Fixed Income

Highlights We believe 2019 and 2020 will be a tale of two markets; … : The latter stages of the long post-crisis party may be rewarding, but the inflection points that will herald a bear market and a recession are not too far off. … the first will be broadly favorable for investors in risk assets, … : The combination of ample monetary accommodation and the indiscriminate fourth-quarter markdown in risk assets provides the springboard for one last advance. … but the second will mark the end of the post-crisis bull market, … : Nothing lasts forever, and we wouldn’t be overweight risk assets at this stage were it not for last quarter’s selloff. … as the Fed pulls the plug on the expansion: Our base-case scenario does not call for a deep or lengthy recession, but once Fed policy transits from accommodative to restrictive, the going will become much rougher for stocks, corporate bonds and the economy. Feature We spent the week of January 14th meeting with clients in South Africa. It is always good to exchange views with investors, especially when they are at a distant remove from the echo chamber which inevitably colors our perspective, no matter how much we try to resist it. It was also a pleasure to swap a week of winter at home for summer abroad, where our clients’ golf talk helped boil our views down to a simple analogy. We see the next twelve to twenty-four months as a double-breaker putt. 2019-20’s Double Breaker The undulating terrain of some golf-course greens sets up putts that break one way and then the other on their path to the hole. That is the way we view the next twelve-plus months, following the fourth quarter’s sharp, sudden tightening in financial conditions (Chart 1). The selloff pulled hard on the financial-condition reins, checking some of the pressure on the economy to overheat, and allowing the Fed to pause its rate-hiking campaign. Relieved investors immediately bid stocks higher, and corporate-bond spreads tighter, retracing nearly half of the tightening in financial conditions, but we expect the Fed to remain on the sidelines until June anyway. Chart 1A Swift Tightening In Financial Conditions A Fed pause delays the date when monetary policy will turn restrictive by a few months. We see the monetary policy inflection point as the key event presaging all of the inflection points that matter most to investors: the transition from an equity bull market to a bear market; the point at which credit performance deteriorates, and spreads widen, in earnest; and the transition from expansion to recession. The delay, and the lower entry points provided by the selloff, set the stage for a last hurrah in risk assets over the next six to nine months. With the Fed in the background, investors will be able to focus on the above-trend growth driven by the remaining fiscal thrust (Chart 2) and what we expect will be better calendar 2019 S&P 500 earnings than investors currently anticipate. Chart 2Fiscal Fuel Will Keep 2019 Growth Above Trend Better-than-expected conditions will ultimately prove to be self-limiting, however. The more momentum the economy gathers while the Fed is on hold, the more budding inflation pressures will become evident. The more that inflation pressures reveal themselves, the more forcefully the Fed will have to act to counter them. The upshot for investors is that the last burst of the good times will necessarily bring forth a slowdown, and they therefore confront a putt that will break twice over the next year or two: equities and spread product will outperform Treasuries and cash over the first stretch, but underperform over the next.1 Inflation Pressure Our oft-repeated view that the fiscal stimulus will promote inflation pressures is not at all controversial. Force-feeding stimulus into an economy already operating at capacity should lead to inflation. Businesses and other investors, recognizing that the above-trend boost in aggregate demand is temporary and unsustainable, will not expand capacity to meet it. Imports may relieve some of the pressure, but prices should nonetheless rise as aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply. Inflation pressures emanating from the labor market provoke much more pushback. Investors, tired of hearing that a pickup in wages is right around the corner, harbor considerable doubts about the Phillips Curve, which posits that there is an inverse relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth. We acknowledge that the 1960s belief in a mechanical tradeoff between inflation and unemployment – policymakers could have lower inflation if they were willing to tolerate higher unemployment, or lower unemployment if they were willing to tolerate higher inflation – was shattered by the stagflation of the 1970s. We further acknowledge that the relationship between unemployment and compensation is not linear. We continue to believe, however, that the laws of supply and demand apply, and that the relationship between compensation and unemployment has been slow to assert itself this time around because the Phillips Curve is kinked. That is to say that the sensitivity of wage growth to a drop in unemployment is a function of the level of the unemployment rate itself. A decline in unemployment from 10% to 9%, 9% to 8%, or 8% to 7% does not exert upward pressure on wages because there are many more qualified candidates than there are openings at such elevated unemployment rates (Chart 3, top panel). When the unemployment rate is 5% or less, on the other hand, wages do respond to unemployment declines because the lack of labor market slack ensures that employers have to compete to attract qualified candidates (Chart 3, bottom panel). Estimates of the United States’ natural rate of unemployment in recent years have typically hovered around 5%. Over the 50-plus years covered by the average hourly earnings (AHE) series, real AHE growth has tended to peak (Chart 4, bottom panel) following unemployment’s sub-natural-rate trough (Chart 4, top panel). It has not yet reached an elevated level, but wages did begin accelerating sharply a year after the unemployment gap turned negative in early 2017. With the unemployment rate on track to continue to fall throughout 2019 (it only takes about 110,000 net new jobs a month to hold it in place), we expect that real AHE growth has further to run. Chart 4Don't Count Dr. Phillips Out Just Yet Taking the analysis a step further to consider real wage growth relative to productivity growth exhibits an even stronger link with the unemployment gap. From the early ‘70s through 2001, when productivity and real wages grew at the same rate (Chart 5, middle panel), real wages fell behind productivity when the unemployment gap was positive and caught up when it was negative (Chart 5, bottom panel). Capital has seized a disproportionate share of the gains in productivity since 2002, with the real-wages-to-productivity ratio able to stabilize only when the unemployment gap turned negative from 2006 to 2008. Chart 5Productivity-Adjusted Real Wages Rise When Unemployment Bottoms We expect that the coming cyclical trough in the unemployment gap will be consistent with past troughs, which have been associated with cyclical peaks in compensation gains. The linkage between compensation and consumer prices isn’t firmly established, but investors don’t have to sweat it. As long as the Fed perceives a connection, which it clearly does, it can be counted upon to respond to higher wages by tightening policy. A swift recovery in oil prices – our Commodity & Energy Strategy service sees Brent crude averaging $80/barrel, and WTI averaging $74, across 2019 – will also help keep the Fed’s attention squarely focused on price stability after ten years of full-employment fixation. Bottom Line: Unnecessary fiscal stimulus will continue to exert upward pressure on prices, while an extremely tight labor market will place steady upward pressure on wages. The Fed will respond by removing accommodation, pushing the fed funds rate above the neutral level, and bringing down the curtain on the record-long expansion sometime in 2020. Upgrading Corporate Bonds We noted two weeks ago that the spread-widening in high-yield corporate bonds was extreme, and that overweighting spread product would mesh well with our renewed equity overweight. Our U.S. Bond Strategy colleagues have since upgraded credit,2 and we are following their lead. We now recommend that investors overweight equities, underweight fixed income and equal-weight cash. Within fixed income, we recommend that investors significantly underweight Treasuries while overweighting both investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds. Consistent with our above-consensus inflation expectations, we prefer TIPs to nominal Treasuries. We harbor no illusions that a new credit cycle has begun. It is late in an already lengthy cycle, and we view the projected near-term decline in high-yield default rates as a final unwind of the default spike that accompanied the shale-drilling rout in 2016 (Chart 6). We do not expect a recession in 2019, but the next one is likely not too far off, and defaults begin to pick up well ahead of a recession. Our spread-product upgrade is an opportunistic short-term move, not a change in our cyclical view. Chart 6A New Credit Cycle Has Not Begun High-yield spreads widened so much in the fourth quarter, relative to their history, that their capital-gain prospects have flipped. We had been at equal weight, anticipating an eventual move to underweight, because spreads were unusually tight. The capital-gain stretch of the cycle was long gone, and excess returns over Treasuries were limited to coupon spreads that were likely to be eroded by capital losses as spreads widened ahead of an approaching recession. The lurch in spreads from the 25th percentile to the 75th percentile in double-B, B and triple-C bonds (Chart 7) restores potential capital gains as a cushion that should protect the coupon spread against unanticipated economic weakness. Chart 7Irrational Gloom The Fed’s newly conciliatory stance should support spread product just as it should support equities. All three monetary-policy elements of our bond strategists’ peak-spread checklist are issuing the all-clear signal: twelve-month fed funds rate hike projections have collapsed (Chart 8, second panel), gold has revived (Chart 8, third panel), and the dollar’s relentless upward march has finally been halted (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 8Monetary Policy Argues For Lower Spreads ... The jury is still out on the global-growth elements of our bond team’s peak-spread checklist. Our China Investment Strategy service’s Market-Based China Growth Indicator looks spry3 (Chart 9, third panel), and industrial mining stocks may be in the midst of bottoming (Chart 9, bottom panel), but the CRB raw industrials index is still scuffling (Chart 9, second panel). A blowout in spreads accompanied by a less-hawkish Fed and rebounding global growth would be a no-brainer reason to own spread product, but two out of three ain’t bad, and spreads would not have blown out in the first place if global growth were poised to surge. The biggest threat to our constructive economic and market views is a slowdown in China, and its uncertain direction is a risk to overweighting credit. On balance, though, we believe the current level of option- and default-adjusted spreads adequately compensate credit investors over the next three to six months, especially after factoring in the Fed’s benign turn. Chart 9... But The Jury's Still Out On Global Growth Bottom Line: We are upgrading spread product to take advantage of its fourth-quarter selloff and a Fed pause that may last until June, despite uncertainty around the global growth outlook.   Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The wise men and women gathered at the Barron’s annual roundtable foresee a similar setup, but with the direction reversed. They expect markets and the U.S. economy to encounter rough going in the first half of 2019 before conditions become more hospitable in the second half and in 2020, ahead of the next election. “Goodbye to Gloom,” Rublin, Lauren R., Barron’s, January 14, 2019, pp. 21-34. 2 Please see the January 15, 2019 U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Buy Corporate Credit,” available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see the November 21, 2018 China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem,” available at cis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights 2018 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio generated a modest outperformance versus the custom benchmark index of +6bps for all of 2018. Winners & Losers: The outperformance of our model bond portfolio in 2018 mostly came from country selection on our government bond portfolio (underweight U.S. Treasuries, overweight the U.K. and Australia). However, our below-benchmark overall duration stance, as well as our bias favoring U.S. credit over non-U.S. corporates, were drags on performance during the risk-off moves at the end of 2018. Scenario Analysis For 2019: The tactical upgrade to global corporates that we initiated last week is projected to generate outperformance versus the model portfolio benchmark index in the next six months - both from below-benchmark duration positioning and higher exposure to U.S. corporates. Feature 2019 has gotten off to a very busy start, with significant news and market moves forcing us to devote our first two Weekly Reports of the year to analysis and even changes to our views. This week, we belatedly take care of one final piece of housekeeping for 2018 – reporting the performance of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio for the fourth quarter and for the entire calendar year. We also present an updated scenario return analysis for the next six months after the tactical upgrade to global corporate bonds that we initiated last week.1 As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. A Quick Summary Of The Full Year Performance For 2018 The 2018 performance of the model portfolio can really be broken up into two periods: the first ten months of the year and November/December. This is an unsurprising consequence of the severe market moves around year-end that went contrary to our two most significant recommendations – maintaining a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration and overweighting U.S. investment grade corporate debt versus non-U.S. equivalents in Europe and emerging markets (EM). The overall portfolio return in 2018 was +1.10% (hedged into USD), which outperformed our custom benchmark index by +6bps (Chart of the Week).2 That outperformance was considerably higher before the year-end plunge in global bond yields, reaching a peak of +32bps on November 20. In terms of the breakdown of outperformance, our recommended positioning on government bonds (duration and country allocation) contributed +22bps, while our credit tilts (by country and broadly defined credit sectors) were a drag on performance to the tune of -16bps. Chart of the WeekA Small Gain For 2018 After A Q4 Round-Trip The full breakdown of the full-year 2018 performance can be found in the Appendix tables and charts on Pages 14-16. For the government bond portion of the portfolio the full-year outperformers by country were the U.S. (+18bps), Germany (+10bps), Australia (+4bps) and the U.K. (+3bps). These are in line with our long-standing underweight position on the U.S. versus Germany, and our recommended overweights on Australia and the U.K. The laggards were relatively modest, led by our overweight stance on Japan (-4bps) and underweights on France (-3bps) and Italy (-3bps). For the credit portion of the portfolio, the winners were EM USD-denominated corporates (+7bps), U.S. B-rated high-yield (HY) corporates (+3bps) and U.S. Caa-rated high-yield (HY) corporates (+2bps). This was in line with our long-standing bias to favor U.S. junk bonds over EM credit. The losers were our overweights on U.S. investment grade (IG) financials (-15bps), U.S. IG industrials (-8bps), U.S. Ba-rated HY (-4bps), and euro area IG corporates (-2bps). Our overweight tilts on U.S. IG were the issue here. Q4/2018 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: A “Risk-Off” Hit To Our Core Recommendations The detailed data on our model bond performance for Q4/2018 only can be found in Table 1. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2018 Overall Return Attribution The total return of the GFIS model bond portfolio was +1.5% (hedged into USD) in Q4, which underperformed the custom benchmark index by a mere -1bp. The main cause for the slight underperformance is from our below-benchmark duration positioning with the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Index yield falling by 20bps over the full quarter. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated -2bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by just +1bp. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3.   The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturities between 5-7 years (+12bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities between 7-10 years (+5bps) Underweight Germany government bonds with maturities between 7-10 years (+3bps) Overweight U.K. government bonds with maturities between 5-7 years (+2bps) Biggest underperformers Overweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities beyond 10 years (-15bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturities beyond 10 years (-8bps) Underweight Italy government bonds with maturities beyond 10 years (-3bps) Underweight France government bonds with maturities beyond 10 years (-2bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q4/2018. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q4/2018 (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral). Government bonds are dominating the left half of the chart, as yields declined in the final months of 2018. This was a drag on our model portfolio performance. However, the best performing sector was U.K. government bonds, generating a total return of 4.7% in Q4/2018 (on a currency-hedged and duration-matched basis). The GFIS model portfolio benefited from this move, given our long-standing overweight bias for U.K. Gilts. The right side of Chart 4 is occupied by global spread product, where currency-hedged returns were flat-to-negative in Q4. This was due to credit spread widening as investors feared both slower global growth and additional Fed tightening. The riskier parts of the corporate bond universe – high-yield, EM corporates – suffered the largest losses. The total return of Bloomberg Barclays U.S. High-Yield Index (currency-hedged into USD) for Q4 was -2.7%, as the option-adjusted spread (OAS) widened by +206bps. Unfortunately for our model portfolio, our preference for U.S. corporate bonds over European and EM credit hurt performance, although not by as much as the below-benchmark duration stance. We are disappointed by the final result for the year, although we are still pleased to generate even a small positive outperformance given the ferocity of the market moves seen at the end of 2018. We can attribute that to lingering gains from good calls made earlier in 2018, but also from our recommended cautious stance on overall portfolio risk (i.e. tracking error) in a more-volatile investment environment. Bottom Line: The outperformance of our model bond portfolio in 2018 mostly came from country selection on our government bond portfolio (underweight U.S. Treasuries, overweight the U.K. and Australia). However, our below-benchmark overall duration stance, as well as our bias favoring U.S. credit over non-U.S. corporates, were drags on performance during the risk-off moves at the end of 2018. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will benefit from two main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias and our underweight stance on global government bonds versus corporate debt. In terms of specific weighting in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we now have a tactical bias favoring global corporate debt over government debt coming on top of our below-benchmark duration stance (Chart 5). We are sticking with the latter position, about one full year short of the duration of our benchmark index, with global yield curves priced for inflation expectations that are too low and with no rate hikes discounted for 2019 in all major developed markets. Chart 5Portfolio Duration: Staying Below-Benchmark However, we are also keeping our current country allocations on the government bond side of the model portfolio, even after our tactical credit upgrade. That means staying underweight countries where policymakers are only pausing on rate hiking cycles (U.S. and Canada), while overweighting countries that are likely to keep rates on hold for all of 2019 (Japan, U.K., Australia). Our decision to upgrade global credit exposure helps boost the yield of our model portfolio (Chart 6). However, the portfolio is still yielding less than the benchmark thanks to our bear-steepening bias on government yield curves that involves underweights to longer-maturity bonds with higher yields. Chart 6Portfolio Yield: Credit Upgrade Helps Offset Defensive Duration Tilt Importantly, all the changes that were made to our portfolio allocations last week – raising weights on all global corporate bond markets, cutting exposure to government debt in the U.S., Germany and France – did not materially change the tracking error (relative volatility versus the benchmark) of the model portfolio. We do not see the current backdrop as being conducive to taking high levels of overall portfolio risk, even given our tactical view that the U.S. monetary policy will be on hold for the next 3-6 months. We prefer to recommend more relative value positioning via country and credit allocations that help dampen overall portfolio risk and reduce exposure to the kind of volatility spikes that became more frequent in 2018. Thus, we will continue to target a tracking error for the model portfolio of 40-60bps, well below our self-imposed 100bps ceiling (Chart 7). Chart 7Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Staying Cautious Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts In April 2018, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.3 For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis of projected returns for each asset class in the model bond portfolio by making assumptions on those individual risk factors.   In Tables 3A & 3B, we present three differing scenarios, with all the following changes occurring over a six-month horizon. Note that this differs from how we have typically presented these scenario analyses, with projections over the subsequent twelve months. Given that the changes to our recommended allocations introduced last week were tactical in nature (i.e. up to six months), we are shortening our forecast window for this particular scenario analysis to line up with that shorter investment horizon.   The scenarios are all driven by what we believe will be the most important driver of market returns in 2019 – the path of U.S. monetary policy. Our Base Case: the Fed stays on hold, the U.S. dollar remain flat, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index falls to 15, and there is a bear-steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This scenario is the one we laid out in last week’s report, with the Fed taking a pause through at least the March FOMC meeting, allowing market volatility to drift lower as U.S. monetary and financial conditions ease. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed does a surprise +25bps rate hike in March, the U.S. dollar rises by +5%, oil prices increase +20%, the VIX index climbs to 25 and there is a sharp bear-flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This would be the case if the U.S. economy maintains firm growth, the global growth downturn stabilizes, U.S. inflation expectations increase and market volatility increases from a surprisingly hawkish Fed. A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed cuts the funds rate by -25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by -5%, oil prices decline -20%, the VIX index increases to 35 and there is a sharp bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is a scenario where U.S./global growth slows rapidly from the current pace and the Fed has no choice but to ease monetary policy as market volatility surges alongside elevated recession risks. The model bond portfolio is expected to outperform the custom benchmark index by +19bps in our Base Case scenario. This comes from the relative outperformance of credit versus government bonds in an environment of rising bond yields (which also benefits our below-benchmark duration stance), and tighter credit spreads. In the Very Hawkish Fed scenario, our model portfolio is expected to outperform the benchmark by +29bps. This is not only due to our duration tilt and our corporates-versus-governments bias. As in the Base Case, the relative stance favoring U.S. corporates over EM credit would benefit from a backdrop of tightening U.S. monetary conditions and rising market volatility (Chart 8) – both of which are worse for EM credit. Chart 8Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis In the Very Dovish Fed scenario, our portfolio is projected to underperform the benchmark index by -26bps, with falling bond yields (Chart 9) hitting both our defensive duration bias and the overweight on corporates relative to governments. Chart 9UST Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis In all three scenarios, there is a drag on expected performance from the relative carry of the model portfolio versus the benchmark (-17bps). This comes mostly from the below-benchmark overall duration stance that involves reduced exposure to longer-maturity government bonds with higher yields. The drag on carry also comes from the underweight positioning on high-yielding EM debt. We are maintaining that tilt given our concerns that China’s policymakers will be unable to provide enough stimulus to benefit EM economies through greater Chinese demand. Importantly, our recommended allocations win in scenarios that do not involve Fed rate cuts, a very low probability outcome in 2019, in our view. Thus, we expect our current allocations to generate alpha in the first half of the year, even if the Fed returns to a hawkish bias faster than we currently anticipate. Bottom Line: The tactical upgrade to global corporates that we initiated last week is projected to generate outperformance versus the model portfolio benchmark index in the next six months - both from below-benchmark duration positioning and higher exposure to U.S. corporates.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Enough With The Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis”, dated January 15th 2019, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 2 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start”, dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. Appendix     Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Yield Curve Drivers: A rebound in rate hike expectations will cause the curve to steepen somewhat during the next few months, though accelerating wages limit the upside. The yield curve will not invert until after long-dated inflation expectations are fully re-anchored, probably not until late in the year. Yield Curve Positioning: Correlations that have been in place since the financial crisis show that the 5-year and 7-year maturities are most sensitive to changes in near-term rate hike expectations. With the discounter likely to move higher in the coming months, investors should favor yield curve trades that are short that portion of the curve. Investment Recommendation: Close our recommended long 2-year short 1-year/5-year trade for a profit of 2 bps. Replace it with a position short the 7-year bullet and long a duration-matched 2-year/30-year barbell. Feature The yield curve flattened throughout most of 2018, and actually fell enough that talk of curve inversion hit a fever pitch last November, around the same time that the market started to doubt the Fed’s ability to lift rates (Chart 1). As of today, the 2/10 Treasury slope sits at a mere 17 basis points, but we don’t see it falling below zero any time soon.1 Chart 1Too Soon For Curve Inversion In this week’s report we consider the factors that will determine how the slope of the curve evolves over the next few months, and also recommend an investment strategy to take advantage of those movements. Yield Curve: Macro Drivers Driver 1: Rate Hike Expectations The number one factor that will influence the slope of the yield curve in the coming months is the market’s assessment of the near-term path for Fed rate hikes. Chart 2 shows the 5-year rolling correlation between monthly changes in the 2/10 slope and monthly changes in our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter. A positive correlation means that the 2/10 slope steepens when the market prices in more rate hikes and flattens when it prices in fewer hikes. A negative correlation means that the slope flattens when the market prices in more hikes and steepens when it prices in fewer hikes. Chart 2Rising Rate Expectations = Steeper 2/10 Slope The correlation was consistently negative throughout the pre-crisis period because the 2-year yield reacted more to changes in near-term rate hike expectations than the 10-year yield. In other words, a given increase (decrease) in the discounter would lead to a larger increase (decrease) in the 2-year yield than in the 10-year yield, and the curve flattened (steepened) as a result. But this correlation flipped following the Great Recession. Zero-bound interest rates and Fed forward guidance were an important reason for the switch. But even during the past few months, as the 12-month discounter fell from 66 bps in early November to -1 bp currently, the 10-year yield fell by 45 bps and the 2-year yield by only 36 bps. Even with interest rates off zero and the Fed scaling back its forward guidance, the positive correlation between the 2/10 slope and the 12-month discounter persists. We think that the 12-month discounter is close to its near-term bottom. Our Fed Monitor has fallen somewhat in recent months but it remains above zero, suggesting that the economy requires further monetary tightening (Chart 3). A look at the three components of our Monitor gives us even more confidence that the discounter is near its trough. The economic growth component of the Monitor is nicely above zero (Chart 3, panel 3), and the inflation component continues to trend up (Chart 3, panel 4). All of the Fed Monitor’s recent weakness can be attributed to tighter financial conditions (Chart 3, bottom panel). As we discussed in last week’s report, now that the market views Fed policy as much more accommodative, it is only a matter of time before financial conditions ease.2 Chart 3Fed Monitor Still Suggests Tightening In fact, some easing has already begun (Chart 4): Chart 4Financial Conditions Starting To Ease The stock-to-bond total return ratio has bottomed (Chart 4, top panel) High-Yield spreads have peaked (Chart 4, panel 2) The VIX has moderated (Chart 4, panel 3) The trade-weighted dollar has started to depreciate (Chart 4, bottom panel) Ironically, easier financial conditions will give the Fed the green light to re-start rate hikes, probably by June, and this could re-test risk assets in the second half of the year. But between now and then, a move higher in 12-month rate expectations will apply some steepening pressure to the 2/10 slope. Driver 2: Inflation Expectations Instead of looking at nominal yields and rate hike expectations, another approach is to split yields into their real and inflation components. This is potentially revealing in the current environment since a large portion of the recent drop in yields was driven by the cost of inflation compensation. Since the November 8 peak in the discounter, the cost of 10-year inflation protection fell 26 bps and the real 10-year yield fell 19 bps. The cost of 2-year inflation protection declined 46 bps while the real 2-year yield actually rose 10 bps. Based on those numbers, it is evident that when the cost of inflation compensation fell alongside the oil price, it exerted a steepening pressure on the yield curve that was offset by a flattening in the real yield curve. One might conclude that a rebound in inflation will cause the curve to flatten going forward. That is probably true in the event of a pure inflation shock that does not impact global growth. But such a shock is highly unlikely. Oil (and other commodity) prices fell during the past few months because of a slowdown in global growth. A rebound in commodity prices that drives inflation higher will almost certainly occur alongside stronger global growth. In other words, splitting nominal yields into the real and inflation components probably doesn’t get us any closer to figuring out the near-term path for the yield curve. A better way to incorporate the cost of inflation compensation into our thinking about the yield curve is to focus on the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate. That rate is currently 1.99%, well below the range of 2.3%-2.5% that has historically been consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations (Chart 5). Chart 5Inflation Expectations Are Too Low For The Fed It is difficult to believe that the Fed would allow the yield curve to invert with the 5-year/5-year breakeven rate so low. The combination of an inverted yield curve and below-target inflation expectations would signal that the Fed wants to run a restrictive monetary policy before inflation has fully recovered. That would be completely contrary to the Fed’s mandate. From this argument, we reason that the 2/10 slope is unlikely to sustainably fall below zero until the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate is at least above 2.3%. With the 2/10 slope already at 17 bps, this means it is much more likely to stay near its current level or steepen somewhat during the next few months. Driver 3: Wage Growth The third factor driving our yield curve view is the pace of wage growth. Stronger wage growth is tightly correlated with a flatter yield curve, though the yield curve tends to lead wage growth by 6-12 months (Chart 6). Chart 6A Flatter Curve Leads Faster Wage Growth Higher Wage Growth = Flatter Curve In fact, a typical cyclical pattern is for the 2/10 slope to flatten rapidly and then stay at a low (but positive) level for some time as wage growth catches up. In that sense, this cycle is playing out just like every other. The yield curve has already undergone its large flattening and wage growth is now accelerating to catch up. Bottom Line: The three factors discussed above lead us to expect a small amount of curve steepening during the next few months. A rebound in rate hike expectations due to easier financial conditions will cause the curve to steepen, though accelerating wages limit the upside. The yield curve will not invert until after long-dated inflation expectations are fully re-anchored, probably not until late in the year. Yield Curve Positioning In the first section of this report we noted that the 10-year yield fell by more than the 2-year yield between the early-November peak in the 12-month discounter and today. But Table 1 shows that the 5-year and 7-year yields fell by even more. This is the expected result. Table 1Treasury Curve From Peak In 12-Month Discounter To Present Turning once again to the correlations between different segments of the yield curve and our 12-month discounter, we see that yield curve segments out to the 5-year maturity point are all positively correlated with the 12-month discounter. Also, curve segments beyond the 7-year maturity point are all negatively correlated with the discounter. The 5/7 slope has virtually no correlation (Chart 7). Chart 75-Year & 7-Year Are Most Sensitive To Rate Expectations These correlations tell us that we should expect the 5-year and 7-year yields to move the most in response to changes in the 12-month discounter. In other words, if we expect the discounter to move higher in the coming months we should maintain short exposure to this part of the curve. This short exposure should be offset by long exposure at either the very short-end or the very long-end of the curve, where yields will see less upside when the discounter rebounds. To figure out where to focus this long exposure we can turn to our butterfly spread models.3 Table 2 presents the raw residuals from our butterfly spread models. These models are based on regressions of different butterfly spreads versus the slope of the yield curve segment that spans the two wings of the barbell portion of the trade. For example, Table 2 shows a residual of -9 bps for the 5-year bullet relative to the 2/10 barbell. This means that the 5-year appears 9 bps expensive versus the 2/10 barbell, given where the slope of the 2/10 curve is today. Table 3 shows the standardized residuals from the different curve models so that they can be compared against each other. Table 2Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Residuals Table 3Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Notice in Tables 2 and 3 that almost all of the numbers are negative. This means that bullet trades are currently expensive relative to barbell trades. Using our criteria of wanting to be short the 5-year or 7-year part of the curve, we can use the tables to see that a position short the 7-year bullet and long the duration-matched 2-year/30-year barbell has an attractive standardized residual of -1.00. This appears to be the most attractive curve trade for the current environment. As such, today we close our current yield curve recommendation to favor the 2-year bullet over the 1-year/5-year barbell for a gain of 2 bps. This recommendation had been in place since November 5. In its place, we initiate a recommendation to go long a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 30-year maturities and short the 7-year note. Bottom Line: Correlations that have been in place since the financial crisis show that the 5-year and 7-year maturities are most sensitive to changes in near-term rate hike expectations. With the discounter likely to move higher in the coming months, investors should favor yield curve trades that are short that portion of the curve. With that in mind, we close our 2-year over 1-year/5-year trade and initiate a position short the 7-year bullet and long a duration-matched 2-year/30-year barbell. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We don’t expect to see sustained yield curve inversion until late this year. For further details please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Buy Corporate Credit”, dated January 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For further details on the models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Please note that country sections on Mexico and Colombia published below. The policy stimulus in China could produce a growth revival in the second half of 2019, but there are no signs of an imminent bottom in China’s growth over the next several months. The lack of policy support for real estate is the key difference between the current stimulus program and previous ones. Crucially, the property market holds the key to consumer and business sentiment and hence, their willingness to spend. Continue to overweight Mexico within EM currency, fixed-income and equity portfolios. Colombia warrants a neutral weighting. A new trade: bet on yield curve flattening. Feature China has been undertaking both fiscal and monetary stimulus since last summer. A key question among investors is: At what point will the cumulative effects of these efforts become sufficient to revive the mainland’s business cycle and produce a rally in China-related plays akin to 2016-’17? This report helps investors dissect China’s stimulus, and reviews the indicators that will likely help identify the turning point in the mainland’s business cycle, as well as in China-exposed financial markets. Chart I-1 conveys the main message: Our credit and fiscal spending impulse is still falling, indicating that the slump in the Chinese industrial sector will persist for now with negative ramifications for EM corporate profits and other segments of the global economy that are leveraged to China. Looking forward, odds are reasonably high that the credit and fiscal spending impulse will bottom sometime in the first half of 2019. Yet, a bottom in China-plays in global financial markets is likely be several months away from now and potential downside could still be substantial. Monetary Stimulus On the monetary policy front, there has been multifaceted easing: Several cuts to banks’ reserve requirement ratios (RRRs) have been implemented; Lower interest rates for SME borrowers and a reduction in funding costs for the banks that originate these loans; The use of preferential liquidity provisions to encourage banks to purchase bonds issued by private companies. Monetary easing in of itself is not a sufficient condition to produce an economic revival. There are two variables standing between easing liquidity/lower borrowing costs, on the one hand, and the performance of the economy on the other: The first one is the money multiplier, which is calculated as a ratio of broad money supply (or banks assets) to excess reserves. It measures the willingness of banks to expand their balance sheets at a given level of excess reserves, assuming there is loan demand. Chart I-2 shows that China’s money multiplier has risen substantially since 2008 but has recently rolled over. A further drop in the money multiplier could offset the positive effect of monetary easing. Chart I-2China: Money Multiplier Is Falling In other words, the central bank is injecting more liquidity into the banking system and interbank rates are falling, but commercial banks may be unwilling or unable to originate more loans due to financial regulations, lack of loan demand or for other reasons. Notably, the growth rate of bank assets (including policy banks) remains lackluster, while non-bank (shadow) credit is decelerating (Chart I-3). Chart I-3China: Bank Credit And Non-Bank Credit The second variable is the willingness of companies and households to spend. This is captured by our proxies for marginal propensity to spend by companies and consumers. Chart I-4 denotes that both propensity measures are dropping, signifying a diminishing willingness to spend among these two sectors. Chart I-4China: Diminishing Propensity To Spend By Consumers And Companies If economic sentiment among businesses and households remains downbeat – which has been the case in China over the past six to nine months – their reduced expenditures could offset any positive impulse from increased credit origination. Economists think of nominal GDP (aggregate spending) as money supply times the velocity of money (Nominal GDP = Money Supply x Velocity of Money). New lending activity among banks increases money supply, while economic agents’ spending raises the velocity of money. If the velocity of money drops more than the rise in money supply, aggregate expenditure (nominal GDP growth) will decline. Chart I-5 illustrates that the velocity of money rose in 2017, supporting robust growth during this period, despite very lackluster money growth. The opposite phenomenon – a decline in the velocity of money offsetting faster money expansion – could be a risk to the positive view on Chinese growth in 2019. Chart I-5Velocity Of Money: Will It Resume Its Decline? Bottom Line: There is so far no clear evidence that the credit cycle has bottomed. Besides, a bottom in the credit impulse is not in and of itself sufficient to herald an economic recovery. Fiscal Stimulus Unlike in previous easing episodes, policymakers this time around have prioritized fiscal over monetary stimulus because of the already high leverage. In the past six months or so, the government has announced the following fiscal measures: A reduction in the personal income tax rate; Subtraction of certain household expenses from taxable personal income; A reduction in taxes and fees paid by small businesses; A potential VAT cut. These measures will certainly have a positive impact on small businesses and consumer spending. This is why we do not foresee a deepening slump in consumer spending. Nevertheless, the tax reductions and other policies benefiting small businesses and households are unlikely to boost industrial output and construction in China. The latter two are crucial for global investors because many countries are leveraged to China’s industrial and construction activity. For the industrial part of the economy, the most pertinent stimulus measure announced so far has been the issuance of local government special bonds. These bonds are used for infrastructure/public welfare projects. Chart I-6A shows the growth rates of aggregate fiscal spending and its components, which are expenditures by central and local governments as well as by government managed funds (GMFs). GMF spending – a form of quasi-government (off-balance sheet) spending – has surged in recent years and now accounts for 8.5% of GDP, which is more than twice larger than central government spending (Chart I-6B). Chart I-6AChina: Fiscal Spending Annual Growth... Chart I-6B…And As % Of Nominal GDP Although the 2019 budget has not yet been released – it will be announced in March during the National People's Congress – there have been some announcements that we can use to gauge the potential fiscal spending impulse in 2019. On the positive side, Beijing has recently authorized local governments to begin issuing bonds in early 2019 before the overall budget is released in March. Local governments are sanctioned to issue RMB 810 trillion of special bonds, which is 60% of their 2018 quotas. This contrasts with the previous years' practice, when local governments only started to issue bonds in April after obtaining directives from Beijing. The earlier-than-usual quota authorization will allow local governments to issue bonds from the beginning of the year. There is no timeline as to when these bonds will be issued, but it is safe to assume that their issuance will occur in the first half of 2019. This, in turn, should boost infrastructure investments throughout 2019. On the negative side, government managed funds (GMFs) derive 85% of their revenues from land sales. Land sales are tumbling due to previous credit tightening and scarce access to financing among property developers. Chart I-7 demonstrates that land sales lag the credit cycle by nine months. As developers are no longer acquiring land, GMF revenues and spending are set to shrink over the next 12 months. This will, to a certain degree, offset the augmented special bonds issuance. Chart I-7China: Credit Leads Land Sales And Quasi-Fiscal Spending We performed a simulation on what would be the aggregate fiscal impulse in 2019 using the following assumptions: Central and local government spending growth rates are held constant at 2018 levels. Local government special bond issuance is RMB 1.62 trillion. This is twice the recently authorized quota. Hence, our simulation assumes a 20% increase in local government special bond issuance in 2019 over 2018, respectively. GMF land revenues drop by 25% – a comparable drop in land sales occurred in 2015. Table I-1 reveals that using these assumptions, the fiscal spending impulse in 2019 will be 0.1% of GDP down from 4% in 2018 (Chart I-8, bottom panel).   Chart I-8China: Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse The next step is to combine this with our credit impulse forecast. We assume the 2019 year-end growth rate of credit to companies and households will be 9% in our pessimistic scenario, 10% in our baseline scenario and 11% in our optimistic scenario, compared with the December 2018 recorded rate of 10%. This entails no deleveraging at all. Under these assumptions, our forecasts for aggregate credit and fiscal impulses are 0.2% of GDP (pessimistic), 2.3% (baseline) and 4.4% (optimistic) (Table I-1). Presently, the credit and fiscal impulse is close to zero (Chart I-8). Bottom Line: China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse will bottom in the first half of 2019 (Chart I-8). However, this does not mean that EM/China plays have already bottomed and investors should chase the latest rebound in China-plays worldwide. We discuss the historical correlation between the credit and fiscal impulse and China-related financial markets below. What Is Different From Previous Stimulus Programs? The lack of stimulus targeting the real estate sector is the key difference between the current stimulus programs and those implemented in the past 10 years. The central government has so far abstained from stimulating the property market due to already existing speculative excesses there. This is very different from the policy easing that took place in 2008-‘09, 2012 and 2015-’16, when the authorities boosted property markets along with other sectors of the economy. Chart I-9 reveals that the 2015-‘17 residential property market revival and following boom was facilitated by the Pledged Supplementary Lending (PSL) program conducted by the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) – which was de-facto the outright monetarization of real estate by the central bank.1 The authorities have so far been reluctant to use this PSL program again, and the odds are that housing sales and new construction will continue to decline (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Residential Property Market Is Deteriorating Chart I-10China: Construction Volumes Are Shrinking Importantly, the property market holds the key to consumer and business sentiment and, hence, their willingness to spend. The latter is crucial to the growth outlook. Overall, a deepening slump in real estate demand and prices could dent consumer and small business confidence as well as their spending. Meanwhile, shrinking construction volumes will dampen industrial sectors (Chart I-10). Investment Implications: A Replay Of 2016-‘17? How does the credit and fiscal impulse relate to financial markets globally that are leveraged to the Chinese economy? The top two panels of Chart I-11 show our money impulse as well as credit and fiscal spending impulse (CFI), while the bottom two panels contain EM share prices and industrial metals prices. There are a few observations to be made: Chart I-11China: Money And Credit/Fiscal Impulses, EM Stocks And Metals Prices First, the CFI has not yet bottomed – i.e., it has not confirmed the upturn in the money impulse. Second, as illustrated in this Chart, the bottoms in the money impulse as well as the CFI in July 2015 preceded the bottom in EM and commodities by six months, and their peaks led the top in financial markets - in January 2018 - by about 15 months. Besides, in 2012-‘13, the rise in both the money impulse and CFI did not do much to help EM stocks or industrial commodities prices. Third, the credit and fiscal impulse leads the global manufacturing PMI by several months as illustrated in Chart I-1 on page 1, as well as mainland’s capital goods imports (Chart I-12). Chart I-12China's Impact On Industrial Goods And Commodities On the whole, investors should consider buying China-related plays only after both the money impulse and the CFI bottom together which has not yet occurred. Besides, even if these indicators rise in tandem, the bottom in China-related financial market plays could be a few months later because these impulses have historically led markets. This is why we believe a final down leg in EM and China-related plays still lies ahead. Typically, the last/capitulation phase in bear markets is considerable and being early can be very painful. Bottom Line: We continue to recommend underweighting/playing EM and China-related risk assets on the short side. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com Mexico: Reiterating Our Overweight Stance Mexican financial markets have rebounded, outperforming their EM counterparts since mid-December. This outperformance has further upside because the AMLO administration is proving to be less populist and more pragmatic, especially relative to investors’ expectations. We are reiterating our recommendations to overweight Mexican markets, especially the currency, local fixed-income and sovereign credit, within respective EM portfolios due to the following considerations: The 2019 budget is a prime example of sensible rather than populist policies by the AMLO administration. The budget targets a primary surplus of 1% of GDP versus 0.8% of GDP in 2018 (Chart II-1). Notably, the 2019 budget envisages an absolute decline in nominal expenditures in 29 out of 56 categories. Chart II-1Fiscal Tightening In 2019 Such a restrained budget follows the conservative fiscal policy of the previous administration. In brief, the nation’s fiscal policy and public debt profile remain sound. Public spending will be increased mostly in the areas that are critical to boosting productivity. These include infrastructure spending, vocational training, promoting “financial deepening” and competition, eliminating graft and improving security. These efforts are critical to boosting business confidence, investment and ultimately productivity. On the revenue side, the budget has become much less reliant on oil revenues than before. The share of oil revenues in total government revenues historically hovered around 30%, but in 2018 it declined to 18%. The 2019 budget assumes an average oil price of $55 per barrel, a conservative projection. Investors have also been somewhat alarmed by the 16% hike in minimum wages, but this should be put into historical context. Chart II-2 illustrates that the minimum wage in real terms (deflated by consumer price inflation) dropped by 70% since its peak in 1976, before rising in the recent years. Chart II-2Historical Perspective On Minimum Wage Importantly, Mexico’s competitiveness problem does not stem from high wages but from a lack of productivity gains. Productivity has been stagnant, and wages in real terms have not risen in many years. Hence, the true test for the nation is to raise productivity, not curb wages. Remarkably, the Mexican peso is very cheap, as measured by the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs (Chart II-3). Hence, the minimum wage hike can be viewed as payback after decades of dramatic declines in the minimum wage in real terms. Chart II-3The Mexican Peso Is Cheap The central bank has overdone it with hiking interest rates: interest rates are currently among the highest of the mainstream EM economies, both in nominal and real terms (Chart II-4). Hence, local rates offer great value relative to other EMs (Chart II-4, bottom panel). Chart II-4High Real And Nominal Interest Rates Tight fiscal and monetary policies will curb domestic demand and promote disinflation. Money and credit growth remain very sluggish (Chart II-5). This is negative for consumer and business spending, but positive for investors in local currency bonds. Chart II-5Monetary Growth Is Weak The basis is that a retrenchment in domestic demand and thereby imports will help stabilize the trade balance amid low oil prices. Hence, this is on the margin a positive for the peso as well as for local currency bonds relative to their EM counterparts. Finally, Mexico will benefit from its ties to the U.S. economy, unlike many other EMs that are more exposed to China. Investment Recommendation We continue to recommend overweighting the peso and local currency bonds within an EM fixed-income portfolio. Currency traders should maintain our long MXN / short ZAR trade (Chart II-6, top two panels). Chart II-6Remain Overweight Mexican Currency And Fixed-Income Credit market investors should continue to overweight Mexican sovereign credit within an EM credit portfolio (Chart II-6, bottom panel). Finally, we are also reiterating our long Mexico position within an EM equity portfolio. While domestic demand growth and corporate profits will continue to disappoint, the declining risk premium on Mexican assets due to a re-assessment among investors of AMLO’s policies warrants a mild overweight in large caps and a sizable overweight in small caps relative to their EM peers. Colombia: Headed Into Another Downtrend The Colombian economy is set to undergo another phase of growth retrenchment: The government is planning to reduce the overall fiscal deficit from 4.5% to 2.4% of GDP by the end of 2019 (Chart III-1). Oil-related revenues make up under 10% of total government revenues, and they are shrinking as both oil production and prices have plunged. Chart III-1Fiscal Policy Will Tighten In 2019 As a result, the government should undertake major fiscal cutbacks and hike taxes to achieve the overall budget deficit target of 2.4%. Such substantial fiscal tightening will hurt domestic demand. Regarding the exchange rate, the central bank is pursuing a “hands-off” approach, which is likely to continue. Therefore, the currency is set to depreciate due to the large current account deficit and lack of sufficient foreign funding. Notably, the current account deficit excluding oil is -7% of GDP (Chart III-2, top panel), and the plunge in oil prices and weak domestic demand will cause FDI inflows to drop meaningfully (Chart III-2, bottom panel). Together, this points to further currency depreciation. Chart III-2BoP Dynamics Are Deteriorating Meanwhile, the central bank is not in a position to ease policy to offset the impact of fiscal tightening, as a weaker exchange rate historically leads to higher inflation (Chart III-3, top panel). In fact, given core inflation is at the upper end of the central bank’s target range (Chart III-3, bottom panel), a considerable currency depreciation could lead to rate hikes. Raising rates amid weakening growth is a recipe for considerable yield curve flattening. Chart III-3Weaker Currency = Higher Inflation Lending rates remain well above nominal GDP growth, and the banking system is still restructuring following years of a credit boom. Credit growth will remain weak, reinforcing weakness in domestic demand stemming from substantial fiscal tightening. Finally, consumer and business confidence seem to be faltering due to the negative attention surrounding Colombian President Iván Duque Márquez’s policies. The negative terms-of-trade shocks and the imminent fiscal tightening will reinforce worsening sentiment among economic agents. Profound cyclical headwinds to growth indicate that the economy is set to return to a growth recession – a very low but slightly positive growth rate. With respect to investment strategy, we recommend the following: First, we are downgrading this bourse from overweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. While overweighting Latin American stocks as a whole within an EM equity portfolio, we believe that Brazilian, Chilean and Mexican share prices offer a better risk-reward profile than Colombian ones (Chart III-4). Chart III-4Colombia Is Unlikely To Outperform LATAM Second, as to sovereign credit investors, we are reiterating an overweight stance because fiscal tightening and monetary policy orthodoxy as well as low government debt levels will help Colombian sovereign credit to outperform. Third, two opposing cross-currents will shape the domestic bond market. On the one hand, weak growth is positive for bonds. On the other hand, currency depreciation is negative. Net-net, investors in local currency government bonds should be slightly overweight or neutral this market within an EM local bond portfolio. For fixed-income investors, we recommend a new trade: position for yield curve flattening (Chart III-5). This is a bet on a considerable growth slowdown amid looming fiscal austerity. Chart III-5Colombia: Bet On Yield Curve Flattening Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China Real Estate: A Never-Bursting Bubble?" dated April 6, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations