positive correlation with the dollar is the US large trade deficit. In other words, the US imports the lion’s share of its consumer goods. As the dollar grinds higher, the cost of imports decreases for the US consumer, which provides a boost to companies’ earnings (Chart 9, bottom panel). Tack on the heavy weight AMZN has in the sector (comprising 40% of consumer discretionary sector market cap) and the positive correlation with the currency is explained away. We are currently overweight the S&P consumer discretionary index. Chart 9Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples (Neutral) While a softening US dollar generally favors cyclical industries as it reignites global trade, the defensive S&P consumer staples sector outperformed the overall market on a median basis during USD bear markets (Table 2). Granted, the results are likely skewed as staples stocks rallied more than 300% in the last two decades of the 20th century. Nevertheless, there is a key differentiating factor at play that helped the consumer staples sector trounce other defensive industries during US dollar bear markets. Staples stocks derive 33% (Table 1) of their sales from abroad, whereas other traditional defensive industries (utilities, telecom services) have virtually no export exposure. In other words, given that staples companies are mostly manufacturers, a depreciating currency acts as a tonic to sales via the export relief valve (Chart 10, bottom panel). We are currently neutral the S&P consumer staples sector. Chart 10Consumer Staples Consumer Staples Consumer Staples Financials (Overweight) Financials sit at the bottom half of our Table 1 in terms of their foreign sales exposure, which underpins the sector’s positive correlation with the greenback (Chart 11, top panel), and explains why the sector underperforms the market during dollar bear markets. One of the transmission channels between this sector’s performance and the currency is via increased credit demand. Currency appreciation suppresses inflation and supports purchasing power, and thus loan demand, in addition to keeping bond yields low (Chart 11, middle panel). The process reverses as the US dollar stars to depreciate. We are currently overweight the S&P financials index. Chart 11Financials Financials Financials Utilities (Underweight) Utilities underperformed in all three dollar bear markets we analyzed. As we highlighted in the energy section of the report, a softening dollar is synonymous with higher crude oil prices, which in turn raise inflation expectations. The ensuing selloff in the 10-year Treasury, compels investors to shed this bond proxy equity sector (Chart 12, middle panel). With virtually no exports, utilities also miss on the positive currency translation effects that other GICS1 sectors enjoy. In fact, utilities underperformed by the widest margin on a median basis across all GICS1 sectors (Table 2). This defensive sector typically attracts safe haven flows when the dollar spikes and investors run for cover. This positive correlation with the dollar is clearly reflected in industry earnings, which rise and fall in lockstep with momentum in the greenback (Chart 12, bottom panel). We are currently underweight the S&P utilities sector. Chart 12Utilities Utilities Utilities Telecommunication Services (Neutral) Telecom services relative performance is positively correlated with the dollar, similarly to its defensive sibling, the utilities sector. In fact, telecom carriers go neck-in-neck with utilities as the former is the second worst performing sector during dollar bear markets (Table 2). A softening dollar has proven to be fatal to the industry’s relative pricing power beyond intra industry competition. In fact, industry selling prices are slated to head south anew if history at least rhymes (Chart 13, middle panel). Importantly, this defensive sector is in a structural downtrend and is trying to stay relevant and avoid becoming a “dumb pipeline” with the eventual proliferation of 5G. Worrisomely, telecoms only manage to claw back some of their severe losses during recessions. But, the latest iteration is an aberration as this safe haven sector has failed to stand up to its defensive stature likely owing to the heavy debt load. We are currently neutral the niche S&P telecom services index that now hides underneath the S&P communication services sector. Chart 13Telecom Services Telecom Services Telecom Services REITs (Underweight) Surprisingly, US REITs enjoy an overall negative correlation with the dollar, especially since 1993, and in fact lead the greenback by about 18 months (Chart 14). Our hypothesis would have been a positive correlation