Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Highlights Investors’ hunt for yield over the past few years has increasingly led them to view emerging markets debt (EMD) as an attractive component of portfolios. EMD should not be viewed as one homogeneous asset class. Investors should distinguish between its key segments: hard-currency sovereign debt, hard-currency corporate debt, and local-currency sovereign debt. EMD allows investors to own bonds with higher yields than DM sovereign or corporate bonds. But it comes with specific risks that investors need to understand. EMD, being a highly cyclical asset class, should perform well in an environment of accelerating global growth – which we expect to see during 2020. Within this asset class, we favor EM hard-currency sovereign bonds over both EM hard-currency corporate debt and local-currency sovereign bonds. However, the coronavirus outbreak makes us reluctant to pull the trigger on this recommendation now. Rather, we are placing EM hard-currency sovereign debt on upgrade watch. Feature Emerging markets debt (EMD) as an asset class has grown over the past decades to over US$24 trillion in bonds outstanding – becoming an integral part of the global investment universe, and presenting an interesting investment opportunity for investors. The EMD universe, which was previously dominated by sovereign issues in hard currencies, has become more diverse, and consequently, difficult for investors to ignore. In this Special Report, we identify the segments that make up EMD and the various exposures that investors face when allocating to it. We analyze their risk-return characteristics and the drivers contributing to their returns, and compare EMD to other asset classes. We conclude by identifying any diversification benefits that investors can reap as the hunt for yield continues. Introduction Estimates value total debt in emerging markets at over $24 trillion as of Q2 2019. This includes both sovereign and corporate debt, in both local and hard currencies (Chart 1).1  The bulk of EMD, however, is in local currencies – almost 90%. Chart 1Estimates Of Total EMD Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt In this Special Report, we focus on the following three segments of emerging markets debt (EMD): Sovereign debt issued in hard currency – the majority of which is USD denominated – estimated at $2 trillion. I. We distinguish between “pure”            sovereigns and quasi-sovereign bonds. Corporate debt2  issued in hard currency – mainly in USD – estimated to be $1.5 trillion. Sovereign debt issued in local currency – estimated at $10.3 trillion. We do not cover local-currency corporate debt, as more than half of it – estimated to be $8.1 trillion – is issued by Chinese firms and is hard to access for most investors. Each of these segments offers an array of opportunities, is driven by different dynamics, and bears risks that investors must recognize before allocating to it. We recommend clients view the segments of EMD as different asset classes, rather than an aggregate. Hard-Currency Debt Hard-currency EMD refers to debt issued by governments and firms in emerging markets that is denominated in a currency other than their local currency. Estimates suggest 90%-95% of total hard-currency debt is USD denominated, with the remaining in euros and yen. The main feature of hard-currency EMD is that it provides investors with protection against currency depreciation risk. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that currency movements can affect spreads, default risk, as well as liquidity. If a country’s currency depreciates, its ability to service its foreign debt deteriorates. This is crucial, as exemplified by currency crises over the past few years in countries such as Argentina, Turkey, Egypt, and Venezuela. Hard-Currency Sovereign Debt Since 2004, EM hard-currency sovereign bond investors have enjoyed an annualized total return of 7.4%, much higher than the 3.2% from the global Treasury index. Even on a risk-adjusted return basis, the incremental performance compensates for the additional 1.7% of annualized volatility. Investing in EM hard-currency sovereigns allows investors to find higher-yielding debt than government bonds in developed economies. Since 2004, the average yield on EM hard-currency sovereign debt was 6.1%, 3.8 percentage points higher than the 2.3% on their DM counterparts. Investors received positive returns even in real terms, as inflation in DM and the US have averaged 2.2% and 2.1% respectively, since 2004 (Chart 2). This has been extremely useful, particularly in the past few years, when bond yields in many developed economies reached zero or turned negative, and investors increasingly hunted for yield. The risk profile of the aggregate EM sovereign debt index is balanced between the safer Middle Eastern economies such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar, and the riskier Latin American economies such as Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. Those two buckets each comprise approximately 30% of the index, with the remainder of the index split between Asia, Emerging Europe, and Africa at 17%, 11%, and 10%, respectively (Chart 3). Other portfolios are benchmarked to J.P. Morgan’s indexes where Gulf countries have very little weight. Chart 2EM USD-Sovereigns Provide Value To DM Investors Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Chart 3Risk Profile Of EM USD-Sovereigns Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt We believe it is reasonable to compare hard-currency EM sovereign debt to US investment-grade bonds due to their shared characteristics. Both have comparable duration (approximately eight years) and similar credit qualities, despite EM sovereign debt being a little riskier on average than the US corporate market (Chart 4). Nevertheless, since 2004, EM sovereign hard-currency debt has outperformed US investment-grade bonds by 40% – although its outperformance has lost steam over the past few years (Chart 5). Chart 4EM USD-Sovereigns Are Slightly Riskier Than US Investment-Grade Bonds Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Chart 5EM USD-Sovereigns Have Outperformed US IG Bonds... Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt This does not mean that EM debt is immune to problems.3 The cumulative average default rate of EM foreign-currency sovereign debt – while lower than US corporates – remains high and is more pronounced as one goes down the credit-rating curve (Table 1). Idiosyncratic country risks can skew the data. If one excludes Argentina – currently weighted at only 3.5% – from the index, almost 100 basis points of spread get shaved off (Chart 6). Table 1…However, Beware Of The Default Rates Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Chart 6Excluding Argentina, Spreads Are Much Lower Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Given that most of our clients invest through passive vehicles, throughout this report, we focus on the EM aggregate indexes rather than on specific countries. However, it is important to identify over/undervalued countries, given the wide-ranging risk-profile spectrum of emerging economies. By drawing a US corporate credit curve, based on credit ratings and breakeven spreads, one can spot over- or undervalued countries relative to US investment-grade bonds. Currently, the sovereign bonds of Poland, UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia appear to be more attractively valued than those of Russia, Hungary, and Brazil. The charts also show the transition of these countries across time (Chart 7, A,B,C,D). Chart 7Country Selection Is Important… Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Chart 8...With The UAE And Saudi As Good Examples Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt For example, South African sovereign bonds – given their current credit rating and spreads – have moved from being overvalued relative to US corporates to undervalued over the past five years. This implies a buying opportunity, or simply that they are getting cheaper ahead of a potential downgrade. For investors with less restricted mandates, country selection can be very valuable. For example, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, two highly rated economies at Aa2 and A1 respectively, trade at 23 and 30 basis points over similarly rated US corporate bonds (Chart 8). We find that EM hard-currency sovereign spreads are mainly driven by global growth cycles, something BCA Research’s Emerging Market strategists have often highlighted.4  We rely on several key indicators to gauge where we are in the cycle. These include Germany’s IFO manufacturing business expectations, global and emerging market PMIs, as well as OECD’s Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) (Chart 9). Upward moves in these indicators have historically led to a tightening in EM sovereign spreads. Chart 9Spreads Will Tighten Once Global Growth Picks Up Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Quasi-Sovereign Bonds Chart 10Quasi-Sovereigns Are Focused In The Energy Sector Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Investors need to differentiate between EM sovereign bonds and quasi-sovereign bonds. While formal definitions vary among market participants and academics, the most common definition of “quasi-sovereign” is bonds issued by an entity where the government either fully owns the institution, controls more than 50% of its equity, or has a majority of its voting rights.5 Examples of such companies include Brazil’s Petrobras, Mexico’s Pemex, and Venezuela’s PDVSA. One reason why we highlight quasi-sovereigns is the rapid growth in the amount of such debt outstanding.6 As of January 2020, the quasi-sovereign bond market has grown by over US$630 billion throughout the past decade to US$714 billion and it now makes up over 42% of the combined EM Sovereign amd Quasi-Sovereign Bloomberg Barclays index. The oil & gas sector represents over a third of quasi-sovereign entities (Chart 10). Chart 11Quasi-Sovereigns...A Defensive Play On Corporate Bonds Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Some investors assume that a quasi-sovereign entity would have the full backing of its government. While that is true in most cases, the majority of quasi-sovereign bonds only have an “implicit” backing from the issuer’s government, meaning that the government holds no legal liability in case of default. Dubai World, a state-owned conglomerate, was a perfect example of this during the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis. The government stood on the sidelines as the firm went through financial distress, forcing billions of dollars of debt to be restructured.7 Given this additional level of uncertainty and corporate risk, EM quasi-sovereign bonds trade at higher spreads than their sovereign counterparts (Chart 11). Nonetheless, bonds with even the simplest implicit backing from the government are considered a more defensive play than “pure” corporate bonds, which trade at even higher spreads. Hard-Currency Corporate Debt The increase in quasi-sovereign issuance has been a big factor in the growth of the hard-currency corporate-debt universe – a segment that became of interest to investors in the early 2000s. The outstanding amount of hard-currency corporate debt has surpassed hard-currency sovereign debt, according to the Bank Of International Settlements (BIS) (Chart 1). The EM corporate debt index8 has similar sector exposure to the MSCI EM equity index. Almost 69% of the bond index is concentrated in the Industrials category,9 with the Financial/Banking and Utilities sectors making up the remaining 26% and 5%, respectively (Chart 12). The Technology sector is an exception – comprising only 5% of the corporate bond index compared to over 16% in the equity index. The country exposure, however, is less skewed to Asian economies compared to equities (Chart 13). Chart 12EM Corporates Provide Similar Sector Exposure To Equities… Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Chart 13…Yet With Different Country Exposure Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Chart 14EM Corporates: A Defensive Play On Equities... Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt   The overlap in sector coverage can be advantageous to investors who want quasi-exposure to EM equities but with much lower volatility. The same can be said for DM corporate bonds, whose return is highly correlated to equities but with about one-third the beta.10 The correlation between EM corporate bonds and EM equities is currently close to its post-2003 average of 0.61, and the beta of EM corporate bonds to EM equities has averaged only 0.13 (Chart 14). Despite having a lower annualized return11  than EM equities, 5.6% versus 8.3%, EM corporate bonds had almost half the realized volatility, and so outperformed equities on a risk-adjusted basis. In fact, since late 2007, they have generally outperformed EM equities even in absolute terms, despite a few periods of EM equity outperformance. Like sovereigns, EM corporate bonds provided investors with a cushion against equity downside risk. For example, during the 2015/2016 slowdown in China and emerging economies, EM equities fell by almost 28%, whereas EM corporate bonds fell by only 5% (Chart 15). Chart 15...With Lower Drawdowns Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt On a valuation basis, however, EM corporate bonds have looked unattractive relative to EM equities, providing investors with 4% real yield, compared to an equity earnings yield of 7% since 2004 (Chart 16). Nevertheless, the current level of spreads points to moderate returns for the asset class, slightly below 4% annualized over the next five years, assuming that historical default and recovery rates remain the same, and no change in spreads (Chart 17). This implies that exposure to emerging markets via corporate bonds should be more attractive than equities on a risk-adjusted basis.12 Chart 16EM Corporate Bonds Are Unattractive Compared To Equities Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Chart 17Forward Returns Driven By The Spread Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt EM corporate debt is similar to its sovereign counterpart in the range of risk profiles of its constituents. Default figures vary significantly by region and during different crises. For example, the hard-currency corporate default rate for Argentinian corporates peaked at slightly over 50% during the 2001/2002 sovereign debt crisis, while for Chile and Mexico it remained below 10%. Surprisingly, default rates in emerging market corporate speculative-grade debt have on average been below those of both the US and Europe (Chart 18). Additionally, the 12-month trailing default rate for the overall EM corporate universe, as measured by Moodys’ Investors Service, at the end of 2018 was lower than for advanced economies – at 1.4% versus 1.6%.13 Chart 18Default Rates In EM Are Surprisingly Lower Than In DM Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Chart 19EM Corporates Suffer From Weaker Balance Sheets Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt   EM corporate spreads are driven by a few main variables – revenue and profit growth, the business cycle, and the exchange rate. The health of EM corporates is also an important factor. This is an area of concern as corporate leverage levels have risen since 2010, and EM firms’ ability to service debt – gauged by their interest-coverage ratio – has fallen to below 2008 levels (Chart 19). Political turmoil can upset markets. Even though investors do not face the risk of currency depreciation with hard-currency debt, EM corporates with revenues mostly in local currency, face higher debt-repayment risk during a slowdown in their economies. Local-Currency Sovereign Debt Chart 20There Is Value In EM Local-Currency Bonds Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Emerging-market governments, to avoid foreign currency liquidity crunches, have in recent years shifted some of their debt issuance to their own currency. However, to attract investors, yields on local-currency sovereign bonds have to compensate for the added layer of currency risk as well as conventional sovereign risk. Over the lifetime of the index,14 since 2003, yields on local-currency sovereign debt have averaged 6.7%, compared to 2.5% for the US Treasury index, 2.4% for the euro area treasury index, and 0.63% for the Japanese treasury index (Chart 20). Since 2004, EM local sovereign bonds have provided investors with attractive returns. On an annualized basis, they have returned 8.4% and 6.8% in local terms and dollar terms, respectively, albeit with higher volatility than their hard-currency counterparts on a common-currency basis (Table 2). However, those returns remain higher than those of government bonds in developed economies such as Germany and Japan, both in local- currency terms and on an unhedged basis from a USD perspective. Table 2EM Local-Currency Bonds Outperforming Other DM Government Bonds In USD And Local Currency Terms Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Investors allocating to this segment assume a simple yet plausible notion: that EM economies will never default on debt issued in their own currency, as they can easily “print more money”. This is partially correct: default rates across rated EM sovereign local debt remain lower than for foreign-currency sovereign debt (Table 3). Table 3Default Rates: Local-Currency Debt Versus Hard-Currency Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Most interestingly, the gap in default rates between B- and CCC-rated bonds illustrates the “near certainty” of default for low-credit-rated sovereigns ahead of time. However, proponents of the notion that governments will not default neglect the consequences those economies will suffer if they monetize public debt: currency devaluation and high inflation, which turn into weak economic growth and tightening monetary policy, leading to a further weakening in growth.  The case of Argentina between 1998 and 2002 is a perfect example of this mechanism. The economy was hurting under an uncompetitive pegged currency as well as a large debt burden. The government’s move to increase taxes, as a solution to boost government revenues, triggered a cascade of events which resulted in faltering economic growth, increased unemployment, abandonment of the currency peg, and interest rates as high as 100%, ultimately leading to Argentina’s default on its local-currency sovereign debt (Chart 21). Chart 21Argentina: A Case Study Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Chart 22Country Breakdown Of Local-Currency EM Sovereigns Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Argentina was recently removed from J.P. Morgan’s EM local-currency sovereign index due to the capital controls the authorities have instituted. As of mid-February, Mexico was the largest issuer in the index along with Indonesia, Brazil, and Thailand close behind (Chart 22). J.P. Morgan also announced that it would gradually add Chinese government bonds to its local sovereign bond indexes over a period of 10 months starting February 2020, up to the 10% country cap.15 This move is likely to push the index’s yield lower as Chinese yields are below the current yield on the index. There is some overlap between the drivers of local- and hard-currency sovereign spreads. The most important factor for investors to consider is the direction of emerging market currencies versus the US dollar. This relationship closely tracks inflation differentials between the US and EM economies (Chart 23). Chart 23The Link Between EM Currencies And Inflation Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Chart 24The USD Is The Most Important Factor To Consider Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt   The top panel in Chart 24 emphasizes this point. It shows that EM local-currency sovereign bonds from a USD perspective have returned -2.8% since the peak in EM currencies in early 2013. This coincides with a time when EM currencies, on a real effective exchange rate basis, weakened against the US dollar (Chart 24, bottom panel). Other drivers of local-currency sovereign yields include commodity prices, global trade, and EM sovereign bond yields. However, this year has witnessed a significant decoupling between local bond yields and these drivers (Chart 25). Chart 25Sustainable Divergence? Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Chart 26Investors Continue To Hunt For Yield In Emerging Markets Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Our EM strategists wonder whether we are seeing a “new normal” for EM local bond yields – a paradigm in which they fall, not rise, during periods of slowing global growth and behave similarly to DM yields.16  This, however, would imply that investors view EM local debt as a safe haven rather than a risky asset class. We agree with their conclusion that the recent rally in EM local sovereign bonds – hence the decline in yields – was due, rather, to investors’ hunt for yield in an environment of over $10 trillion of negative-yielding debt (Chart 26). This trend is likely to continue in the short term until there is a sustained pickup in global growth. Once that happens, long-term yields are likely to rise in tandem (Chart 27). Chart 27ALong Term Yields Will Rise When Global Growth Picks Up Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Chart 27BLong Term Yields Will Rise When Global Growth Picks Up Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Diversification And Portfolio Impact Investors with a broad mandate can think about EMD as part of their overall portfolios. We analyze how the addition of EMD to a monthly rebalanced “conventional” portfolio, consisting of 50% global equities, 30% global treasurys, and 20% global corporate debt (split equally between investment-grade and high-yield bonds), would have performed since 2003. We found that the incremental additions of each of the three segments of EMD – from 5% to 20% each – produced a higher portfolio risk-adjusted return relative to the conventional portfolio. In all cases, replacing global equities, treasurys, and corporate bonds with EM debt, led either to a higher annualized portfolio return, reduced volatility, or sometimes both (Table 4). Unsurprisingly, given the cyclicality of EM assets, the “enhanced” portfolios have a higher correlation with global equities, as well as with DM corporate bonds (Table 5). Table 4Portfolio Simulation: Risk-Return Profiles (Feb. 2003 – Feb. 2020) Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Table 5EMD Is Highly Correlated With Global Equities And Corporate Bonds Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt It is important to note, however, that most of the outperformance from the enhanced portfolios – particularly in the most heavily EMD-tilted portfolios – occurred before the slowdown in emerging economies beginning in 2013 (Chart 28). Since 2013, as the USD appreciated against EM currencies, allocating to EM local-currency sovereign bonds detracted from portfolio returns. During this period other EM risk assets, such as equities and corporate bonds, also underperformed their DM counterparts. Chart 28Allocating To EMD Adds Some Value Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Our Current View Over the past few years, GAA has been structurally negative on EM risk assets – both equity and debt. Productivity levels, far below historical averages, have been a key reason for this view (Chart 29). In a previous Special Report, we argued that productivity needs to mean-revert to its historical average for emerging markets to perform well, but that this is unlikely without structural reform. 17 Chart 29Global Productivity Growth Levels Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Chart 30Divergence Between Spreads And Growth Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt   Tactically, however, there are times when EM assets can outperform despite the structural headwinds (2016-2017 was an example of this). This could happen again later this year, if global growth continues to rebound. Nonetheless, this optimistic view is on hold due to the risk to global growth in the short term from the coronavirus outbreak. Our global strategists expect global growth to fall to zero in the first quarter of 2020, before picking up throughout the rest of the year – assuming the outbreak is contained within the next few weeks.18  Providing this happens, and our view of global growth reaccelerating pans out, EMD should perform well. Within the asset class, segment selection is key. The environment is likely to be more favorable for EM hard-currency sovereign debt than hard-currency corporate debt or local-currency sovereign bonds. The recent divergence between hard-currency sovereign spreads and growth metric could point to an attractive entry point for investors (Chart 30). We remain cautious on EM corporate bonds, which are vulnerable in the face of sluggish domestic demand in most emerging economies, leading to contracting profits (Chart 31). A weaker USD, when global growth recovers, helped by a dovish stance from the Fed, should keep US financial conditions loose and help EM local-currency sovereign debt perform well (Chart 32). However, relative financial conditions between the US and emerging markets are just as important to monitor. If growth in EM economies fails to pick up, EM currencies could depreciate, putting downward pressure on local-currency sovereign bonds.  Chart 31EM Corporates Face Weak Domestic Demand Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Chart 32Easier US Financial Conditions Lead To Better EM LC Sovereign Returns Understanding Emerging Markets Debt Understanding Emerging Markets Debt We will wait to pull the trigger on this recommendation until we get further clarity regarding the impact on growth of the coronavirus outbreak. Conclusion EMD has grown to become an interesting asset class for allocators, allowing them to capitalize on bonds with higher yields than their DM counterparts. Not only has EMD provided higher returns, it gives equity-like exposure to emerging markets with significantly reduced downside during recessions and market selloffs. We recommend clients view EMD as three separate segments – hard-currency sovereign debt, hard-currency corporate debt, and local-currency sovereign debt – due to the different dynamics that influence each segment. Global growth, the direction of EM currencies versus the US dollar, and EM domestic demand are the three most important overall factors to consider when allocating to any of the segments of EMD.   Amr Hanafy, Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1We use the BIS’s definition of international debt securities (IDS) for hard-currency debt, and domestic debt securities (DDS) for local-currency debt. 2Includes both financial and nonfinancial corporations. 3For the purpose of assessing this segment, we use the broad EM and regional Bloomberg Barclays USD Aggregate Sovereign Indices, which track USD-denominated bonds issued by EM governments. Another commonly used index is the J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s EMBI Global Diversified Index, which tracks EM hard-currency sovereign debt, as well as fully owned and explicitly guaranteed quasi-issuers. Additionally, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co’s suite of indices following EM Sovereign debt includes their EMBI+ index. This index is primarily focused on EM sovereign issuers, however with a stricter liquidity requirement for inclusion. The reason why we do not rely on this index is due to its tilt towards LATAM and away from Middle Eastern and Asian economies. 4Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, “A Primer On EM External Debt,” available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 5Commercial index providers treat such distinctions by separating quasi-sovereign entities that are/are not fully owned by governments. For example, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s EMBI Global Diversified Index, probably the most widely used index in tracking EM hard-currency sovereign debt, includes sovereign debt as well as fully owned and explicitly guaranteed quasi-issuers in its index. 6Please see “Fears mount over rise of sovereign-backed corporate debt,” Financial Times, dated January 5, 2016. 7Please see “Dubai World secures deal to restructure $14.6bn debt” Financial Times, dated January 12, 2015. 8For the purpose of assessing this segment, we use the broad EM and regional USD Aggregate Corporate Indices, which track USD-denominated bonds issued by EM corporates. 9Includes Basic Industry, Capital Goods, Communication, Consumer Cyclical, Consumer Non-Cyclical, Energy, Technology, and Transportation sectors. 10Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “High-Yield Bonds: Low Volatility Equities?”, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 11Annualized returns since 2004. 12Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Return Assumptions – Refreshed and Refined,” available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 13Please see “Emerging market corporate default and recovery rates, 1995 – 2018,” Moody’s Investors Service, dated January 30, 2019. 14For the purpose of assessing this segment, we use the J.P Morgan GBI-EM global diversified index, an investable benchmark accessible to most investors. This index tracks local-currency bonds issued by EM governments. 15Please see “JP Morgan to add China bonds to GBI-EM indexes from February 2020,” Reuters, dated September 4, 2019. 16Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, “EM Local Bonds: A New Normal?”, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 17Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report titled, “Return Assumptions – Refreshed and Refined,” available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 18Please see Global Investment Strategy Report titled, “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus,” available at gis.bcaresearch.com.    

Highlights Dear Client, This week, we had originally planned to publish a Special Report introducing a framework for modeling and selecting global yield curve trades. In light of the market turbulence of the past few days, however, we felt the need to provide a short note updating our current thoughts on the expanding threats to the global economy and financial markets from the coronavirus (a.k.a. 2019-nCoV, COVID-19). Thus, this week, you will be receiving two reports from BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy. Kind regards, Robert Robis Feature The news of more occurrences of the COVID-19 virus in countries outside China – South Korea, Italy, Iran, and Israel – has created a new wave of fear among investors who had started to see signs that the spread of the virus was losing some momentum in China. The appearance of COVID-19 infections in countries like Italy, where there was no obvious connection to the epicenter in China, raised new concerns that the outbreak could turn into a true global pandemic that would be a major negative shock to global growth. The latest market moves fit the profile of a major risk-off move driven by higher uncertainty. Global equities have sold off sharply over the past two trading sessions, and volatility measures like the VIX have spiked. The 10-year US Treasury yield reached a new all-time low (on an intraday basis) of 1.35% yesterday, leaving it -18bps below the 3-month US Treasury bill rate. That curve inversion has occurred alongside falling TIPS breakevens and rising expectations of Fed rate cuts in 2020, in a familiar parallel to the “tariff war shock” of 2019 that prompted the Fed to lower the funds rate by a cumulative 75bps. We see some similarities today to a more recent “black swan” event: the June 2016 UK Brexit vote, which was when the previous intraday all-time low in US Treasury yields was reached. Yield movements have been somewhat smaller in other countries where yields were already very low to begin with, like the 10-year German bund reaching -0.49% and 10-year UK Gilt hitting 0.54% yesterday. Global credit markets have also underperformed, with corporate bond spreads widening alongside spiking equity market volatility in the US and Europe. Amidst the fear, investors have been searching for a potential roadmap to follow, for economies and financial markets, based on past viral outbreaks like the 2003 SARS epidemic and the 2009 global swine flu (H1N1) pandemic. We see some similarities today to a more recent “black swan” event: the June 2016 UK Brexit vote, which was when the previous intraday all-time low for US Treasury yields was reached. After that stunning electoral outcome, investors worldwide tried to process the potential negative implications of an unexpected political outcome. Risk assets sold off and government bonds rallied sharply. Global policymakers responded with various easing measures, both direct (rate cuts and fresh QE from the Bank of England) and indirect (delayed Fed rate hikes, more QE from the ECB). This all came at a time when global growth momentum was already picking up before the Brexit vote, stoked by large-scale fiscal and monetary stimulus in China (Chart 1). In the end, the supportive monetary/fiscal backdrop, and not the political uncertainty, won out and the global economy – along with risk assets and bond yields – all recovered over the second half of 2016. Chart 1Doomsday? Or 2016 Revisited? The Pandemic Panic The Pandemic Panic Today, policymakers are starting to mobilize to fight the threat to growth from COVID-19, hinting at potential monetary easing measures. China is already set to deliver more monetary and fiscal easing, although it is not clear if those will be on the same massive scale as 2015/16. While the scale of the shock to global growth from a potential pandemic is obviously far different than the political uncertainty of Brexit, stimulus measures in 2020 could generate a similar positive response from financial markets if the coronavirus impacts growth less than currently feared. So what should investors expect next? We admit that we do not have a strong conviction level on near-term market moves, given how the coronavirus outbreak has set off an unpredictable chain of events that has gone against our base case expectation of a global growth rebound in 2020. Yet amidst all the uncertainty and fear, we can hazard a few guesses as to the potential future moves in global bond markets. For riskier borrowers, the ability to service debt is what matters most, and the majority of borrowers can still meet their interest payments with global borrowing costs near all-time lows. DURATION: A lot of bad news is discounted in current global bond yield levels, both in terms of absolute levels and expected rate cuts. Yet until there are signs of the virus being contained, both within and outside China, investors will continue to seek out hedges for the uncertainty. That means the any challenge to the current downward momentum in yields may not become evident until the economic data releases begin to show signs of a Q2 recovery from what is assuredly going to be an awful Q1 for the global economy. YIELD CURVE: A continuation of the risk-off momentum in global equity markets will put additional bull-flattening pressure on developed market government bond yield curves in the near term. The more medium-term move, however, should be towards steeper yield curves. Either the viral outbreak becomes contained and/or the growth shock is minimized, triggering a reversal of the latest risk-off bull flattening into risk-on bear-steepening; or the economic downturn and risk asset selloff intensifies and central banks deliver rate cuts that will bull-steepen global yield curves. CREDIT: Global corporate bond spreads should remain under upward pressure in the near term until the spread of the coronavirus outbreak begins to ease. However, the cumulative spread widening in credit markets could turn out to be surprisingly modest. The conditions that are typically in place before credit bear markets and periods of sustained spread widening – tight monetary policy and rapidly deteriorating corporate financial health – are not currently in place. This is true in both the US and Europe for high-yield, where our bottom-up Corporate Health Monitors are still sending a neutral message – thanks largely to interest coverage ratios that are still above typical pre-recessionary levels (Chart 2). For riskier borrowers, the ability to service debt is what matters most, and the majority of borrowers can still meet their interest payments with global borrowing costs near all-time lows - even in the event of a sharp, but short, global economic slowdown. Chart 2Low Yields Supporting High-Yield Borrowers The Pandemic Panic The Pandemic Panic   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com  

Highlights In case you missed it in real-time, please listen to a playback of this this quarter’s webcast ‘What Are The Most Attractive Investments In Europe?’ available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Growth is set to plunge in the first quarter, keeping bond yields depressed for the early part of 2020 at least. Stay structurally overweight equities versus bonds so long as bond yields stay around current or lower levels. A 10 basis points decline in the 10-year bond yield can offset a 2 percent decline in stock market profits. Underweight economically sensitive sectors – and regional and country equity indexes with a high weighting to them – until growth and bond yields enter a convincing uptrend. A strong signal for shifting to a more pro-cyclical stance in the coming months would be if/when the 10-year bond yield has reached a sufficiently strong 6-month deceleration. Fractal trade: the strong outperformance of utilities versus oil and gas is technically stretched. Feature Chart I-1Forget Growth, It's All About Valuation Forget Growth, It's All About Valuation Forget Growth, It's All About Valuation ‘Global health scare takes world stock markets to new highs’ would make a jarring, provocative, and counterintuitive headline. But it would be true… at least so far. Most economists expect the global health scare emanating from China to depress economic growth. My colleague, Peter Berezin, forecasts global growth to drop to near zero during the first quarter. Yet the aggregate stock market seems largely unfazed. Most bourses are riding high, and in some cases not far from all-time highs. How can this be if the market is downgrading growth? Ultra-Low Bond Yields Are Protecting The Stock Market Although stock market profits are being revised down, the multiple paid for those profits is rising by more than the profits are falling. Stock market valuations have become hyper-sensitive (inversely) to ultra-low bond yields. Meaning that the valuation boost from a small decline in bond yields is more than sufficient to counter the growth drag from the coronavirus scare. This is not just a recent phenomenon. For the past two years, a good motto for investors has been: forget growth, it’s all about valuation (Chart of the Week). Through 2018-19, profits drifted sideways. Yet the stock market fell 30 percent, then rose 30 percent – because the multiple paid for the profits plunged in 2018, then surged in 2019 (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). The reason was the dramatic swing in bond yields. This is hardly surprising given that the prospective return on equities is sensitive to the prospective return offered by competing (long-duration) bonds. But crucially, at ultra-low bond yields, this sensitivity becomes hyper-sensitivity. Chart I-2The Big Moves In The Stock Market... The Big Moves In The Stock Market... The Big Moves In The Stock Market... Chart I-3...Have Been About Valuation, Not Growth ...Have Been About Valuation, Not Growth ...Have Been About Valuation, Not Growth When bond yields approach their lower bound, bonds become extremely risky investments because the scope for price rises diminishes while the scope for price collapses increases. The upshot is that all (long-duration) investments become equally risky, and the much higher prospective returns required on formerly more risky equities collapses to the feeble return offered on now equally-risky bonds. Given that valuation is just the inverse of the prospective return, the valuation of equities becomes hyper-sensitive to small changes in bond yields. A 10 basis points decline in the bond yield can offset a 2 percent decline in stock market profits Through 2018-2019, the 10-year T-bond yield took a round trip from around 2 percent to 3.2 percent and then down to around 1.6 percent today. This explains the mirror-image round trip in the stock market’s multiple: from 16 down to 13 and then up to around 17 today, a 30 percent increase. Which means that broadly speaking, a 10 basis points decline in the bond yield can offset a 2 percent decline in stock market profits (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Bond Yield Is Driving The Stock Market's Valuation The Bond Yield Is Driving The Stock Market's Valuation The Bond Yield Is Driving The Stock Market's Valuation Therefore, as the coronavirus scare illustrates, the biggest structural threat to the aggregate stock market does not come from slowing growth so long as bond yields continue to adjust downwards. The biggest threat comes from an outsized increase in bond yields, stemming from a subsequent modest acceleration in either growth or inflation. But we do not expect this in the first half of the year (at least). Bond Yields To Stay Depressed For The First Half At Least Although the coronavirus scare is a convenient scapegoat for the growth downgrade, the scare has just amplified a growth deceleration that was going to happen anyway. As we explained at the start of the year in Strong Headwind Warrants Caution In H1, a growth deceleration in Europe and worldwide during early 2020 was already well baked in the cake. The 6-month acceleration in bond yields at the end of 2019 was among the sharpest in recent years. Growth decelerations stem neither from the level of bond yields nor from the change in bond yields (or financial conditions). Growth decelerations stem from the acceleration of bond yields. And the 6-month acceleration in bond yields at the end of 2019 – both in Europe and worldwide – was among the sharpest in recent years (Chart I-5). Chart I-5After A Sharp 6-Month Acceleration In Bond Yields, Yields Stay Depressed For The Following 6 Months After A Sharp 6-Month Acceleration In Bond Yields, Yields Stay Depressed For The Following 6 Months After A Sharp 6-Month Acceleration In Bond Yields, Yields Stay Depressed For The Following 6 Months Although the link between a bond yield acceleration and a GDP deceleration seems hard to grasp, it results from a basic accounting identify. GDP is a flow statistic. So if a credit flow contributes to GDP, it must be a credit flow deceleration that contributes to a GDP deceleration. And if the level of the bond yield establishes the size of a credit flow, it must be a bond yield acceleration that establishes the size of a credit flow deceleration (Chart I-6).  Chart I-6A Bond Yield Acceleration Causes A Credit Flow Deceleration A Bond Yield Acceleration Causes A Credit Flow Deceleration A Bond Yield Acceleration Causes A Credit Flow Deceleration Given the lags between bond yields impacting credit flows and credit flows impacting spending, a sharp 6-month acceleration in the bond yield – like the one experienced at the end of 2019 – tends to keep the bond yield depressed for the following six months. On this basis, we would not expect an outsized increase in the bond yield during the first half of this year. In fact, a continued decline in yields could eventually turn into a sharp 6-month deceleration in the bond yield, leading to an acceleration in credit flows and growth, and providing a forthcoming opportunity to become more pro-cyclical.  Big Winners And Losers Across Sectors, Regions, And Countries To repeat, the growth scare has not had a major impact on the aggregate stock market (so far) because the valuation boost from a small decline in bond yields is more than sufficient to counter the downgrade to profits. But the growth scare has had a major impact on sector, regional, and country winners and losers. Understandably, the sectors most exposed to the declining bond yield have performed very well. These fall under two categories: the first is bond proxies, meaning sectors that pay a stable bond-like income, such as utilities; the second is long-duration investments meaning sectors whose income is likely to grow rapidly, such as tech and healthcare. This is because the more distant is the future cash flow, the greater is the uplift to its ‘net present value’ for a given decline in the bond yield. The growth scare has had a major impact on sector, regional, and country winners and losers. Conversely, the sectors most exposed to short-term growth have performed poorly. These include banks and energy. Banks suffer also because declining bond yields erode their net interest (profit) margin (Chart I-7). In turn, the sector winners and losers have determined the 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 Netherlands and healthcare-heavy Denmark stock markets must outperform. When energy underperforms, the energy-heavy Norway and UK stock markets must underperform. It also follows that the tech-heavy and healthcare-heavy US stock market must outperform (Chart I-8).  Chart I-7Sector Winners And ##br##Losers... Sector Winners And Losers... Sector Winners And Losers... Chart I-8...Explain Regional And Country Winners And Losers ...Explain Regional And Country Winners And Losers ...Explain Regional And Country Winners And Losers Some of the more extreme sector and country outperformances and underperformances are now technically stretched (see following section). Nevertheless, a general strategy to underweight economically sensitive sectors – and regional and country equity indexes with a high weighting to them – will remain appropriate until growth and bond yields enter a convincing uptrend. To reiterate, one strong signal for shifting to a more pro-cyclical stance in the coming months would be if/when the bond yield has reached a sufficiently strong 6-month deceleration. Stay tuned. Fractal Trading System* The strong outperformance of utilities versus oil and gas is technically stretched, especially in the US, and a reversal is likely within the next three months. Short US utilities versus oil and gas, setting a profit target of 7.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, short Ireland versus Europe reached the end of its holding period having achieved half of its profit target. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 59 percent. Chart I-9US: Utilities Vs. Oil And Gas US: Utilities Vs. Oil And Gas US: Utilities Vs. Oil And Gas 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 Model Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights The elevated uncertainty about global growth stemming from the COVID-19 virus in China has not only made investors more anxious, but central bankers as well. This means that, only six weeks into the year, policymakers may already be having to rethink their expected strategies for 2020 - which were, for the most part, sitting on hold after the monetary easing in 2019. This has important implications for the direction of global bond yields, which were starting to see a cyclical increase before the viral outbreak. In this report, we present what we see as the most important data for investors to focus on in the major developed markets to get the central bank call correct. This is based on our interpretation of recent speeches, press conferences and published research. We also provide our own suggested data series to watch for each country – which do not always line up with what central bankers are saying they are most worried about. We conclude that it is still not clear that the global growth backdrop has turned sustainably more bond bullish, but there is no pressure on any of the major central banks to move away from extremely accommodative policy settings. Feature Over the past four weeks, all of the major central banks have had the opportunity to formally communicate their current views to financial markets. Whether it was through post-policy- meeting press conferences or published monetary policy reports, central bankers have tried to signal their intentions about future changes in the direction of interest rates, given the heightened uncertainties about the momentum of global growth. At the moment, our global leading economic indicator (LEI) is still signaling that 2020 should see some rebound in global growth – and bond yields – after the sharp 2019 manufacturing-led slowdown (Chart 1). Unfortunately, the latest read on the global LEI uses data as of December, so it does not include what is almost certainly to be a very severe slowdown in the Chinese (and global) economy in the first quarter of 2020 due to the COVID-19 virus outbreak. Underlying stories within each developed market economy – on growth, inflation and potential financial imbalances – suggest that the additional interest rate cuts now discounted globally may not come to fruition if the China shock is contained to the first quarter of the year.  Central bankers are in the same spot as investors, trying to ascertain the extent of the hit to global growth from the virus, both in terms of size and, more importantly, duration. This comes at a time when many central banks were already formally rethinking how to meet their own individual inflation-targeting mandates given the persistence of low global inflation alongside tight labor markets (Chart 2). Chart 1Global Bond Yields: Think Globally, Act Locally Global Bond Yields: Think Globally, Act Locally Global Bond Yields: Think Globally, Act Locally Chart 2Common Worries For All CBs: China & Global Inflation Common Worries For All CBs: China & Global Inflation Common Worries For All CBs: China & Global Inflation That all sounds potentially very bond-bullish, but a lot of bad economic news is already discounted in the current low level of global bond yields. More importantly, the underlying stories within each developed market economy – on growth, inflation and potential financial imbalances – suggest that the additional interest rate cuts now discounted globally may not come to fruition if the China shock is contained to the first quarter of the year. In this Weekly Report, we provide a brief synopsis of what we believe are the biggest concerns for each of the major developed economy central banks. This is based on our read of recent policy decisions and central banker statements, as well as our own understanding of the current reaction function of policymakers. Our intention is to provide a short list of indicators to watch for each central bank, to help cut through the noise of data and news during this current period of unusual uncertainty, as well as our own assessment of what policymakers should be focusing on more. We conclude that it is still too soon to expect a new wave of bond-bullish global monetary policy easings in 2020. It will take evidence pointing to an extended shock to global growth from the COVID-19 virus to reverse the bond-bearish signal from other indicators like our global LEI. Federal Reserve Chart 3Federal Reserve: Focus On Financial Conditions & Inflation Expectations Federal Reserve: Focus On Financial Conditions & Inflation Expectations Federal Reserve: Focus On Financial Conditions & Inflation Expectations Currently, the Fed’s commentary suggests a policy bias that can be described as “neutral-to-dovish”, but it is giving no indication that additional rate cuts are likely in 2020 after the 75bps of cuts last year. Markets remain skeptical, however, with -42bps of cuts over the next twelve months now priced into the USD overnight index swap (OIS) curve according to our Fed Discounter (Chart 3). What the Fed seems most focused on: Fed officials seem focused on measures of market-based inflation expectations, like TIPS breakevens, as the best indication that current policy settings are appropriate (or not) relative to the growth outlook of investors. While FOMC members have expressed concern about TIPS breakevens being persistently below the 2% inflation target, they would not necessarily respond to a further decline in breakevens with more rate cuts without first seeing the US Treasury curve becoming inverted for a prolonged period, just like in 2019 (middle panel). Right now, with the 10-year TIPS breakeven at 1.67% and the 10-year/3-month US Treasury curve now at only -1bp, another decline in longer-term inflation expectations will likely invert the Treasury curve. What the Fed should be more focused on: US financial conditions are highly stimulative, with equity indices back near all-time highs and corporate credit spreads remaining well-contained at tight levels. Given the usual lead times of financial conditions indices to US cyclical growth indicators like the ISM manufacturing index (bottom panel), a continuation of the most recent bounce in the ISM is still the most likely result – even allowing for a near-term hit to global growth from China. While FOMC members have expressed concern about TIPS breakevens being persistently below the 2% inflation target, they would not necessarily respond to a further decline in breakevens with more rate cuts without first seeing the US Treasury curve becoming inverted for a prolonged period, just like in 2019. Bottom Line: The incoming US growth data is critical to determine the Fed’s next move. If there is no follow through from easy financial conditions into faster growth momentum, the odds increase that the Treasury curve will become more deeply inverted for a longer period of time – an outcome that would likely prompt more rate cuts, especially if equity and credit markets also begin to sell off as growth disappoints. European Central Bank Chart 4ECB: Focus On Manufacturing & Inflation Expectations ECB: Focus On Manufacturing & Inflation Expectations ECB: Focus On Manufacturing & Inflation Expectations The ECB has been clearly signaling that it still has a dovish bias, although central bank officials have acknowledged that the options available to them to ease further are limited with policy rates already in negative territory. The market agrees, as there are only -7bps of cuts over the next twelve months now priced into the EUR OIS curve according to our ECB Discounter (Chart 4). What the ECB seems most focused on: The ECB has been paying the most attention to the contractions in euro area manufacturing data (like PMIs) and exports seen in 2019. Rightly so, as nearly all of the two percentage point decline in year-over-year euro area real GDP growth since the late-2017 peak has come from weaker net exports. The central bank has also been concerned about the depressed level of inflation expectations, with the 5-year EUR CPI swap rate, 5-years forward, now at only 1.23% - far below the ECB’s inflation target of “at or just below” 2%. What the ECB should be more focused on: We agree that the focus for the ECB should be most concerned about the weakness in manufacturing/exports and low inflation expectations – the latter having not yet responded to extremely stimulative euro area financial conditions (most notably, the weak euro). The euro area economy is highly leveraged to Chinese demand, with exports to China representing 11% of total euro area exports. This makes leading indicators of Chinese economic activity, like the OECD China LEI and the China credit impulse, critically important indicators in determining the future path of European export demand. The COVID-19 outbreak in China could not have come at a worse time for the ECB, as there have been tentative signs of stabilization in cyclical euro area indicators like manufacturing PMIs in recent months. Bottom Line: The COVID-19 outbreak in China could not have come at a worse time for the ECB, as there have been tentative signs of stabilization in cyclical euro area indicators like manufacturing PMIs in recent months. If the China demand shock to euro area exports is large enough, the ECB will likely be forced to deliver a modest interest rate cut – or an expansion of the size of its monthly asset purchases – to try and boost growth. Bank Of England Chart 5Bank Of England: Focus On Business Sentiment & Labor Costs Bank Of England: Focus On Business Sentiment & Labor Costs Bank Of England: Focus On Business Sentiment & Labor Costs The Bank of England (BoE) has a well-deserved reputation as having an unpredictable policy bias under outgoing Governor Mark Carney, but the central bank does appear to be currently leaning on the moderately dovish side of neutral. Short-term interest rate markets also feel the same way, with -19ps of easing over the next twelve months priced into the GBP OIS curve according to our BoE Discounter (Chart 5). What the BoE seems most focused on: The BoE has been paying a lot of attention to indicators of UK business sentiment, which had been negatively impacted by both Brexit uncertainty and global trade tensions in 2019. The BoE has focused on the link from depressed business sentiment to weak investment spending and anemic productivity growth as an important reason why UK potential GDP growth has been so low and why UK inflation expectations have been relatively high. What the BoE should be more focused on: We agree that business sentiment should be the BoE’s greatest area of focus. Sentiment has shown a solid improvement of late, after the signing of the “phase one” US-China trade deal in December and the formal exit of the UK from the EU on January 31. The CBI Business Optimism survey (measuring the net balance of optimists versus pessimists) soared from -44 in October to +23 in January – the biggest quarterly jump ever recorded in the series. It remains to be seen if this improvement in confidence can be sustained and begin to arrest the steady decline in UK capital spending and productivity growth, and the associated surge in unit labor costs and inflation expectations, that has taken place since the 2016 Brexit vote. Bottom Line: The BoE’s next move, under the new leadership of incoming Governor Andrew Bailey, is not clear. Inflation expectations remain elevated but the recovery in business sentiment is still fragile. One potential risk to watch: UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson may choose to take a bolder stand on trade negotiations with the EU after his resounding election victory in December, risking an outcome closer to the “no-deal Brexit” scenario that was most feared by UK businesses. Bank Of Japan Chart 6Bank of Japan: Focus On Exports & The Yen Bank of Japan: Focus On Exports & The Yen Bank of Japan: Focus On Exports & The Yen The Bank of Japan (BoJ) seems to have had a perpetually dovish bias since the 1990s. Yet the current group of policymakers under Governor Haruhiko Kuroda, realizing that they have run out of realistic policy options after years of extreme stimulus, has not been signaling that fresh easing measures are on the horizon, even with economic growth and inflation remaining very weak in Japan. Markets have taken the hint, with only -6bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months priced into the JPY OIS curve according to our BoJ Discounter (Chart 6). What the BoJ seems most focused on: The BoJ has been vocally concerned about the recent slump in Japanese consumer spending, which declined -2.9% (in real terms) in Q4 after the sales tax hike last October. That blow to consumption was expected, but could not have come at a worse time for a central bank that was already worried about plunging Japanese manufacturing activity and exports – the latter declining by -8% in nominal terms as of December 2019. There is little hope for a near-term rebound given the certain hit to global growth and export demand from virus-stricken China. What the BoJ should be more focused on: Given that Japan is still an economy with a large manufacturing sector that is levered to global growth, the BoJ should remain focused on the path for Japanese exports. A bigger risk, however, comes from the Japanese yen, which has remained very stable over the past year. It has proven very difficult to generate any rise in Japanese inflation without some yen weakness, and with headline CPI inflation now only at +0.2%, a burst of yen strength would likely tip Japan back into outright deflation. Bottom Line: The BoJ is now stuck in a very bad spot, with no real ability to provide a major monetary policy stimulus for the stagnant Japanese economy. At best, all the central bank could do is deliver a small interest rate cut and hope for a quick rebound in global manufacturing activity and/or some yen weakness to boost flagging inflation. Bank Of Canada Chart 7Bank of Canada: Focus On Housing & Capital Spending Bank of Canada: Focus On Housing & Capital Spending Bank of Canada: Focus On Housing & Capital Spending The Bank of Canada (BoC) surprised many observers by keeping policy on hold last year, even as central banks worldwide engaged in various forms of monetary easing to offset the effects of the global manufacturing downturn. The BoC’s recent messaging has been relatively neutral, in our view, although Governor Stephen Poloz has not completely dismissed the possibility of rate cuts in his speeches. The markets are strongly convinced that the BoC will need to belatedly join the global easing party, with -32bps of rate cuts now priced into the CAD OIS curve according to our BoC Discounter (Chart 7) What the BoC seems most focused on: The BoC remains highly concerned over the high level of Canadian household debt, especially given how Canadian consumer spending has been highly geared towards trends in house price inflation over the past few years. This is likely why the BoC has been reluctant to cut policy rates as “insurance” against the effects of a prolonged global growth slump, to avoid stoking a new Canadian housing bubble. Interestingly, the commentary from BoC officials has taken on a bit more dovish tone whenever USD/CAD has threatened to break down below 1.30, suggesting some fears of unwanted currency appreciation. What the BoC should be more focused: The BoC should continue to monitor developments in the Canadian housing market, given the implications for consumer spending and, potentially, financial stability if there is another boom in house prices. The central bank should also pay even greater attention than usual to the subdued level of oil prices, which has triggered a deep slump in the oil-rich Alberta province that has weighed on the overall level of Canadian business investment spending. Persistently soft oil prices would also force the BoC to continue resisting strength in the Canadian dollar. It would likely take a breakdown in oil prices, or an outright decline in house prices, for the rate cut expectations currently discounted in the CAD OIS curve to come to fruition. Bottom Line: The BoC appears under no pressure to make any near-term interest rate adjustments, especially with realized inflation now sitting at the midpoint of the BoC’s 1-3% target band. It would likely take a breakdown in oil prices, or an outright decline in house prices, for the rate cut expectations currently discounted in the CAD OIS curve to come to fruition. Reserve Bank Of Australia Chart 8Reserve Bank Of Australia: Focus On Underemployment & Housing Reserve Bank Of Australia: Focus On Underemployment & Housing Reserve Bank Of Australia: Focus On Underemployment & Housing The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has been very transparent over the past year, loudly signaling a dovish bias and following through with 75bps of rate cuts that took the Cash Rate to a record low of 0.75%. The latest messaging has been a bit more balanced, while still leaving the door to additional rate cuts if the economy worsens. Markets are expecting at least one more easing, with -24bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months priced into the AUD OIS curve, according to our RBA Discounter (Chart 8). What the RBA seems most focused on: The RBA’s main concerns have centered around the persistent undershoot of Australian inflation, with core inflation remaining below the central bank’s 2-3% target band since the beginning of 2016. The central bank has attributed this to persistent excess capacity in the Australian labor market, as evidenced by the elevated underemployment rate. The RBA is also paying close attention to the Australian housing market and its links to consumer spending, with house prices already responding positively to last year’s RBA rate cuts. The outlook for exports is also on the RBA radar, particularly after the recent surge that lifted the Australia trade balance into surplus but is now at risk from a plunge in Chinese demand. What the RBA should be more focused on: We agree that the labor market should be the main focus for the RBA, particularly the underemployment rate which is still high at 8.3%, signaling that core CPI inflation should remain subdued (bottom panel). We also see the RBA as potentially being more sanguine about the risks of a renewed upturn in the housing market than many observers expect, since that would provide a potential offset to a likely pullback in exports which are now a record 25% of GDP (middle panel). Bottom Line: The RBA still has a clear dovish bias, even though they are currently on hold to assess the impact of last year’s easing. RBA Governor Philip Lowe noted in a recent speech that more cuts may be necessary “if the unemployment rate deteriorates”, suggesting that the labor market is the main area of focus for the central bank. Reserve Bank Of New Zealand Chart 9Reserve Bank Of New Zealand: Focus On The Terms Of Trade & Non-Tradeables Inflation Reserve Bank Of New Zealand: Focus On The Terms Of Trade & Non-Tradeables Inflation Reserve Bank Of New Zealand: Focus On The Terms Of Trade & Non-Tradeables Inflation The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) was one of the more dovish central banks in 2019, cutting the Cash Rate by 75bps to a record low of 1%. The overall tone of the central bank’s recent commentary remains cautious, but has taken on a more balanced tone. Markets are priced appropriately, with only -13bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months discounted in the NZD OIS curve according to our RBNZ Discounter (Chart 9). What the RBNZ seems most focused on: The latest messaging from the RBNZ has highlighted the downside risks to New Zealand from weak global growth, but those are now more manageable since the central bank estimates the economy is operating at full employment. In its latest Monetary Policy Statement (MPS), the RBNZ noted that the economy has been able to weather the weakness in global growth thanks to the positive terms of trade effect from elevated New Zealand export prices – a trend that the central bank expects will persist in 2020 even if external demand remains sluggish (middle panel). The central bank has also expressed some concern over the recent pickup in domestically-driven inflation measures, with core CPI inflation back above 2% (bottom panel). What the RBNZ should be more focused on: The RBNZ is right to focus on global growth, particularly given the coming demand shock from virus-stricken China. While the New Zealand dollar has always been a critical variable for the RBNZ in its policy decisions, the currency now takes on added importance given the central bank’s expectation that export prices and the terms of trade will remain elevated. If the latter turns out to be wrong, the RBNZ will be far more likely to take actions to ensure that the Kiwi dollar stays undervalued. Bottom Line: The RBNZ still has a dovish policy bias, but the hurdle to deliver additional rate cuts after last year’s easing seems a bit higher now. It would likely take a major downturn in global growth, combined with a decline in New Zealand export prices and some cooling of domestic inflation, to get the RBNZ to cut again in 2020. Investment Conclusions Based on our “whirlwind tour” of the major developed market central banks in this report, we can make the following conclusions regarding the expected path of interest rates, and bond yields, in these countries: There are no central banks with anything resembling a hawkish bias – not surprising in the current slow global growth environment with heightened uncertainty. The least dovish central banks are the BoC and the RBNZ, which are not signaling any urgency to cut rates. The most dovish central bank is the RBA, which is indicating a clear willingness to cut again if domestic growth deteriorates. The Fed and the BoE are somewhere in the middle of the “dovishness” spectrum, with both likely willing to ease policy but only under a specific set of circumstances. The ECB and BoJ are clearly boxed in having policy rates already below the zero bound, limiting their ability to ease further if needed. In our view, the rate cut probabilities in the US and Canada seem a bit too aggressive, as we are not anticipating major growth slowdowns in either country over the next 6-12 months.  Looking back at our Central Bank Discounters, the largest amount of rate cuts over the next year are now discounted in the US (-42bps), Canada (-32bps), Australia (-24bps) and the UK (-19bps). At the same time, the fewest cuts are priced in Japan (-6bps), the euro area (-7bps) and New Zealand (-13bps). In our view, the rate cut probabilities in the US and Canada seem a bit too aggressive, as we are not anticipating major growth slowdowns in either country over the next 6-12 months. The odds seem more “fair” in the other countries, in terms of the size of rate cut expectations versus the probability of those cuts actually being delivered because of domestic economic considerations. What does this all mean for global bond investing this year? For that we can turn to our Global Golden Rule framework, which links expected returns of government bonds versus cash to the difference between actual and expected rate cuts.1 US Treasuries and Canadian government bond yields are most at risk of underperforming their global peers in 2020 as the Fed and BoC disappoint the current dovish rate cut expectations discounted in interest rate markets.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated September 25th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index What Central Banks Are (Or Should Be) Watching What Central Banks Are (Or Should Be) Watching Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chinese policymakers will deliver more growth-supporting measures in the coming months, but Chinese government bond yields have already priced in a much weaker economic slowdown and a more aggressive policy response. While we think monetary policy may get even looser in the very near term, there is limited potential for the short-end of the Chinese government bond yield curve to remain at such low levels. The PBoC’s recent liquidity injections are mostly a preventive measure to avoid an acute cash crunch in the real economy, and the historical path following the 2003 SARS outbreak suggests the additional monetary easing action is unlikely to be sustained over the coming 6-12 months. As such, Chinese government bond yields will rebound in expectation of better economic conditions and more restrictive monetary conditions. On a cyclical basis, we continue to overweight Chinese equities over government bonds. Feature Chinese bond yields have declined sharply over the past two weeks, as investors weighed both the economic consequences of the Covid-19 outbreak and the likelihood of more accommodative monetary policy. Following the extended Chinese New Year holiday, China’s central bank (PBoC) has carried out five cash injections, pumping nearly 3 trillion yuan into the interbank market (Chart 1). It also lowered the de jure policy rate - the 7-day reverse repo rate - by 10bps to cut the cost of funding for commercial banks. The 3-month SHIBOR (which trades very closely to the 3-month repo rate), which we have long viewed as China’s de facto short-term policy rate, quickly reversed its January rise and fell back to its July-2018 low (Chart 2). Chart 1Large And Frequent Liquidity Injections Since The Onset Of The Virus Outbreak Large And Frequent Liquidity Injections Since The Onset Of The Virus Outbreak Large And Frequent Liquidity Injections Since The Onset Of The Virus Outbreak Chart 2Monetary Conditions Turned Much Easier In Just Three Weeks Monetary Conditions Turned Much Easier In Just Three Weeks Monetary Conditions Turned Much Easier In Just Three Weeks The PBoC’s aggressive easing measures of late have sparked market speculation that China is entering another major monetary and credit easing cycle, and that a government bond rally is well underway with even lower yields to come. Chart 3Extremely Tight Relationship Between Interbank Lending Rate And Government Bond Yields Extremely Tight Relationship Between Interbank Lending Rate And Government Bond Yields Extremely Tight Relationship Between Interbank Lending Rate And Government Bond Yields In our January 29 Special Report1 on China’s government bond market, we discussed how there has been a strong relationship in the past decade between unexpected changes in the 3-month SHIBOR and the long-end of China’s government bond yields. In order for the current rally in government securities to be sustained, investors need to believe that the PBoC’s easing measures are here to stay and that there will be additional policy rate cuts in the months to come (Chart 3). There are indications that Chinese policymakers are looking to deliver more growth-supporting measures over the coming months. However, it is likely that the current bond rally will be a near-term event rather than a cyclical (6-12 months) trend. Therefore, on a cyclical time horizon, we continue to recommend overweighting Chinese stocks versus Chinese government bonds and would advise against an aggressively long duration stance. Has The Covid-19 Epidemic Peaked? The fact that the number of new suspected cases is also in decline sends a signal that the outbreak outside Hubei may have largely been contained.  Chart 4Financial Market Shakes Off Some Of The "Fear Element" From The Outbreak Financial Market Shakes Off Some Of The "Fear Element" From The Outbreak Financial Market Shakes Off Some Of The "Fear Element" From The Outbreak Investors appear to concur with our view that the Covid-19 outbreak has largely become a Hubei-specific crisis.2 Chinese stocks in the onshore and offshore markets have recovered more than half of the losses from their bottom on February 3, when the number of new cases outside of the Hubei epicenter reached a tentative peak. The 12-month change in the yields of Chinese 3 and 10-year government bonds also inched up since then (Chart 4). While the Chinese government’s rollout of supportive measures, including liquidity injections and policy rate cuts since early February might have helped improve market sentiment, the fact the epidemic outside Hubei province seems to be contained also helps explain the bottom in equity prices and bond yields. In addition, the number of new suspected cases outside Hubei province has trended down since February 9 (Chart 5). The diagnosis methodology was recently revised to include suspects with clinical symptoms, regardless of whether they had a history of contact with infected cases from Wuhan. This new methodology has lowered the bar for registering newly suspected cases. While the situation surrounding the Covid-19 outbreak is still fluid, the fact that the number of new suspected cases is also in decline sends a signal that the outbreak outside Hubei may have largely been contained. Bottom Line: Outside of the epicenter, the Covid-19 outbreak may have peaked. This means the fear element driving down Chinese government bond yields may soon end. Chart 5The Situation Continues To Get Better Outside Of The Epicenter Don’t Chase China’s Bond Yields Lower Don’t Chase China’s Bond Yields Lower Current Bond Rally Unlikely A Cyclical Play Bond yields now appear to have largely priced in a delayed economic recovery and more aggressive policy response. We think the current rally in Chinese government bonds will thus only be a short-term event rather than a cyclical (6-12 month) play. The rally in China’s government bond market since mid-2018 was largely driven by market expectations of a significant slowdown in the Chinese economy, and a much easier monetary policy in responding to a slowing Chinese domestic demand and a protracted Sino-US trade war. Bond market is pricing in a 2015-2016-style economic slowdown and a policy response that is more aggressive than four years ago. Cyclically, we think both of these factors are absent from the current situation, and a normalization back to the pre-outbreak monetary stance may come earlier than the market expects. In the last two weeks, Chinese government bond markets have discounted a sharp slowdown in economic activity; 10-year Chinese government bond yields are back below 3.0% for the first time since 2016 and the 3-month SHIBOR is now 25bps lower than the bottom in 2015-2016 (Chart 6). This suggests the market is pricing in a 2015-2016-style economic slowdown and a policy response that is more aggressive than four years ago. The nature of the current situation, as we pointed out in our previous reports,3 represents a temporary delay rather than a derailing of an economic recovery in China.  The Covid-19 outbreak and the unprecedented containment measures paused the Chinese economy in the first quarter, just as it was coming off of a two-year soft patch. But domestic demand was not nearly as weak as in 2015-2016 before the outbreak (Chart 7). Chart 6Bond Market Is Pricing In A 2015-2016-Style Economic Slowdown Bond Market Is Pricing In A 2015-2016-Style Economic Slowdown Bond Market Is Pricing In A 2015-2016-Style Economic Slowdown Chart 7A Chinese Economic Recovery Was Budding Pre-Outbreak A Chinese Economic Recovery Was Budding Pre-Outbreak A Chinese Economic Recovery Was Budding Pre-Outbreak Chart 8The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank, But A Proactive Central Bank In Reversing Crisis Easing The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank, But A Proactive Central Bank In Reversing Crisis Easing The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank, But A Proactive Central Bank In Reversing Crisis Easing If the virus is contained outside of the epicenter in the next couple of weeks and the hit to China’s overall economy is limited to Q1, then the PBoC will likely normalize policy back to its pre-outbreak stance. While the PBoC is generally a reactive central bank and has historically lagged a pickup in economic activity, it was proactive in normalizing its monetary policy following short-term shocks. Chart 8 shows the historical path of 3-month SHIBOR in the year following a bottom in economic activity in 2009, 2012, and 2015.  In all three economic slowdowns, there has not been a significant rise in interbank rates in the first nine months of an economic recovery. Following the SARS outbreak, however, the PBoC reversed its easy stance and significantly tightened liquidity conditions in the banking system only four months after the peak of the SARS outbreak. While we do not expect the PBoC to shift into a tightening mode this year, a shift back to the pre-outbreak policy trajectory sometime in Q2 is highly likely, provided the Covid-19 outbreak is contained outside of Hubei province.  In turn, Chinese government bond yields will rebound in expectation of better economic conditions and more restrictive monetary conditions. PBoC is also unlikely to open a liquidity floodgate. Despite large liquidity injections in the past two weeks, we are not convinced that the PBoC intends to fully open the liquidity tap in the interbank market.  So far, most of the financial support measures have been a combination of targeted low-cost funding to non-financial corporations and fiscal subsidies to local governments and businesses. This differs from 2015-2016 when the PBoC aggressively cut interbank rates and the 1-year benchmark lending rate, and kept excessive liquidity in the interbank system for a prolonged period (Chart 9). As Chart 9 (bottom panel) shows, PBoC’s net fund injections have been extremely volatile since Covid-19 erupted in January. This suggests that while the PBoC has added large doses of liquidity into the interbank market, demand for financial support in the banking system has mostly matched or even outstripped supply. In other words, the PBoC is not flooding the interbank system with cash, rather it is preventing an outbreak-induced illiquidity issue from turning into a widespread insolvency problem.  The PBoC is trying to prevent an outbreak-induced illiquidity issue from turning into a widespread insolvency problem.  Chart 9Monetary Policy Not Turning Back To A 2015-2016-Style "Floodgate Irrigation" Monetary Policy Not Turning Back To A 2015-2016-Style "Floodgate Irrigation" Monetary Policy Not Turning Back To A 2015-2016-Style "Floodgate Irrigation" Chart 10Private Sector Highly Leveraged... Private Sector Highly Leveraged... Private Sector Highly Leveraged... This approach is warranted. Small businesses have been disproportionally hit by the outbreak and are reporting a severe shortage of cash. China’s private sector is particularly vulnerable to cash flow restrictions because many businesses are highly leveraged (Chart 10).  A joint survey of 995 small and mid-size companies by Tsinghua and Peking universities showed that more than 60% of respondents said they can survive for only one to two months with their current savings (Chart 11).   Chart 11…Making Small Businesses Especially Vulnerable To Cash-Flow Constraints Don’t Chase China’s Bond Yields Lower Don’t Chase China’s Bond Yields Lower Additionally, there is a risk that the PBoC is underestimating the demand for cash in the banking system, particularly from small- and medium-sized banks. This underestimation could lead to a rise in the interbank lending rate. This occurred in 2017 when the crackdown of shadow bank lending caused a funding squeeze for China’s small and mid-sized banks, which led to a material rise in interbank lending rates and government bond yields (shown in Chart 6). It is also the reason that we primarily track the 3-month SHIBOR over the 7-day rate, as the former tends to capture the effects of these funding squeezes whereas the latter does not. The demand for cash in the interbank market in the current quarter will be higher than in the same period last year. The government has announced an additional debt quota of 848 billion yuan, on top of the previously authorized quota of 1 trillion yuan worth of local government bonds that would be frontloaded in Q1. This is a 32% increase from a total of 1400 billion yuan of bonds that local government frontloaded in Q1 2019. This implies the demand for cash in the interbank market will remain high as commercial banks account for about 80% of local government bond purchases.4 A temporary spike in corporate bond defaults leading to a jump in the interbank rate could also push up government bond yields. Additionally, the delayed resumption of work, the loss of production and the cash crunch facing small companies raise the risk of a surge in overdue bank loans and defaults. This could also escalate the demand for cash from smaller banks, because large commercial banks may be unwilling to lend to riskier borrowers in the interbank market. The 3-month SHIBOR has inched up since the takeover of Baoshang Bank in May 2019. Chart 12Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields We expect the PBoC to lower the loan prime rate (LPR), following the 10bps cut in the medium lending facility rate (MLF) on February 17. As we pointed out in our January 29 Special Report, this easing by the PBoC will reduce corporate lending rates, but not necessarily interbank rates. Chart 12 shows that the change in average lending rates lags the change in Chinese government bond yields. Therefore, the upcoming cuts in the LPR are a result of lowered interbank rates and bond yields, not a cause for changes in government bond yields going forward. Bottom Line: Monetary policy will remain relatively loose this year, but we think the PBoC’s recent aggressive easing will be a temporary event. Any additional easing by the PBoC this year will likely be through providing short-term cash relief and temporarily lowered funding costs to non-financial corporations. There are also near-term risks that interbank rates may be pushed up due to a liquidity crunch.  Hence, yields at the short-end will likely be volatile in the near term whereas yields at the long-end are unlikely to stay at their current low levels. Investment Conclusions While we think monetary policy may get even looser in the very near term, there is limited potential for the short-end of the Chinese government bond yield curve to remain at such low levels. Barring a lasting economic slowdown from the Covid-19 outbreak, the long-end of the curve has the potential to move moderately higher in the second half of the year, as China’s economy recovers from the outbreak-induced shock. Bond yields at the short-end will likely be volatile in the near term whereas yields at the long-end are unlikely to stay at their current low levels. Given this, we continue to expect Chinese domestic and investable equities to outperform government bonds in the next 6-12 months, and we would advise Chinese fixed-income investors against an aggressively long duration stance. Onshore corporate bonds, while risking a higher default rate in the near term, shares a similar outlook on a cyclical basis: onshore spreads are pricing in (massively) higher default losses than we believe are warranted. This means that onshore corporate bonds will still outperform duration-matched government bonds without any changes in yield, underpinning another year of Chinese corporate bond market outperformance versus government bonds.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "How To Analyze And Position Towards Chinese Government Bonds," dated January 29, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Evolving Crisis," dated February 13, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Recovery, Temporarily Interrupted," dated February 5, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4   ChinaBond, as of 2019 Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration: Bond yields will stay low until the daily number of new COVID-19 cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. We therefore recommend maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. Rising odds of a Bernie Sanders presidential win could prevent bond yields from rising at all this year. We may adjust our recommendations in the coming months if this risk increases. Spread Product: Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, with a preference for high-yield. Accommodative monetary conditions will ensure that the supply of credit remains ample for some time yet. This will keep defaults low and spreads tight. Monetary Policy: The Fed is in no rush to tighten policy, but has also set a high bar for further cuts. Investors should short August 2020 fed funds futures.  Yields Will Move Higher … But Not Yet Chart 1A Peak In New Cases? A Peak In New Cases? A Peak In New Cases? Uncertainty about the economic impact of the coronavirus – now officially called COVID-19 – is the cloud that continues to hang over financial markets. Last week, bond yields fell when a change in the definition of what constitutes a confirmed infection caused the number of reported cases to spike. However, even after revisions, the daily number of new cases looks like it may have peaked (Chart 1). The end result is that the 10-year Treasury yield sits at 1.58%, not far from where it was last week (Chart 2). Notably, the 10-year yield continues to shrug off the notable improvement in US economic data (Chart 2, bottom panel), taking its cues instead from COVID-19 headline risk. Even if the downtrend in new COVID-19 cases continues, it is too soon to be looking for higher bond yields. For one thing, the most up-to-date economic data releases were collected during January, before the outbreak. Weaker readings during the next 1-2 months are assured, and investors may not look through the weakness given that many were already skeptical about the prospects for global economic recovery. Our read of the data is that global growth was in the process of bottoming when COVID-19 struck. We therefore expect global growth to move higher once the virus’ impact abates. In terms of timing, using the 2003 SARS outbreak as a comparable, we expect bonds to remain bid until the daily number of new cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. Yields continue to shrug off improvements in economic data. It’s not just the long-end of the curve that has responded to COVID-19. The front-end has also moved to price-in high odds of a rate cut in the coming months. Specifically, the overnight index swap curve is priced for a 42 bps decline in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months (Chart 2, panel 2), and the fed funds futures market is pricing a 74% chance of a rate cut by the end of the summer. As we discussed last week, given that any economic impact from COVID-19 will be temporary, we think the bar for a Fed rate cut this year is quite high.1 As such, our Golden Rule of Bond Investing dictates that investors should keep portfolio duration low on a 12-month horizon.2 We also recommend shorting August 2020 fed funds futures, a trade that will earn 23 bps of unlevered return if the Fed stands pat between now and August (Chart 2, panel 3). Turning to corporate credit, we see that, so far, COVID-19’s impact on spreads has been minor. The investment grade corporate bond index spread is only 3 bps wider than at the start of the year, and the junk index spread is only 8 bps wider (Chart 3). Value remains stretched in the investment grade space, but high-yield spreads look quite attractive. The sell-off in the energy sector has boosted the high-yield index spread considerably (Chart 3, bottom 2 panels). We view this as a medium-term buying opportunity for junk. Once the COVID outbreak abates and global growth ticks higher, the oil price is bound to increase, leading to some tightening in energy spreads. Chart 2Bond Yields Driven By COVID Bond Yields Driven By COVID Bond Yields Driven By COVID Chart 3HY More Attractive Than IG HY More Attractive Than IG HY More Attractive Than IG Will Bonds Feel The Bern? Beyond COVID-19, there is one more risk on the horizon this year. Specifically, the risk that Bernie Sanders is elected President in November. This outcome is far from certain. Sanders is currently leading all other candidates in the Democratic Primary, but fivethirtyeight.com’s model puts the odds of a brokered convention at 38%.3 This means that the race is still wide open and might only be settled at the convention in July. But given Sanders’ lead, it is worth considering the bond market implications if he were to become the next President. The most obvious implication is that risk assets (equities and corporate spreads) would respond to Sanders’ agenda of wealth redistribution by selling off. This could spur a flight-to-quality into government bonds, causing Treasury yields to fall. However, that flight-to-quality won’t occur if markets also start to price-in the long-run implications of Sanders’ agenda. I.e. the fact that the redistribution of wealth from capital to labor would lower the economy’s marginal propensity to save, and likely raise inflation expectations, leading to higher interest rates. It’s important to note that there are a lot of hurdles to overcome before Sanders’ full policy agenda is implemented. First he must secure the Democratic nomination, then defeat Donald Trump in the general election. Even after that, he will still need to convince the House and Senate to pass non-watered down versions of his proposals. With such a long road ahead, we don’t think Sanders’ momentum will push bond yields higher in 2020. Rather, the risk is that Sanders’ rise keeps bond yields low in 2020 as risk assets sell off. If Bernie Sanders looks poised to win the nomination, we will consider reducing our 6-12 month allocation to spread product and increasing our recommended portfolio duration. The outlook for the Democratic Primary should become clearer after Super Tuesday on March 3. If Sanders looks poised to win the nomination we will consider reducing our recommended 6-12 month allocation to spread product and increasing our recommended portfolio duration. Bottom Line: Bond yields will stay low until the daily number of new COVID-19 cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. We therefore recommend maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. Rising odds of a Bernie Sanders presidential win could prevent bond yields from rising at all this year. We may adjust our recommendations in the coming months if this risk increases. Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, with a preference for junk. Though the credit cycle is far from over (see next section), we may reduce our recommended allocation to spread product versus Treasuries if Sanders’ election chances rise.  Bank Lending Standards Won’t Push Credit Spreads Wider In 2020 The net change in commercial & industrial (C&I) bank lending standards, as reported in the Fed’s quarterly Senior Loan Officer Survey, is a vitally important indicator for the credit cycle. Easing lending standards tend to coincide with a low default rate and falling credit spreads, while tightening lending standards usually coincide with spread widening and a rising default rate. With that in mind, it is mildly concerning that bank lending standards have been fluctuating around neutral levels for quite some time, and have in fact tightened in two of the past five quarters (Chart 4). In this week’s report we consider whether tighter bank lending standards could pose a risk to our overweight spread product view in 2020. Chart 4Bank Lending Standards And Monetary Variables Bank Lending Standards And Monetary Variables Bank Lending Standards And Monetary Variables Bank lending standards are such an important credit cycle variable because they tell us about the supply of credit. A corporate default only occurs when credit supply is lower than the amount required for that firm’s survival. On a macro scale, we can think of two main reasons why lenders might restrict the credit supply: They perceive the monetary environment as restrictive. That is, they worry about higher interest rates and slower growth in the future. They perceive corporate balance sheets as being in poor health. That is, they worry that firms won’t be sufficiently profitable to make good on their debts. We find that monetary indicators do a very good job of predicting when lending standards will tighten. Looking back at the past two cycles, lending standards didn’t tighten until after: The yield curve inverted (Chart 4, panel 2). The real fed funds rate was above its estimated equilibrium level (Chart 4, panel 3). Inflation expectations were at or above target levels (Chart 4, bottom panel). Presently, all three of these monetary indicators are supportive. Some portions of the yield curve have been inverted at various times during the past year. But in general, the inversion signal from the yield curve has not been as strong as it was when lending standards tightened in prior cycles. For instance, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope has not inverted this cycle, and it currently sits at +20 bps (Chart 4, panel 2). Further, the real fed funds rate is below most estimates of its neutral level and the Fed is signaling that it will keep it there for a long time yet. This dovish posture is justified by inflation expectations that remain well below target. It is conceivable that, despite the accommodative monetary environment, banks might be so concerned about poor balance sheet health that they are becoming more cautious with their lending. However, a survey of corporate health metrics doesn’t point to an imminent tightening of bank lending standards either (Chart 5). Chart 5Bank Lending Standards And Corporate Balance Sheet Variables Bank Lending Standards And Corporate Balance Sheet Variables Bank Lending Standards And Corporate Balance Sheet Variables In past cycles, tighter bank lending standards were preceded by: A trough in gross leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) (Chart 5, panel 2). A peak in interest coverage (Chart 5, panel 3). Negative pre-tax profit growth (Chart 5, panel 4). A peak in profit margins (Chart 5, bottom panel). Currently, gross leverage is the only one of the above four variables that is clearly sending a negative signal. As for the other three, interest coverage and profit margins are barely off their cyclical highs, and profit growth has been fluctuating around zero for three years. If global growth rebounds during the next 12 months, as we expect, then profit growth will also move modestly higher. Bottom Line: Neither monetary nor balance sheet variables point to an imminent tightening of bank lending standards. We expect that the supply of credit will remain ample in 2020, keeping the default rate low and credit spreads tight. A Note On Falling C&I Loan Demand In addition to questions about lending standards, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey also asks banks to report whether they are seeing stronger or weaker demand for C&I loans. In response, banks have reported weaker C&I loan demand for six consecutive quarters, ending in Q4 2019. Historically, it is unusual for C&I loan demand to fall without a concurrent tightening in lending standards (Chart 6). Chart 6Explaining Weakening Loan Demand Explaining Weakening Loan Demand Explaining Weakening Loan Demand We also see the impact of weaker loan demand in the hard data. C&I loan growth has been falling since early 2019 (Chart 6, panel 2) and net corporate bond issuance had been on a sharp downtrend since 2015, before moving higher last year (Chart 6, bottom panel). So what’s going on with C&I loan demand? We can think of two reasons why firms might seek out less credit. First, they may face a dearth of investment opportunities, or alternatively, they might perceive some benefit from carrying less debt on their balance sheets. On the first point, we find that new orders for core capital goods do a very good job explaining the swings in C&I lending (Chart 7). Specifically, we see that the global growth slowdown of 2015/16 drove both investment spending and C&I lending lower. Then, both series recovered in 2017/18 before moving down again during last year’s slowdown. Surveys about firms’ capital spending plans also dropped last year, consistent with the deceleration in C&I lending, but remain at high levels (Chart 7, bottom three panels). All of this suggests that C&I loan growth will recover this year as global growth improves and the investment landscape brightens. Capital goods new orders do a good job explaining C&I lending. Corporate bond issuance has followed a different path from C&I lending during the past few years. Specifically, bond issuance slowed in 2015/16 as investment spending dried up. But it did not recover in 2017/18 the way that investment spending and C&I lending did. This appears to be a result of the 2018 corporate tax cuts and repatriation holiday. Chart 8 shows that the Financing Gap – the difference between capex spending and retained earnings – plunged in 2018 because firms suddenly received a huge influx of retained earnings. The influx came in part from the lower tax rate, but mostly from repatriated cash that had been stranded overseas. Simply, firms didn’t need to issue bonds to finance their investment plans in 2018 because they had a lot more cash on hand. Chart 7C&I Lending Follows ##br##Investment C&I Lending Follows Investment C&I Lending Follows Investment Chart 8A Negative Financing Gap Limits The Need For Debt A Negative Financing Gap Limits The Need For Debt A Negative Financing Gap Limits The Need For Debt What about the possibility that firms are demanding less debt because they are trying to clean up their balance sheets? Beyond a few anecdotes, we don’t see much support for this idea. In fact, an equity index of firms with low debt/asset ratios has been underperforming an index of firms with high debt/asset ratios (Chart 9). This suggests that there is currently little reward for firms that are paying down debt. Chart 9Firms Not Rewarded For Healthy Balance Sheets Firms Not Rewarded For Healthy Balance Sheets Firms Not Rewarded For Healthy Balance Sheets Bottom Line: Weaker demand for C&I loans is a result of the recent global growth downturn and decline in investment spending. It is not a harbinger of the end of the credit cycle. Loan demand should improve as global growth rebounds this year. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on our Golden Rule of Bond Investing please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Provided that the coronavirus outbreak is contained, global growth should accelerate over the course of 2020. Stocks usually rise when the economy is strengthening. But could this time be different? We explore five scenarios in which the stock market could decouple from the economy: 1) The economy holds up, but stretched valuations bring down equities, especially high-flying growth stocks; 2) Bond yields rise in response to faster growth, hurting equities in the process; 3) A strong US economy lifts the value of the dollar, denting multinational profits and tightening financial conditions abroad; 4) Faster wage growth cuts into corporate profits; and 5) Redistributionist politicians seek to shift income from capital to labor. We are not too concerned about the first four scenarios, but we do worry about the fifth, especially now that betting markets are giving Bernie Sanders a nearly 50% chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. Matters should be clearer by mid-March, by which time more than 60% of Democratic delegates will have been awarded. If Bernie Sanders does emerge as the nominee at that point, we will consider trimming back our bullish cyclical bias towards stocks. Coronavirus: A Break In The Clouds? Chart 1Coronavirus Remains Mostly Contained To China Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Investors continue to grapple with two distinct narratives about how the coronavirus outbreak is unfolding. On the pessimistic side, some contend that the true number of infections in China is much higher than the Chinese authorities are disclosing. How else, they ask, can one explain why the government has taken the extreme step of imposing some form of quarantine on 400 million of its own people? More optimistic observers argue that the Chinese government is simply being proactive. While the number of cases in Hubei province spiked yesterday, this was due to a loosening in the definition for what constitutes a confirmed infection. Whereas previously a positive laboratory test was required, now a positive imaging-based clinical examination will suffice. Under the new definition, the number of newly confirmed cases fell from 6,528 on February 11th to 4,273 on February 12th. Under the old definition, newly diagnosed cases peaked on February 2nd (Chart 1). The revised definition adopted in Hubei brought the mortality rate in the province down to 2.7%. The mortality rate observed in the rest of China is 0.5%. The share of all cases in China originating in Hubei also rose to 81%. Even before the rule change, the share of cases diagnosed in Hubei had risen from 52% on January 26th to 75% on February 11th. This suggests progress in limiting the outbreak to the province. Critically, the number of cases in the rest of the world remains low. In the US, a total of 13 cases have been confirmed as of February 12th, just two more than the 11 reported on February 2nd. The Exception To The Rule? Provided that the coronavirus outbreak is contained, global growth should bounce back forcefully in the second quarter. If that were to occur, history suggests that equities will continue to rally, while bond prices will fall (Chart 2). But could history fail to repeat itself? In this week’s report, we explore five scenarios in which that may happen. Scenario 1: Stretched valuations bring down equities, especially high-flying growth stocks Stocks have moved up considerably since their December 2018 lows. This suggests that investors have become more confident about the economic outlook. Nevertheless, while most investors may no longer be worried about an imminent recession, they do not foresee a sharp acceleration in global growth either. This is evidenced by the fact that cyclical stocks have generally underperformed defensives (Chart 3). Oil prices have also languished, while copper prices are back near a 2.5-year low (Chart 4). Chart 2Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Chart 3Cyclicals Have Failed To Outperform Defensives Cyclicals Have Failed To Outperform Defensives Cyclicals Have Failed To Outperform Defensives   At the broad index level, global equities trade at 16.7-times forward earnings. Conceptually, the inverse of the PE ratio – the earnings yield – should serve as a reasonable guide for the total real return that equities will deliver over the long haul.1 At 6%, the global earnings yield still points to decent returns for global stocks. Relative to bonds, the case for owning stocks is even more compelling. The equity risk premium, which one can compute as the earnings yield minus the real bond yield, remains well above its historic average (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Prices Have Taken It On The Chin Commodity Prices Have Taken It On The Chin Commodity Prices Have Taken It On The Chin Chart 5Relative Valuations Favor Equities Relative Valuations Favor Equities Relative Valuations Favor Equities   That said, there are pockets where valuations have gotten stretched. US equities trade at 19.5-times forward earnings compared to 14.1-times in the rest of the world. Growth stocks, in particular, have gotten very expensive (Chart 6). The five largest stocks in the S&P 500 (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Facebook) now account for 18% of the index, the same share that the top five stocks (Microsoft, Cisco, GE, Intel, and Exxon) commanded in 2000. The big risk for stocks is that wages go up not because the overall size of the economic pie is growing, but because policies are implemented that shift a bigger share of the pie from capital to labor. Despite the similarities between today and the dotcom era, there are a few critical differences – most of which make us less worried about the current state of affairs. First, while tech valuations are currently stretched, they are not in bubble territory. The NASDAQ Composite trades at 30-times trailing earnings. At its peak in March 2000, the tech-heavy index traded at more than 70-times earnings (Chart 7). Chart 6Growth Stocks Have Become Expensive Relative To Value Stocks Growth Stocks Have Become Expensive Relative To Value Stocks Growth Stocks Have Become Expensive Relative To Value Stocks Chart 7Not Yet Partying Like 1999 Not Yet Partying Like 1999 Not Yet Partying Like 1999   Second, IPO activity has also been more muted today than during the dotcom boom (Chart 8). Only 110 companies went public last year, with the gain on the first day of trading averaging 24%. In 1999, 476 companies went public. The average first day gain was 71%. Meanwhile, companies continue to buy up their shares. The buyback yield stands at 3%, twice as high as in the late 1990s. Third, there is no capex overhang like in the late 1990s (Chart 9). This reduces the odds of a 2001-recession scenario where falling equity prices prompted companies to pare back capital expenditures, leading to rising unemployment and even lower equity prices. Chart 8IPO Activity Is Muted Today Compared To The Late 1990s IPO Activity Is Muted Today Compared To The Late 1990s IPO Activity Is Muted Today Compared To The Late 1990s Chart 9No Capex Boom This Time No Capex Boom This Time No Capex Boom This Time   Scenario 2: Bond yields rise in response to faster growth, hurting equities in the process The period between November 2018 and September 2019 was an odd one for the stock-to-bond correlation. If one looks at daily data, stocks did best when bond yields were rising. Yet, for the period as a whole, stocks finished higher while bond yields finished lower (Chart 10). Chart 10Daily Changes: S&P 500 Vs. 10-Year Treasury Yield Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? How can one explain this seeming paradox? The answer is that the underlying trend in bond yields was squarely to the downside last year. While yields did rise modestly on days when equities rallied, yields fell sharply on days when equities swooned. If one zooms out, one sees the underlying trend, whereas if one zooms in, one only sees the wiggles around the trend. Bond yields trended lower last year because the Fed and most other central banks were delivering one dose of dovish medicine after another. This year, however, the Fed is on hold, and while a few central banks may still cut rates, global monetary policy is unlikely to become much looser. This means that bond yields are likely to drift higher if economic growth surprises on the upside. Will rising bond yields sabotage the stock market? We do not think so. Stocks crashed in late 2018 because investors became convinced that US monetary policy had turned restrictive after the Fed had raised rates by a cumulative 200 basis points over the prior two years. The fact that the Laubach-Williams model, one of the most widely followed models of the neutral rate, showed that real rates had moved above their equilibrium level did not help sentiment (Chart 11). Chart 11The Fed Will Keep Policy Easy For The Time Being The Fed Will Keep Policy Easy For The Time Being The Fed Will Keep Policy Easy For The Time Being Chart 12Stocks Do Well When Earnings And Growth Surprise On The Upside Stocks Do Well When Earnings And Growth Surprise On The Upside Stocks Do Well When Earnings And Growth Surprise On The Upside Today, real rates are about 100 basis points below the Laubach-Williams estimate. This will not change anytime soon, given that the Fed is likely to remain on hold at least until the end of the year. So long as rates stay put, monetary policy will remain accommodative, allowing the economy to grow at a solid pace. Granted, rising long-term bond yields will reduce the present value of future cash flows, thus potentially hurting stocks. However, as we discussed three weeks ago, the discount rate is not the only thing that affects equity valuations.2 The expected growth rate of earnings matters too. As Chart 12 shows, global equity returns are highly sensitive to earning revisions. While earnings may disappoint in the first quarter due to the economic damage from the coronavirus, they should bounce back during the remainder of this year. This should pave the way for higher equity prices. Scenario 3: A strong US economy lifts the value of the dollar, denting multinational profits and tightening financial conditions abroad The US is a fairly closed economy. Imports and exports account for only 14.6% and 11.7% of GDP, respectively. In contrast, the US stock market is very exposed to the rest of the world. S&P 500 companies derive over 40% of their sales from abroad. As such, changes in the value of the dollar tend to have a bigger impact on Wall Street than on Main Street. Estimating the degree to which a stronger dollar reduces S&P 500 profits is no easy task. Direct estimates that measure the currency translation effect on overseas profits from a stronger dollar tend to yield fairly modest results, typically showing that a 10% appreciation in the trade-weighted dollar reduces S&P 500 profits by about 2%. These estimates, however, generally do not take into account feedback loops between a strengthening dollar and global financial conditions (Chart 13). According to the Bank of International Settlements, $12 trillion of dollar-denominated debt has been issued outside the US. A stronger dollar makes it more challenging to service this debt, which can put a significant strain on borrowers. As a result, a vicious cycle can erupt where a stronger dollar leads to tighter financial conditions, which in turn lead to weaker global growth and an even stronger dollar. Chart 13A Strong US Dollar Could Tighten Global Financial Conditions, Leading To Lower Equity Prices, Especially In EM A Strong US Dollar Could Tighten Global Financial Conditions, Leading To Lower Equity Prices, Especially In EM A Strong US Dollar Could Tighten Global Financial Conditions, Leading To Lower Equity Prices, Especially In EM Such an outcome cannot be dismissed, especially if the spread of the coronavirus fuels significant foreign inflows into the safe-haven US Treasury market. Nevertheless, we continue to see it as a low-probability event given the tailwinds to global growth, including the lagged effects of last year’s decline in bond yields, an improvement in the global manufacturing inventory cycle, diminished Brexit and trade war risks, and ongoing policy stimulus out of China. In fact, one can more easily envision the opposite outcome – a virtuous cycle of dollar weakness, leading to easier global financial conditions, stronger growth, and ultimately, an even weaker dollar (Chart 14). In such an environment, earnings growth is likely to accelerate (Chart 15). Chart 14The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 15The Virtuous Cycle Of Dollar Easing The Virtuous Cycle Of Dollar Easing The Virtuous Cycle Of Dollar Easing     Scenario 4: Faster wage growth cuts into corporate profits Labor compensation is the largest expense for most companies. Thus, it stands to reason that faster wage growth could depress earnings, and by extension, share prices. Although this is possible conceptually, in practice, it happens less often than one might guess. Chart 16 shows that rising wage growth is positively correlated with earnings. The bottom panel of the chart explains why: Wages tend to rise most quickly when sales are growing rapidly. Strong demand growth adds to revenues, while allowing companies to spread fixed costs over a large amount of output. The resulting improvement in “operating leverage” helps buffer profit margins from higher wages. Scenario 5: Redistributionist politicians seek to shift income from capital to labor As long as wages are rising against a backdrop of fast sales growth, equities will fare well. The big risk for stocks is that wages go up not because the overall size of the economic pie is growing, but because policies are implemented that shift a bigger share of the pie from capital to labor. Bernie Sanders has promised to do just that. The S&P 500 has tended to increase when Sanders’ perceived chances of winning the Democrat nomination have risen (Chart 17). Investors have apparently concluded that Trump would clobber Sanders in a presidential race. Hence, the better Sanders performs in the primaries, the more likely Trump is to be re-elected. Chart 16Stocks Tend To Do Best When Wage Growth Is Rising Stocks Tend To Do Best When Wage Growth Is Rising Stocks Tend To Do Best When Wage Growth Is Rising Chart 17The Sanders Effect On Stocks The Sanders Effect On Stocks The Sanders Effect On Stocks   Is this really a safe assumption? We are not so sure. Sanders has still beaten Trump in 49 of the last 54 head-to-head polls tracked by Realclearpolitics over the past 12 months. Sanders tends to appeal to white working class voters – the same demographic that propelled Trump into office. Sanders is also benefiting from a secular leftward shift in voter attitudes on economic issues. According to a recent Gallup poll, 47% of Americans believe that governments should do more to solve problems, up from 36% in 2010. Almost 40% of Americans have a positive view on socialism (Chart 18). Today’s youth in particular is enamored with left-wing ideology (Chart 19). Chart 18The US Is Moving To The Left Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Chart 19Woke Millennials Cozying Up To Socialism Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? It’s not just the Democratic voters who are trending left. Some prominent Republicans are having second thoughts too. Tucker Carlson is probably the best leading indicator for where the Republican Party is heading. His attacks on “woke capitalism” have become a staple of his popular evening show.3 It is not surprising why many Republicans are having a change of heart. For decades, the Republican Party has been a cheap date for corporate interests: It has given businesses what they want – lower taxes, less regulation, etc. – without asking for much in return (aside from campaign contributions, of course). This has allowed corporations to focus on appealing to left-wing interests by taking increasingly strident positions on a variety of social issues. The fact that some of these positions – such as support for open-border immigration policies – are a boon for profits has only increased their appeal. The risk for corporations is that they end up with no real political support. If the Democrats move further to the left, “soak the rich” policies will become popular no matter how much virtue signaling corporate leaders deliver. Likewise, if Republicans abandon big businesses, today’s fat profit margins will become a thing of the past. When The Music Ends The current market climate resembles a Parisian ball on the eve of the French Revolution. The music is still playing, but the discontent among the commoners outside is growing. The question is when will this discontent boil over? Trump’s victory in 2016 represented a shot across the bow of the political establishment. Fortunately for corporate interests, aside from his protectionist impulses, Trump has been on their side. Bernie Sanders would not be so friendly. Matters should be clearer by mid-March. Super Tuesday takes place on March 3rd. By March 17th, more than 60% of Democratic delegates will have been awarded. If Bernie Sanders emerges as the likely nominee at that point, we will consider trimming back our bullish cyclical 12-month bias towards stocks. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. 2  Please see Global investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Yields: How High Is Too High?” dated January 17, 2020. 3  Ian Schwartz, “Tucker Carlson: Elizabeth Warren's "Economic Patriotism" Plan "Sounds Like Donald Trump At His Best," realclearpolitics, June 6, 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Global Growth & Market Volatility: Fears over global growth have pushed government bond yields lower as markets discount dovish monetary policy responses to the China viral outbreak. That combination may, perversely, be helping keep risk assets stable, even as investors try to assess the potential hit to global growth from a sharp China demand shock, through lower interest rate and currency volatility. Tactical Trade Overlay: We are in the process of revamping our Tactical Trade Overlay framework, thus we are closing all our recommended current positions this week. We will begin unveiling the new trade selection process - with more specific rules on idea development, holding period, security selection and performance measurement - in the coming weeks. Feature Chart of the WeekLow Inflation Sustaining The Low Volatility Backdrop Low Inflation Sustaining The Low Volatility Backdrop Low Inflation Sustaining The Low Volatility Backdrop The timing of the coronavirus outbreak in China has introduced uncertainty into what was looking like a true bottom in global growth after the 2019 slowdown. The epicenter of that improvement seen in measures like the global PMI was China, where not only was there a visible pickup in soft data like the manufacturing PMI about also hard data like import growth. The coronavirus outbreak - and the severe actions to contain its spread via widespread quarantines, factory shutdowns, supply chain disruptions and travel bans – has most likely triggered a “sudden stop” in Chinese economic growth in the first quarter of the year that will spill over beyond China’s borders. This could potentially snuff out the nascent 2020 global growth recovery if the virus is not soon contained. Global government bond markets, however, have already discounted a fairly sharp slowdown in global activity. 10-year US Treasury yields are back below 1.6%. Inflation expectations across the developed economies remain well below central bank targets and short-term interest markets are discounting additional rate cuts to varying degrees. This has created a backdrop of relative tranquility in interest rate and currency markets, with option implied volatilities for the latter back to post-crisis lows (Chart of the Week). Perversely, the shorter-term uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus outbreak may have created a backdrop for risk assets to stay resilient, by reducing the more longer-lasting uncertainty that comes from interest rate and currency market volatility.  Perversely, the shorter-term uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus outbreak may have created a backdrop for risk assets to stay resilient, by reducing the more longer-lasting uncertainty that comes from interest rate and currency market volatility. If the virus is contained and the hit to the world economy limited to just the first quarter of the year, then our underlying thesis of faster growth underpinning another year of global corporate bond market outperformance versus government bonds will remain intact. Extending The “Sweet Spot” For Global Risk Assets Chart 2How Low Will These Go? How Low Will These Go? How Low Will These Go? Investors are right to be worried about the potential hit to the global economy from China. Prior to the outbreak of the coronavirus, a modest improvement in Chinese import demand was underway that was finally starting to put a floor under global trade activity after the sharp 2019 downturn (Chart 2). Without that boost from Chinese demand, the world economy will be far less likely to recover in 2020. BCA Research’s Chief Investment Strategist, Peter Berezin, has attempted some back-of-the-envelope calculations to determine the potential hit to global growth from a “sudden stop” of China’s economy from the coronavirus.1 Assuming that real GDP growth will essentially be zero in the first quarter of 2020, Peter calculates that global growth will slow to 1.7% in Q1 – or one-half the IMF’s expected average growth rate for 2020 of 3.4%. The bulk of that effect comes from the direct impact of Chinese growth slowing from a trend pace of 5.5% in Q1, but that also includes spillover effects to the rest of the world from weaker Chinese spending on imported goods and tourism (Chart 3). Chart 3Chinese GDP Growth Will Plunge In Q1, But Should Recover In The Remainder Of 2020 - Provided The Coronavirus Outbreak Is Contained Slow & Steady Wins The Race Slow & Steady Wins The Race Importantly, Peter sees Chinese and global growth recovering during the rest of 2020, if the virus is contained by the end of March. The potential hit to overall global growth this year would only be 0.3 percentage points under that scenario. There is obviously a lot of uncertainty involved in making such estimates, from the timing of the spread of the virus to the potential monetary and fiscal policy responses from China (and other nations) to boost growth. Yet a total hit to global growth of only 0.3 percentage points would be fairly modest and may not end up derailing the signs of an economic rebound seen in indicators like the ZEW economic sentiment surveys. The individual country expectations component of the ZEW survey have shown solid improvements for the US, the UK, the euro area and even Japan over the past few months (Chart 4). Also, the current conditions component of the ZEW survey was just starting to bottom out in the most recent readings in the US, the UK and euro area. We have found that the spread between those two measures (ZEW current conditions minus expectations) is a reliable coincident indicator of year-over-year real GDP growth in the countries surveyed. Chart 4Will The Coronavirus Delay, Or Derail, The Recovery Process? Will The Coronavirus Delay, Or Derail, The Recovery Process? Will The Coronavirus Delay, Or Derail, The Recovery Process? As of the latest read of the data from mid-January – importantly, before the start of the more widespread media coverage of the viral outbreak in China – the “current conditions minus expectations gap” from the ZEW survey was still trending downward (Chart 5). Chart 5The ZEW "Current Vs Expected" Gap Is Still Signaling Soft Global Growth The ZEW "Current Vs Expected" Gap Is Still Signaling Soft Global Growth The ZEW "Current Vs Expected" Gap Is Still Signaling Soft Global Growth In other words, the boost in expectations had not yet translated into in a larger pickup in current economic activity. The risk now is that the turnaround in that gap, and in global GDP growth, will be delayed by a severe pullback in Chinese demand. The response of global business confidence to the virus is critical. According to the Duke University CFO Global Business Outlook survey taken at the end of 2019, more than half (52%) of US CFOs believe the US will be in an economic recession by the end of 2020, and 76% predict a recession by mid-2021. These numbers are similar to the 2018 survey, where 49% of CFOs thought a recession was likely by the end of 2019 and 82% predicted a recession by the end of 2020. The “CFO recession odds” are even larger outside the US, particularly in Asia and Latin America (Chart 6). Chart 6Duke/CFO Survey Respondents' 1-Year-Ahead Probability Of A Recession Slow & Steady Wins The Race Slow & Steady Wins The Race The Duke CFO survey also asks a question on CFO optimism about the outlook for their own businesses. That data, measured on a scale of 0 to 100, shows that companies remain relatively optimistic about their own companies (Chart 7). The levels of optimism at the end of 2019 were roughly the same as at the end of 2018, except for the US where CFO optimism has soared above the highs seen prior to the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 8). Chart 7Duke/CFO Survey Respondents’ Own Company Optimism Level Slow & Steady Wins The Race Slow & Steady Wins The Race Chart 8US Companies Are Thinking Globally, But Acting Locally US Companies Are Thinking Globally, But Acting Locally US Companies Are Thinking Globally, But Acting Locally The interesting implication of this data is that a considerable number of global companies has believed that recession was “only a year or two away” since the end of 2018, but have not expressed similar pessimism when it comes to their own businesses. The extreme financial market volatility at the end of 2018 likely explains why investors thought a recession was likely in 2019 or 2020, while the US-China trade war last year meant those recession fears were “extended” into 2020 and 2021. Yet one big variable changed over that period since the end of 2018 – global monetary policy was eased significantly and bond yields (i.e. borrowing costs) fell sharply for both governments and companies. Looking ahead, the likely policy response to the sharp fall in Chinese growth in Q1/2020 will be continued dovishness from global central bankers. With the US dollar now firming again, in what is shaping up to be a typical response of the greenback to slower global growth expectations, the reflation narrative that was brewing for 2020 has been postponed (Chart 9). With the US dollar now firming again, in what is shaping up to be a typical response of the greenback to slower global growth expectations, the reflation narrative that was brewing for 2020 has been postponed. A softer US dollar is a necessary ingredient for that reflation. Thus, a stable-to-firmer dollar will keep global inflation pressures muted, allowing central banks to maintain their current dovish policy biases. This will help keep market volatility for bonds, currencies and equities subdued – if the China demand shock to global growth is contained to the first quarter. From a fixed income investment perspective, an extended period of low rates/currency volatility, combined with very low government yields already reflecting a sharp global growth slowdown that is not yet assured, is an ideal “sweet spot” backdrop for corporate credit spreads to remain relatively stable. From a fixed income investment perspective, an extended period of low rates/currency volatility, combined with very low government yields already reflecting a sharp global growth slowdown that is not yet assured, is an ideal “sweet spot” backdrop for corporate credit spreads to remain relatively stable (Chart 10). Chart 9Renewed USD Strength Would Delay Global Reflation Renewed USD Strength Would Delay Global Reflation Renewed USD Strength Would Delay Global Reflation We continue to recommend a strategic (6-12 months) overweight allocation to corporate credit versus government bonds for global fixed income investors, focused on high-yield credit in the US. Chart 10Still A Sweet Spot For Global Credit Still A Sweet Spot For Global Credit Still A Sweet Spot For Global Credit Bottom Line: Fears over global growth have pushed government bond yields lower as markets discount dovish monetary policy responses to the China viral outbreak. That combination may, perversely, be helping keep risk assets stable, even as investors try to assess the potential hit to global growth from a sharp China demand shock, through lower interest rate and currency volatility. A Quick Note: Rebooting Our Tactical Trade Overlay Framework Back in 2016, we introduced a part of our service that was separate from our main framework which emphasized medium-term (6-12 month) investment recommendations.2 We called this piece our Tactical Trade Overlay and it was intended to focus on ideas with shorter-term horizons (less than 6-months) with specific “exit strategies”. The majority of past trades included in the Overlay did fit that description. The current list of open positions, however, has drifted away from the original mandate with recommendations now being held far longer than six months. We are in the process of developing a new framework for the Tactical Trade Overlay, with more specific rules on idea development, holding period, security selection and performance measurement. Thus, this week, we are closing out all the recommendations currently in the Overlay (see the table on page 12). The goal is to create a list of trade suggestions for our clients with the capability and/or mandate to seek out “quicker” ideas that can also be implemented in more liquid instruments whenever possible. The new Overlay will also include ideas from smaller fixed income markets not included in our Model Bond Portfolio (i.e. New Zealand or Sweden), but with the same focus on holding periods of six months or less. We will be introducing the new Tactical Overlay framework over the next few months. We plan on publishing separate reports covering the new process for selecting ideas for different types of fixed income trades, similar to the current groupings in the Overlay (rates trades, yield curve trades, relative value trades, inflation trades). The first such report, to be published by the end of February, will introduce a methodology for identifying yield curve trades in global government bond markets.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "From China To Iowa", dated February 7, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "GFIS Overlay Trades Review", dated October 4, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Slow & Steady Wins The Race Slow & Steady Wins The Race Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: The coronavirus outbreak will cause our preferred global growth indicators to move lower during the next couple of months. Bond yields will also stay low until the daily number of new cases approaches zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. Monetary Policy: A preemptive rate cut designed to offset the economic impact of the coronavirus is unlikely. In fact, investors should short August 2020 fed funds futures and maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on the view that the Fed will keep the policy rate stable in 2020. TIPS: Our improved Adaptive Expectations Model suggests that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will rise by 19 bps during the next 12 months, bringing it up to 1.84%. Investors should remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in US bond portfolios. Recovery Delayed A little more than two months into the year and, despite elevated market volatility, a couple trends have become apparent. First, it is now clear that global economic growth bottomed near the end of last year. Second, any lift that bond yields might have received from that rebound has been more than offset by the spike in uncertainty surrounding the 2019 novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. Case in point, the US Economic Surprise Index recently jumped deep into positive territory, but the 10-year Treasury yield remains muted, below its level from three months ago (Chart 1). Chart 1Bond Yields Have De-Coupled From The Economic Data Bond Yields Have De-Coupled From The Economic Data Bond Yields Have De-Coupled From The Economic Data It’s not just the Surprise index that is signaling a growth upturn. Our three preferred global growth indicators – the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index – have all decisively bottomed (Chart 2). Chart 2Global Growth Indicators Hooking Up Global Growth Indicators Hooking Up Global Growth Indicators Hooking Up The Global PMI moved up to 50.4 in January, from a July low of 49.3. As of January, 45% of countries now have PMIs above 50 compared to 34% in August (Chart 2, top panel). The US ISM Manufacturing PMI shot higher in January, from 47.8 to 50.9. It is moving closer to the Services PMI, which remains very healthy at 55.5 (Chart 2, panel 2). The CRB Raw Industrials index is also now well off its 2019 low (Chart 2, bottom panel). The overall message from our three favorite indicators is that economic growth remains sluggish, but is clearly on an improving trend. A trend we would have expected to continue until the 2019-nCoV outbreak hit. Our Global Investment Strategy team estimates that the virus could trim 1.6% from global growth in the first quarter, cutting the IMF’s Q1 global GDP growth projection of 3.3% in half.1 The hit to growth will unwind once the virus’ spread is contained, but it is difficult to know how long that will take. In the meantime, we anticipate some weaker readings from our preferred global growth indicators during the next couple of months. The coronavirus could trim 1.6% from global GDP growth in the first quarter. However, it’s important to note that bond yields have already de-coupled from trends in the global growth data and are now taking their cues from news about 2019-nCoV. We noted in last week’s report that this also happened during the 2003 SARS crisis.2 Bond yields fell initially but then recovered sharply once the number of daily new SARS cases hit zero. If we map this experience to the present day, we see that the number of confirmed 2019-nCoV cases continues to rise, but the daily number of new cases has rolled over (Chart 3). Further, our China Investment Strategy team points out that it might be more market-relevant to focus on cases outside of Hubei province where the virus started, and which has now been quarantined.3 Already, we see that the daily number of new cases outside Hubei province is approaching zero (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3Tracking The Coronavirus Tracking The Coronavirus Tracking The Coronavirus Bottom Line: The coronavirus outbreak will cause our preferred global growth indicators to move lower during the next couple of months. Bond yields will also stay low until the daily number of new cases approaches zero, at which point a bond sell-off is likely. Will The Fed Respond? Chart 4Go Short August 2020 Fed Funds Futures Go Short August 2020 Fed Funds Futures Go Short August 2020 Fed Funds Futures Markets have already moved to price-in a Federal Reserve reaction to the 2019-nCoV outbreak. Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter is down to -43 bps, meaning that the overnight index swap curve is priced for 43 bps of rate cuts during the next year (Chart 4). Last Monday our Discounter hit -51 bps, meaning that the market was looking for slightly more than 2 rate cuts during the next year. Turning to the fed funds futures market, we also see that investors are pricing-in significant odds of a rate cut between now and the end of the summer (Chart 4, bottom 2 panels). Odds of a March rate cut are low, but the futures market is priced for a 30% chance of a rate cut between now and the end of the April FOMC meeting. Investors also see 52% chance of a rate cut between now and the end of the June FOMC meeting and 72% chance of a cut between now and the end of the July meeting. But will the Fed actually respond to the nCoV outbreak by easing policy? Other central banks have taken different approaches to that question during the past week. The Reserve Bank of Australia left its policy rate unchanged on Tuesday, noting that “it is too early to determine how long-lasting the impact [from the coronavirus] will be.” In contrast, the Bank of Thailand did cut rates last week while citing the nCoV outbreak as one of several reasons for the move. The market is priced for 72% chance of a rate cut between now and August. But perhaps the most interesting example is last week’s rate cut in the Philippines. There, the central bank cited “a firm outlook for the domestic economy”, but ultimately concluded that the “manageable inflation environment allowed room for a preemptive reduction in the policy rate.” Chart 5A High Bar For Rate Cuts A High Bar For Rate Cuts A High Bar For Rate Cuts If the Fed were to justify a rate cut in the coming months, it would have to use a similar logic as the Philippines. Something along the lines of: The domestic US economy is solid, but inflation is low enough that an additional rate cut carries little risk. A proactive rate cut could also help lean against any potential headwinds from the coronavirus. Our sense is that the Fed will not be eager to make that argument, and that things will have to get a lot worse before a rate cut is considered. The Fed was well aware that the US/China trade war could have negative economic effects in 2019, but it didn’t cut rates until after the S&P 500 dropped by 20% and the yield curve became deeply inverted (Chart 5). We would monitor those same two indicators to assess the odds of a rate cut this year. So far, neither suggests that a cut is forthcoming. Investors should consider shorting the August 2020 fed funds futures contract. If the economic fall-out from 2019-nCoV only lasts for a few months, then the Fed will stand pat through July and the August contract will earn an un-levered 18 bps between now and the end of August. Our Golden Rule of Bond Investing also dictates that below-benchmark portfolio duration positioning will profit if the Fed delivers less than the 43 bps of rate cuts that are currently priced for the next 12 months. Towards A Better Breakeven Model At BCA we track long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates very closely. Not only because TIPS are an interesting investment vehicle in their own right, but also because elevated long-maturity TIPS breakevens (above 2.3%) will be an important trigger for us to recommend a more defensive US bond portfolio – favoring Treasuries over spread product.4 For those reasons, it’s extremely important for us to have a framework for forecasting long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates. A little more than one year ago, we unveiled a framework for thinking about TIPS breakevens based on the concept of adaptive expectations.5 We also applied that framework to a fair value model for the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. We still think that the adaptive expectations framework is the best way to think about breakevens, but this week we present an improved application of that framework, i.e. a new model for forecasting the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. Adaptive Expectations The theory of adaptive expectations essentially says that today’s long-run inflation expectations are formed based on peoples’ recent experiences with inflation. For example, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 1.67%, well below the 2.3%-2.5% range that we view as consistent with the Fed’s target. We posit that today’s inflation expectations are depressed because realized inflation has been so low during the past decade (CPI inflation has averaged only 1.75% during the past 10 years). This experience makes it very difficult for investors to believe that inflation might be high (say, above 2%) during the next decade. Building A Better Model To apply the adaptive expectations theory to a specific model, we need to make a decision about which specific inflation measures to use. For this week’s report, we tested annualized rates of change of headline CPI ranging from 1 year to 10 years. We also looked at survey measures of long-run inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters and the University of Michigan. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 50 bps below 1-year headline CPI inflation. To test the different measures, we looked at the difference between the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate and each inflation measure. We then looked at how successfully each difference predicted changes in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate during the subsequent 12 months. We identified the following three measures as the best performers (Charts 6A & 6B): Chart 6A10-Year TIPS Breakeven Versus Fair Value 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Versus Fair Value 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Versus Fair Value Chart 6BDeviation From Fair Value Deviation From Fair Value Deviation From Fair Value The 1-year rate of change in headline CPI The 6-year rate of change in headline CPI Median 10-year inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters Table 1 shows the results of our test on 1-year headline CPI inflation. It shows that, historically, when the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has been more than 25 bps above the 1-year rate of change in headline CPI it has tended to fall during the next 12 months. At present, the 10-year breakeven is about 50 bps below the 1-year rate of change in headline CPI. Table 1Deviation Of 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate From 1-Year Rate Of Change In Headline CPI How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting? How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting? Table 2 shows the results of our test on 6-year headline CPI inflation. Here, we see that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate becomes much more likely to fall when it exceeds 6-year CPI inflation by more than 10 bps. The current deviation is +14 bps. Table 2Deviation Of 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate From 6-Year Annualized Rate Of Change In Headline CPI How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting? How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting? Finally, Table 3 shows the results of our test on median 10-year inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters. In this case, the 10-year breakeven rate has rarely exceeded the survey measure historically. But we find evidence that the breakeven is much more likely to rise when it is more than 50 bps below the survey measure. Currently, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 56 bps below the survey measure. Table 3Deviation Of 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate From SPF* 10-Year Median Inflation Forecast How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting? How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting? Making A Prediction Chart 7Our New Adaptive Expectations Model Our New Adaptive Expectations Model Our New Adaptive Expectations Model The final step is to combine our three chosen factors into a model that will predict the future 12-month change in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. This model is presented in Chart 7, and it tells us that, based on the current deviation of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate from our three different inflation measures, the 10-year breakeven should rise by 19 bps during the next 12 months. This would bring the rate up to 1.84% (Chart 7, bottom panel). We will continue to experiment with different inflation measures in the coming weeks (i.e. core and trimmed mean measures) in an effort to improve our model further. Bottom Line: Our improved Adaptive Expectations Model suggests that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will rise by 19 bps during the next 12 months, bringing it up to 1.84%. Investors should remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in US bond portfolios.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “From China To Iowa”, dated February 7, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Contagion”, dated February 4, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Recovery, Temporarily Interrupted”, dated February 5, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on why TIPS breakeven inflation rates are an important trigger for our spread product allocation please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

In lieu of the next weekly report I will be presenting the quarterly webcast ‘What Are The Most Attractive Investments In Europe?’ on Monday 17 February at 10.00AM EST, 3.00PM GMT, 4.00PM CET, 11.00PM HKT. As usual, the webcast will take a TED talk format lasting 18 minutes, after which I will take live questions. Be sure to tune in. Dhaval Joshi Feature The recent coronavirus scare seems to have added a fresh deflationary impulse into the world economy, at a time that central banks are already struggling to achieve and maintain inflation at the 2 percent target. Begging the question: will central banks’ ubiquitous ultra-loose monetary policy ever generate inflation? The answer is yes, but not necessarily where the central banks desire it. Universal QE, zero interest rate policy (ZIRP), and negative interest rate policy (NIRP) have already created rampant inflation. The trouble is that it is in the wrong place. Rather than showing up in consumer price indexes it is showing up in sky-rocketing asset prices. Feature Chart Ultra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Feature ChartUltra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Since 2014, ultra-loose monetary policy has boosted the valuation of equities by 50 percent. But that’s the small fry. The really big story is that ultra-loose monetary policy has boosted the value of the world’s real estate from $180 trillion to $300 trillion (Chart I-2).1 Chart I-2Ultra-Low Bond Yields Have Boosted The Value Of The World’s Real Estate By $120 Trillion Ultra-Low Bond Yields Have Boosted The Value Of The World's Real Estate By $120 Trillion Ultra-Low Bond Yields Have Boosted The Value Of The World's Real Estate By $120 Trillion Just pause for a moment to digest those numbers. In the space of a few years the value of the world’s real estate has surged by $120 trillion, equivalent to one and half times the world’s $80 trillion GDP. Moreover, it is a broad-based boom encompassing not just Europe, but North America and Asia too. Now add in the surge in equity prices, as well as other risk-assets such as private equity, corporate bonds and EM debt and the rise in wealth conservatively equals at least two times world GDP. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other time in economic history that asset prices have risen so broadly and by so much as a multiple of world GDP in such a short space of time. Making this the greatest asset-price inflation of all time. Yet central banks seem unmoved. To add insult to injury, Europe’s central banks do not even include surging owner-occupied housing costs in their consumer price indexes. This seems absurd given that the costs of maintaining owner-occupied housing is one of the largest costs that European households face. Europe’s central banks do not include surging owner-occupied housing costs in their consumer price indexes. Including owner-occupied housing costs would lift European inflation closer to 2 percent, eliminating the need for QE and negative interest rates. But its omission has kept measured inflation artificially low (Chart I-3), forcing European central banks to double down on their ultra-loose policies. Which in turn lifts risk-asset prices even further, and so the cycle of asset-price inflation continues. Chart I-3Using The US Definition Of Inflation, The ECB Wouldn't Need Ultra-Loose Policy Using The US Definition Of Inflation, The ECB Wouldn't Need Ultra-Loose Policy Using The US Definition Of Inflation, The ECB Wouldn't Need Ultra-Loose Policy European QE has spawned other major imbalances. Germany, as the largest shareholder of the ECB, now owns hundreds of billions of ‘Italian euro’ BTPs that the ECB has bought. But given the fragility of Italian banks, the Italians who sold their BTPs to the ECB deposited the cash they received in German banks. Hence, Italy now owns hundreds of billions of ‘German euro’ bank deposits. This mismatch between Germans owning Italian euro assets and Italians owning German euro assets combined with other mismatches across the euro area constitutes the Target2 banking imbalance, which now stands at a record €1.5 trillion. It means that, were the euro to ever break up, the biggest casualty would be Germany (Chart I-4). Chart I-4ECB QE Has Taken The Target2 Banking Imbalance To An All-Time High The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Meanwhile, the US Federal Reserve, to its credit, does include surging owner-occupied housing costs in its measure of consumer prices. As a result, US inflation has been closer to the 2 percent target enabling the Fed to tighten policy when the ECB had to loosen policy. This huge divergence between euro area and US monetary policies, stemming from different treatments of owner-occupied housing costs, has depressed the euro/dollar exchange rate and thereby spawned yet another major imbalance: the euro area/US bilateral trade surplus which now stands at an all-time high. Providing President Trump with the perfect pretext to start a trade war with Europe, should he desire (Chart I-5).  Chart I-5ECB QE Has Taken The Euro Area/US Trade Surplus To An All-Time High ECB QE Has Taken The Euro Area/US Trade Surplus To An All-Time High ECB QE Has Taken The Euro Area/US Trade Surplus To An All-Time High What Caused The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time? Why did the past decade witness the greatest asset-price inflation of all time? The answer is that universal QE, ZIRP, and NIRP took bond yields to the twilight zone of the lower bound (Chart I-6). At which point, the valuation of all risky assets undergoes an exponential surge. Chart I-6The Past Decade Was The Decade Of Universal QE The Past Decade Was The Decade Of Universal QE The Past Decade Was The Decade Of Universal QE Understand that when bond yields approach their lower bound, bonds become extremely risky assets because their prices take on an unattractive ‘lose-lose’ characteristic. As holders of Swiss government bonds discovered last year, prices can no longer rise much in a rally, but they can collapse in a sell-off (Chart I-7). Chart I-7At Low Bond Yields, Bonds Become Much Riskier The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The upshot is that all (long-duration) assets become equally risky, and the much higher prospective returns offered on formerly more risky assets – such as real estate and equities – collapses to the feeble return offered on now equally-risky bonds. Given that valuation is just the inverse of the prospective return, this means that the valuation of risk assets undergoes an exponential surge. When bond yields approach their lower bound, bonds become extremely risky assets because their prices take on an unattractive ‘lose-lose’ characteristic.  An obvious question is: which valuation measure best predicts this depressed prospective return offered on equities? Most people gravitate to price to earnings (profits), but earnings are highly problematic – because even if you cyclically adjust them, they take no account of structurally high profit margins. The trouble is that earnings will face a headwind when profit margins normalise, depressing prospective returns. For this reason, price to earnings missed the valuation extreme of the 2007/2008 credit bubble and should be treated with extreme caution as a predictor of prospective returns (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Price To Earnings Missed The 2007/2008 Valuation Extreme Price To Earnings Missed The 2007/2008 Valuation Extreme Price To Earnings Missed The 2007/2008 Valuation Extreme A much more credible assessment comes from price to sales – or equivalently, market cap to GDP at a global level (Chart I-9). This is because sales are quantifiable, unambiguous, and undistorted by profit margins. Using these more credible prospective returns, we can now show that the theory of what should happen to risk-asset returns (and valuations) at ultra-low bond yields and the practice of what has actually happened agree almost perfectly (Feature Chart). Chart I-9Price To Sales (Or Global Market Cap To GDP) Is The Best Predictor Of Prospective Return Price To Sales (Or Global Market Cap To GDP) Is The Best Predictor Of Prospective Return Price To Sales (Or Global Market Cap To GDP) Is The Best Predictor Of Prospective Return Some Investment Conclusions It is instinctive for investors to focus first and foremost on the outlook for the real economy. After all, the evolution of the $80 trillion global economy drives company sales and profits. But the value of the world’s real estate, at $300 trillion, dwarfs the economy. Public and private equity adds another $100 trillion, while other risk-assets such as corporate bonds and EM debt add at least another $50 trillion. So even on conservative assumptions, risk-assets are worth $450 trillion – an order of magnitude larger than the world economy. Now combine this with the overwhelming evidence that risk-asset valuations are exponentially sensitive to ultra-low bond yields. A relatively modest rise in yields that knocked 20 percent off risk-asset valuations would mean a $90 trillion loss in global wealth. Even a 10 percent decline would equate to a $45 trillion drawdown. Could the $80 trillion economy sail through such declines in wealth? No way. Such setbacks would constitute a severe deflationary headwind, and likely trigger the next recession. Hence, though equities are preferable to bonds at current levels, a 50-100 bps rise in yields – were it to happen – would be a great opportunity to add to bonds. Meanwhile, the record high Target2 euro area banking imbalance means that the biggest casualty of the euro’s disintegration would not be Italy. It would be Germany. As all parties have no interest in such a mutually assured destruction, investors should go long high-yielding versus low-yielding euro area sovereign bonds. Finally, the record high euro area/US trade surplus is a political constraint to a much weaker euro versus the dollar. In any case, the ECB is close to the practical limit of monetary policy easing, while the Fed is not. Long-term bond investors should prefer US T-bonds versus German bunds or Swiss bonds. Long-term currency investors should prefer the euro versus the dollar. Fractal Trading System*  This week’s recommended trade is long EUR/CHF. As this currency cross has relatively low volatility, the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss is set at a modest 1 percent. In other trades, short NZD/JPY achieved its profit target, while long US oil and gas versus telecom reached the end of its 65-day holding period in partial loss having reached neither its profit target nor its stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-10EUR/CHF EUR/CHF EUR/CHF 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 Footnotes 1 Source: Savills World Research. The last data point is $281 trillion at the end of 2017, but we conservatively estimate that the value has increased to above $300 trillion in the subsequent two years. Fractal Trading System The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time 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