courtesy of the landlocked nature of this sector i.e. no export exposure. Granted, in the three periods of dollar bear markets we examined, REITs slightly outperformed the market by 2.5% on a median basis. While the causal link (if any) is yet to be established and the correlation may be spurious, our sense is that forward interest rate differentials are at work and more than offset the domestic nature of this index. REITs have a high dividend yield and thus outperform when the competing risk free asset the 10-year Treasury yield is falling and vice versa (except during recessions). As a result, REITs outperformance is more often than not synonymous with a depreciating currency as lower Treasury yields would exert downward pressure on the USD ceteris paribus.  We are currently underweight the S&P REITs index. Chart 14REITs REITs REITs   Appendix Chart A1Appendix: Technology Appendix: Technology Appendix: Technology Chart A2Appendix: Materials Appendix: Materials Appendix: Materials Chart A3Appendix: Energy Appendix: Energy Appendix: Energy Chart A4Appendix: Industrials Appendix: Industrials Appendix: Industrials Chart A5Appendix: Health Care Appendix: Health Care Appendix: Health Care Chart A6Appendix: Consumer Discretionary Appendix: Consumer Discretionary Appendix: Consumer Discretionary Chart A7Appendix: Consumer Staples Appendix: Consumer Staples Appendix: Consumer Staples Chart A8Appendix: Financials Appendix: Financials Appendix: Financials Chart A9Appendix: Utilities Appendix: Utilities Appendix: Utilities Chart A10Appendix: Telecommunication Services Appendix: Telecommunication Services Appendix: Telecommunication Services Chart A11 landscapeAppendix: REITs Appendix: REITs Appendix: REITs   Footnotes 1    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bottomless Punchbowl” dated May 11, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2    https://us.spindices.com/indexology/djia-and-sp-500/sp-500-global-sales 3    https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-05/56351-CBO-interim-projections.pdf 4    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Gauging Fair Value” dated April 27, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.  

  In a webcast this Friday I will be joined by our Chief US Equity Strategist, Anastasios Avgeriou to debate ‘Sectors To Own, And Sectors To Avoid In The Post-Covid World’. Today’s report preludes five of the points that we will debate. Please join us for the full discussion and conclusions on Friday, June 12, at 8:00 AM EDT (1:00 PM BST, 2:00 PM CEST, 8.00 PM HKT).   Highlights Technology is behaving like a Defensive. Defensive versus Cyclical = Growth versus Value. Growth stocks are not a bubble if bond yields stay ultra-low. The post-Covid world will reinforce existing sector mega-trends. Sectors are driving regional and country relative performance. Fractal trade: Long ZAR/CLP.   Chart of the WeekSector Defensiveness/Cyclicality = Positive/Negative Sensitivity To The Bond Price Sector Defensiveness/Cyclicality = Positive/Negative Sensitivity To The Bond Price Sector Defensiveness/Cyclicality = Positive/Negative Sensitivity To The Bond Price 1. Technology Is Behaving Like A Defensive How do we judge an equity sector’s sensitivity to the post-Covid economy, so that we can define it as cyclical or defensive? One approach is to compare the sector’s relative performance with the bond price. According to this approach, the more negatively sensitive to the bond price, the more cyclical is the sector. And the more positively sensitive to the bond price, the more defensive is the sector (Chart I-1).   On this basis the most cyclical sectors in the post-Covid economy are, unsurprisingly: energy, banks, and materials. Healthcare is unsurprisingly defensive. Meanwhile, the industrials sector sits closest to neutral between cyclical and defensive, showing the least sensitivity to the bond price. The tech sector’s vulnerability to economic cyclicality appears to have greatly reduced. The big surprise is technology, whose high positive sensitivity to the bond price during the 2020 crisis qualifies it as even more defensive than healthcare. This contrasts sharply with its behaviour during the 2008 crisis. Back then, tech’s relative performance was negatively correlated with the bond price, defining it as classically cyclical. But over the past year, tech’s relative performance has been positively correlated with the bond price, defining it as classically defensive (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2In 2008, Tech Behaved Like ##br##A Cyclical... In 2008, Tech Behaved Like A Cyclical... In 2008, Tech Behaved Like A Cyclical... Chart I-3...But In 2020, Tech Is Behaving Like A Defensive ...But In 2020, Tech Is Behaving Like A Defensive ...But In 2020, Tech Is Behaving Like A Defensive This is not to say that the big tech companies cannot suffer shocks. They can. For example, from new superior technologies, or from anti-oligopoly legislation. However, the tech sector’s vulnerability to economic cyclicality appears to have greatly reduced over the past decade. 2. Defensive Versus Cyclical = Growth Versus Value If we reclassify the tech sector as defensive in the 2020s economy, then the post mid-March rebound in stocks was first led by defensives. Cyclicals took over leadership of the rally only in May. Moreover, with the reclassification of tech as defensive, the two dominant defensive sectors become tech and healthcare. But tech and healthcare are also the dominant ‘growth’ sectors. The upshot is that growth versus value has now become precisely the same decision as defensive versus cyclical (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Defensive Versus Cyclical = Growth Versus Value Defensive Versus Cyclical = Growth Versus Value Defensive Versus Cyclical = Growth Versus Value 3. Growth Stocks Are Not A Bubble If Bond Yields Stay Ultra-Low Some people fear that growth stocks have become dangerously overvalued. There is even mention of the B-word. Let’s address these fears. Yes, valuations have become richer. For example, the forward earnings yield for healthcare is down to 5 percent; and for big tech it is down to just over 4 percent. This valuation starting point has proved to be an excellent guide to prospective 10-year returns, and now implies an expected annualised return from big tech in the mid-single digits. Yet this modest positive return is well above the extremes of the negative 10-year returns implied and delivered from the dot com bubble (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Big Tech Is Priced To Deliver A Positive Return, Unlike In 2000 Big Tech Is Priced To Deliver A Positive Return, Unlike In 2000 Big Tech Is Priced To Deliver A Positive Return, Unlike In 2000 Moreover, we must judge the implied returns from growth stocks against those available from competing long-duration assets – specifically, against the benchmark of high-quality government bond yields. If bond yields are ultra-low, then they must depress the implied returns on growth stocks too. Meaning higher absolute valuations (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6Tech's Forward Earnings Yield Is Above The Bond Yield, Unlike In 2000 Tech's Forward Earnings Yield Is Above The Bond Yield, Unlike In 2000 Tech's Forward Earnings Yield Is Above The Bond Yield, Unlike In 2000 Chart I-7Healthcare's Forward Earnings Yield Is Above The Bond Yield, Unlike In 2000 Healthcare's Forward Earnings Yield Is Above The Bond Yield, Unlike In 2000 Healthcare's Forward Earnings Yield Is Above The Bond Yield, Unlike In 2000 In the real bubble of 2000, big tech was priced to return 12 percent (per annum) less than the 10-year T-bond. Whereas today, the implied return from big tech – though low in absolute terms – is above the ultra-low yield on the 10-year T-bond. If bond yields are ultra-low, then they must depress the implied returns on growth stocks too. The upshot is that high absolute valuations of growth stocks are contingent on bond yields remaining at ultra-low levels. And that the biggest threat to growth stock valuations would be a sustained rise in bond yields. 4. The Post-Covid World Will Reinforce Existing Sector Mega-Trends If a sector maintains a structural uptrend in sales and profits, then a big drop in the share price provides an excellent buying opportunity for long-term investors. This is because the lower share price stretches the elastic between the price and the up-trending profits, resulting in an eventual catch-up. However, if sales and profits are in terminal decline, then the sell-off is not a buying opportunity other than on a tactical basis. This is because the elastic will lose its tension as profits drift down towards the lower price. In fact, despite the sell-off, if the profit downtrend continues, the price may be forced ultimately to catch-down. This leads to a somewhat counterintuitive conclusion. After a big drop in the stock market, long-term investors should not buy everything that has dropped. And they should not buy the stocks and sectors that have dropped the most if their profits are in major downtrends. In this regard, the post-Covid world is likely to reinforce the existing mega-trends. The profits of oil and gas, and of European banks will remain in major structural downtrends (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Conversely, the profits of healthcare, and of European personal products will remain in major structural uptrends (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). Chart I-8Oil And Gas Profits In A Major ##br##Downtrend Oil And Gas Profits In A Major Downtrend Oil And Gas Profits In A Major Downtrend Chart I-9Bank Profits In A Major ##br##Downtrend European Banks Profits In A Major Downtrend Bank Profits In A Major Downtrend European Banks Profits In A Major Downtrend Bank Profits In A Major Downtrend Chart I-10Healthcare Profits In A Major Uptrend Healthcare Profits In A Major Uptrend Healthcare Profits In A Major Uptrend Chart I-11Personal Products Profits In A Major Uptrend Personal Products Profits In A Major Uptrend Personal Products Profits In A Major Uptrend   5. Sectors Are Driving Regional And Country Relative Performance Finally, sector winners and losers determine regional and country equity market winners and losers. Nowadays, a stock market’s relative performance is predominantly a play on its distinguishing overweight and underweight ‘sector fingerprint’. This is because major stock markets are dominated by multinational corporations which are plays on their global sectors, rather than the region or country in which they have a stock market listing. It follows that when tech and healthcare outperform, the tech-heavy and healthcare-heavy US stock market must outperform, while healthcare-lite emerging markets (EM) must underperform. It also follows that the tech-heavy Netherlands and healthcare-heavy Denmark stock markets must outperform. Sector mega-trends will shape the mega-trends in regional and country relative performance. Equally, when energy and banks underperform, the energy-heavy Norway and bank-heavy Spain stock markets must underperform. (Chart I-12 and Chart I-13). These are just a few examples. Every stock market is defined by a sector fingerprint which drives its relative performance.  Chart I-12Sector Relative Performance Drives... Sector Relative Performance Drives... Sector Relative Performance Drives... Chart I-13...Regional And Country Relative Performance ...Regional And Country Relative Performance ...Regional And Country Relative Performance If sector mega-trends continue, they will also shape the mega-trends in regional and country relative performance – favouring those stock markets that are heavy in growth stocks and light in old-fashioned cyclicals. Please join the webcast to hear the full debate and conclusions. Fractal Trading System*  This week’s recommended trade is to go long the South African rand versus the Chilean peso. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent. In other trades, long Spanish 10-year bonds versus New Zealand 10-year bonds achieved its 3.5 percent profit target at which it was closed. And long Australia versus New Zealand equities is approaching its 12 percent profit target. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 63 percent. Chart I-14ZAR/CLP ZAR/CLP ZAR/CLP   When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

In lieu of the next weekly report I will be presenting the quarterly webcast ‘Leaving The Euro Would Be MAD, But Mad Things Can Happen’ on Thursday 14 May at 10.00AM EDT (3.00PM BST, 4.00PM CEST, 10.00PM HKT). As usual, the webcast will take a TED talk format lasting 18 minutes, followed by live questions. Don’t miss it. Highlights For the time being, stick with the very successful strategies of: Overweighting higher yielding US T-bonds versus negative yielding German bunds and Swiss bonds. Overweighting technology and healthcare versus banks and materials. Overweighting growth versus value. Overweighting the S&P 500 versus the Eurostoxx 50. Overweighting Germany, France, and Switzerland in a European equity portfolio. The big caveat is that these strategies are highly correlated. Fractal trade: long euro area personal products versus healthcare. Feature Chart I-1Bond Yields And Commodity Prices Are Correlating To One Bond Yields And Commodity Prices Are Correlating To One Bond Yields And Commodity Prices Are Correlating To One Chatting with friends, family and clients it seems that our lives under lockdown and social distancing have lost much of their differentiation across time and space. Wherever in the world we live, whatever we do, our days and lives are correlating to one. Interestingly, the financial markets have experienced a similar loss of differentiation. In the coronavirus world, markets are also correlating to one. Financial Markets Are Not Complicated One of our abiding investment mantras is that: Financial markets are complex, but they are not complicated. The words complex and complicated are sometimes used synonymously, but they mean different things. Complex means something that is not fully predictable or analysable. Complicated means something that is made up of many parts. Financial markets are not complicated. The financial markets are not complicated because a few parts drive the relative prices of everything, though these parts themselves are complex. Identify and understand these few parts and you will get all your investment decisions right: asset allocation, sector allocation, style allocation, regional allocation, country allocation. This has become even more so this year as our response to the coronavirus has correlated all our lives and economic behaviour to one. One fundamental part is the bond yield. The collapse in commodity prices, more than any other real-time indicator, illustrates the demand destruction resulting from coronavirus-induced lockdowns and social distancing. Bond yields have plunged in lockstep with this demand destruction, given the implications for higher unemployment as well as lower inflation – the two key tenets that drive central bank policy (Chart of the Week). The plunging bond yield, in turn, has driven the underperformance of banks (Chart I-2), for two reasons. First, to the extent that a depressed bond yield reflects a low-growth economy, it also reflects a poorer outlook for bank credit growth, which effectively constitutes a bank’s ‘sales’. Second, a depressed bond yield means a flat or inverted yield curve, which squeezes bank net interest (profit) margins. Chart I-2Banks And Bond Yields Are Correlating To One Banks And Bond Yields Are Correlating To One Banks And Bond Yields Are Correlating To One Conversely, the plunging bond yield has signified an environment in which big tech and healthcare equities outperform (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4), also for two reasons. First, big tech and healthcare sales are more protected against a sudden dip in the economy. Second, their cashflows are weighted further into the future, and so their ‘net present values’ rise more when bond yields plunge. Chart I-3Tech (Inverted) And Bond Yields Are Correlating To One Tech (Inverted) And Bond Yields Are Correlating To One Tech (Inverted) And Bond Yields Are Correlating To One Chart I-4Healthcare (Inverted) And Bond Yields Are Correlating To One Healthcare (Inverted) And Bond Yields Are Correlating To One Healthcare (Inverted) And Bond Yields Are Correlating To One A declining bond yield also signifies an environment in which basic materials equities underperform, as our first chart powerfully illustrates. So, if you call the bond yield right, you will get your asset allocation between cash and bonds right, but you will also your equity sector allocation right. And if you get your equity sector allocation right you will automatically get your value versus growth style allocation right too. At an overarching level, the value versus growth allocation is nothing more than the performance of value sectors, like banks, versus growth sectors, like big tech and healthcare (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Value Versus Growth = Banks Versus Tech Value Versus Growth = Banks Versus Tech Value Versus Growth = Banks Versus Tech Furthermore, you will also get your regional and country allocation right. This is because each major stock market has distinguishing ‘long’ sectors in which it contains up to a quarter of its total market capitalisation, as well as distinguishing ‘short’ sectors in which it has a significant under-representation. The combination of this long sector and short sector gives each equity index its distinguishing fingerprint which drives relative performance (Table I-1): Table I-1The Sector Fingerprints Of Major Regional Stock Markets Markets Are Correlating To One Markets Are Correlating To One FTSE 100 = long financials and energy, short technology. Eurostoxx 50 = long financials, short technology and healthcare. Nikkei 225 = long industrials, short financials and energy. S&P 500 = long technology and healthcare, short materials. MSCI Emerging Markets = long financials, short healthcare. Specifically, the distinguishing fingerprints of the Eurostoxx 50 and the S&P 500 mean that the Eurostoxx 50 has a 12 percent over-representation to financials and materials at the expense of an 18 percent under-representation to technology and healthcare. It follows that if banks and materials underperform technology and healthcare, the Eurostoxx 50 must underperform the S&P 500. Everything else is irrelevant (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Euro Area Versus US = Banks Versus Tech Euro Area Versus US = Banks Versus Tech Euro Area Versus US = Banks Versus Tech The same principle applies to the stock markets within Europe. Relative performance comes from nothing more than the stock market’s long and short sector fingerprint combined with sector performance (Table I-2 and Table I-3). Table I-2The Sector Fingerprints Of Euro Area Stock Markets Markets Are Correlating To One Markets Are Correlating To One Table I-3The Sector Fingerprints Of Non Euro Area European Stock Markets Markets Are Correlating To One Markets Are Correlating To One For example, if healthcare outperforms then its overrepresentation in the stock markets of Switzerland and Denmark means that they must outperform too (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Likewise, if technology outperforms, then the technology-heavy Netherlands stock market must outperform (Chart I-9). Chart I-7Long Switzerland = Long Healthcare Long Switzerland = Long Healthcare Long Switzerland = Long Healthcare Chart I-8Long Denmark = Long Healthcare Long Denmark = Long Healthcare Long Denmark = Long Healthcare Chart I-9Long Netherlands = Long Tech Long Netherlands = Long Tech Long Netherlands = Long Tech All Investment Strategies Are Highly Correlated To repeat, financial markets are not complicated. If you get the over-arching decision(s) right, you will get everything right. The unfortunate corollary is that if you get the over-arching decision wrong you will get everything wrong. Asset allocation, sector allocation, style allocation, regional allocation, and country allocation are correlating to one. We really wish that financial markets were more complicated – because then asset allocation, sector allocation, style allocation, regional allocation and country allocation would be independent investment decisions which offered diversification at the total portfolio level. But the charts in this report should make it crystal clear that all these separate decisions are correlating to one. They are all really the same decision. Today, the decision on where bond yields are headed is particularly tough because they have already come down a lot in a very short space of time. Yet we do not foresee a sustained backup in yields for three reasons: First, even if governments ease lockdowns and reopen economies, demand will remain depressed. Most people are isolating themselves or socially distancing not because their governments are forcing them to, but because they fear infection. The easing of lockdowns, per se, will not remove that fear. And if workers are forced back into jobs when it is unsafe, then infection rates will start to rise again. Second, unless commodity prices rise sharply in the coming months the base effect of commodity prices will put downward pressure on 12-month inflation rates later in the summer (Chart I-10). To the extent that central banks focus on – and target – these totemic annual inflation rates, it will be very difficult to turn hawkish. On the contrary, there may be pressure to turn even more dovish. Chart I-10The Base Effect Will Weigh On Inflation Later This Year The Base Effect Will Weigh On Inflation Later This Year The Base Effect Will Weigh On Inflation Later This Year Third, our most trusted technical indicator is not flashing the red signal that bonds are dangerously overbought, as they were in January 2019, August 2019, and early-March 2020 (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Bonds Are Not Yet At A Technical Tipping Point Bonds Are Not Yet At A Technical Tipping Point Bonds Are Not Yet At A Technical Tipping Point So, for the time being, we are sticking with the very successful strategies of: Overweighting higher yielding US T-bonds versus negative yielding German bunds and Swiss bonds. Overweighting technology and healthcare versus banks and materials. Overweighting growth versus value. Overweighting the S&P 500 versus the Eurostoxx 50. Overweighting Germany, France, and Switzerland in a European equity portfolio. The big caveat is that these strategies are highly correlated. Fractal Trading System* With markets correlating to one, it is becoming more difficult to find trades which are not correlated with the over-arching driver. Hence, this week’s recommended trade is a pair-trade between two defensive sectors: long euro area personal products versus healthcare. The profit target is 7 percent, with a symmetrical stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-12Euro Area Personal Products Vs. Health Care Euro Area Personal Products Vs. Health Care Euro Area Personal Products Vs. Health Care When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations