Market Returns

Highlights Chart 1How Much Lower For Real Yields? How Much Lower For Real Yields? How Much Lower For Real Yields? Treasury yields moved lower last month even as the overall bond market priced-in a more reflationary economic environment. Spread product outperformed Treasuries and inflation expectations rose, but nominal bond yields still fell as plunging real yields offset the rising cost of inflation compensation (Chart 1). This sort of market behavior is unusual, but it is also easily explained. The market is starting to believe in the economic recovery, and it is pushing inflation expectations higher as a result. However, it also believes that the Fed will keep the nominal short rate pinned at zero even as inflation rises. Falling real yields result from rising inflation expectations and stable nominal rate expectations. This combination of market moves can’t go on forever. Eventually, inflation expectations will rise enough that the market will price-in policy tightening. This will push real yields higher, starting at the long-end of the curve. However, it’s difficult to know when this will occur, especially with the Fed doing its best to convey a dovish bias. In this environment, we advise investors to keep portfolio duration near benchmark and to play the reflation trade through real yield curve steepeners (see page 11). Real yield curve steepeners will profit in both rising and falling real yield environments, as long as the reflation trade remains intact. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 177 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -361 bps. Spreads continue to tighten and investment grade corporate bond valuation is turning expensive, particularly for the highest credit tiers. The 12-month breakeven spread for the overall corporate index has been tighter 29% of the time since 1996 (Chart 2). The similar figure for the Baa credit tier is a relatively cheap 38% (panel 3). With the Fed providing a strong back-stop for investment grade corporates – one that has now officially been extended until the end of the year – we should expect spreads to turn even more expensive, likely returning to the all-time stretched valuations seen near the end of 2019. With that in mind, we want to focus our investment grade corporate bond exposure on high quality Baa-rated bonds. These are bonds that offer greater expected returns than those rated A and above, but that are also unlikely to be downgraded into junk (panel 4). Subordinate bank bonds are prime examples of securities that exist within this sweet spot.1 At the sector level, we also recommend overweight allocations to Healthcare and Energy bonds,2 as well as underweight allocations to Technology3 and Pharmaceutical bonds.4 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* A Different Kind Of Reflation Trade A Different Kind Of Reflation Trade Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* A Different Kind Of Reflation Trade A Different Kind Of Reflation Trade High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 425 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -466 bps. All junk credit tiers delivered strong returns on the month with the exception of the lowest-rated (Ca & below) bonds (Chart 3). These securities underperformed Treasuries by 267 bps, as a rising default rate weighs on the weakest credits. We are sticking with our relatively cautious stance toward high-yield, favoring bonds only from those issuers that will be able to access the Fed’s emergency lending facilities if need be. This includes most of the Ba-rated credit tier, some portion of the B-rated credit tier, and very few bonds rated Caa & below. We view the Fed back-stop as critically important because junk spreads are far too tight based on fundamentals alone. For example, current market spreads imply that the default rate must come in below 4.5% during the next 12 months for the junk index to deliver a default-adjusted spread consistent with positive excess returns versus Treasuries (panel 3).5 This would require a rapid improvement in the economic outlook. At the sector level, we advise overweight allocations to high-yield Technology6 and Energy7  bonds. We are underweight the Healthcare and Pharmaceutical sectors.8 MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in July, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -46 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS index option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 12 bps in July, but it still offers a pick-up relative to other comparable sectors. The MBS OAS of 86 bps is greater than the 75 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds (Chart 4), the 47 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS and the 72 bps offered by Agency CMBS. Despite this spread advantage, we are concerned that the elevated primary mortgage spread is a warning that refinancing risk could flare later this year (bottom panel). Even if Treasury yields are unchanged, a further 50 bps drop in the mortgage rate due to spread compression cannot be ruled out. Such a move would lead to a significant increase in prepayment losses. With that in mind, we are concerned about the low level of expected prepayment losses (option cost) priced into the MBS index (panel 3). A refi wave in the second half of this year would undoubtedly send that option cost higher, eating into the returns implied by the lofty OAS.   Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 77 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -325 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 285 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -567 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 62 bps in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -706 bps. Local Authority debt outperformed Treasuries by 74 bps in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -368 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 4 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -62 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 5 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -14 bps. The US dollar’s recent weakness, particularly against EM currencies, is a huge boon for Sovereign and Foreign Agency returns (Chart 5). However, US corporate spreads will also perform well in an environment of improving global growth and dollar weakness and, for the most part, value remains more compelling in the US corporate space (panel 3). Within the Emerging Market Sovereign space: South Africa, Mexico, Colombia, Malaysia, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Indonesia, Russia and Chile all offer a spread pick-up relative to quality and duration-matched US corporate bonds. Of those attractively priced countries, Mexico stands out as particularly compelling on a risk/reward basis.9   Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 115 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -473 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Municipal bond spreads versus Treasuries tightened in July, but remain elevated compared to typical historical levels. In fact, both the 2-year and 10-year Aaa Muni yields are above equivalent-maturity Treasury yields, despite municipal debt’s tax exempt status (Chart 6). Municipal bonds are also attractively priced relative to corporate bonds across the entire investment grade credit spectrum, as we demonstrated in a recent report.10 In that report we also mentioned our concern about the less-than-generous pricing offered by the Fed’s Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF). At present, MLF funds are only available at a cost that is well above current market prices (panel 3). This means that the MLF won’t help push Muni yields lower from current levels. Despite the MLF’s shortcomings, we stick with our overweight allocation to municipal bonds. For one thing, federal assistance to state & local governments will be included in the forthcoming stimulus bill. The Fed will also feel increased pressure to reduce MLF pricing the longer the passage of that bill is delayed. Further, while the budget pressure facing municipal governments is immense, states hold very high rainy day fund balances (bottom panel). This will help cushion the blow and lessen the risk of ratings downgrades. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull flattened in July. The 2/10 and 5/30 Treasury slopes flattened 6 bps and 13 bps, reaching 44 bps and 99 bps, respectively. Unusually, the bull flattening of the Treasury curve that occurred last month was not the result of a deflationary market environment. Rather, the inflation compensation curve bear flattened – the 2-year and 10-year CPI swap rates increased 25 bps and 16 bps, respectively – while the real yield curve underwent a large parallel shift down. It will be difficult for the nominal yield curve to keep flattening if this reflationary back-drop continues. Eventually, rising inflation expectations will pull up real yields at the long-end of the curve. For this reason, we retain our bias toward duration-neutral yield curve steepeners on a 6-12 month horizon. Specifically, we advise going long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. In a recent report we noted that valuation is a concern with this positioning.11 The 5-year yield is below the yield on the duration-matched 2/10 barbell (Chart 7), and the 5-year bullet looks expensive on our yield curve models (Appendix B). However, the 5-year bullet traded at much more expensive levels during the last zero-lower-bound period between 2010 and 2013 (bottom panel). With short rates once again pinned at zero, we expect the 5-year to once again hit extreme levels of overvaluation.   TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 95 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -309 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 21 bps on the month to hit 1.56%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 18 bps on the month to hit 1.71%. TIPS breakeven inflation rates have moved up rapidly during the past couple of months, and the 10-year breakeven is now within 6 bps of the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations Model (Chart 8).12 TIPS will soon turn expensive if current trends continue. That is, unless stronger CPI inflation sends our model's fair value estimate higher. We place strong odds on the latter occurring. Month-over-month core CPI bottomed in April, as did the oil price. In addition, trimmed mean inflation measures suggest that core has room to play catch-up (panel 3). As mentioned on page 1, we continue to recommend real yield curve steepeners as a way to take advantage of the ongoing reflation trade. With the Fed now targeting a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation goal, we would expect the cost of 2-year inflation protection to eventually trade above the cost of 10-year inflation protection (panel 4). With the Fed also keeping a firmer grip over short-dated nominal yields than over long-dated ones, this means that short-maturity real yields will come under downward pressure relative to the long-end (bottom panel).13   ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 25 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +23 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 15 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +22 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 111 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +22 bps. Aaa ABS are a high conviction overweight, given that spreads remain elevated compared to historical levels and that the sector benefits from Fed support through the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF). However, spreads are even more attractive in non-Aaa ABS (Chart 9) and we recommend owning those securities as well. This is despite the fact that only Aaa-rated bonds are eligible for TALF. We explained our rationale for owning non-Aaa consumer ABS in a recent report.14 We noted that the stimulus received from the CARES act caused real personal income to increase significantly during the past four months and, faced with fewer spending opportunities, households used that windfall to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Granted, further fiscal stimulus is needed to sustain recent income gains. But we expect the follow-up stimulus bill to be passed soon. Our Geopolitical Strategy service has shown that the new bill will likely contain sufficient income support for households.15   Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 112 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -395 bps. Aaa CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 43 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -111 bps. Non-Aaa CMBS outperformed by 256 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -1042 bps (Chart 10). We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to Aaa non-agency CMBS and an underweight allocation to non-Aaa CMBS. Our reasoning is simple. Aaa CMBS are eligible for TALF, meaning that spreads can still tighten even as the hardship in commercial real estate continues. Without Fed support, non-Aaa CMBS will struggle as the delinquency rate continues to climb (panel 3).16 Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 17 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -42 bps. The average index spread tightened 5 bps on the month to 72 bps, still well above typical historical levels (bottom panel). The Fed is supporting the Agency CMBS market by directly purchasing the securities as part of its Agency MBS purchase program. The combination of strong Fed support and elevated spreads makes the sector a high conviction overweight. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities A Different Kind Of Reflation Trade A Different Kind Of Reflation Trade Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of July 31, 2020) A Different Kind Of Reflation Trade A Different Kind Of Reflation Trade Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of July 31, 2020) A Different Kind Of Reflation Trade A Different Kind Of Reflation Trade Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 57 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 57 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) A Different Kind Of Reflation Trade A Different Kind Of Reflation Trade Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of July 31, 2020) A Different Kind Of Reflation Trade A Different Kind Of Reflation Trade   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Case Against The Money Supply”, dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For our outlook on Energy bonds please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy”, dated July 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 We assume a 25% recovery rate and target a spread of 150 bps in excess of default losses. For more details on this calculation please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy”, dated July 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Treasury Market Amid Surging Supply”, dated May 12, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bonds Are Vulnerable As North America Re-Opens”, dated May 26, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12 For more details on our model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 13 For more details on our recommended real yield curve steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 14 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 15 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “A Tech Bubble Amid A Tech War (GeoRisk Update)”, dated July 31, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 16 We discussed our CMBS outlook in more detail in US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights Chinese stocks are still in the “public participation phase” of a cyclical bull market and have not yet reached the “excess phase.” Economic fundamentals should provide support for more upside in Chinese stock prices in the next 6 to 12 months. Even if Chinese stocks evolve into a boom-bust cycle reminiscent of 2014-15, near-term technical price corrections should provide good buying opportunities. We remain overweight Chinese equities in both absolute and relative terms, and recommend investors increase their exposure to beaten-down cyclically-geared stocks, particularly in China’s domestic market.  Feature Chinese stocks rallied by 15% and 13% in the onshore and offshore markets, respectively, in the first 10 days of July. However, both markets gave up almost half of their gains in the third week of the month. The above-expectation Q2 GDP growth figure, which was released last Thursday, only exacerbated the market selloffs. This month’s rollercoaster ride in Chinese equities reminds investors of the boom-bust stock market cycle in 2014-2015, and raises the inevitable question: is it too late to buy or is it too early to sell Chinese stocks? We believe Chinese stocks are still at an early stage of a cyclical bull market.  While the recent near-vertical escalation in equity prices was clearly overdone, any near-term technical corrections will provide good buying opportunities. Three Phases Of A Bull Market Chinese bull markets typically last 2-2.5 years and involve three phases.1 The length and boundaries of each phase in a bull run are often blurred and are best identified in hindsight. However, this framework helps put the ongoing market rally in both A shares and investable stocks into perspective. In our view, the A share market is currently in the early stage of the “public participation phase”, whereas investable stocks seem to be halfway through (Chart 1A and 1B). Chart 1AA Shares In Early Stage Of The “Public Participation Phase (PPP)” A Shares In Early Stage Of The "Public Participation Phase (PPP)" A Shares In Early Stage Of The "Public Participation Phase (PPP)" Chart 1BChinese Investable Shares May Be Halfway Through PPP Chinese Investable Shares May Be Halfway Through PPP Chinese Investable Shares May Be Halfway Through PPP We think that the current bull market started in January 2019, following a bear market from 2016 to 2018. We upgraded Chinese stocks from neutral to cyclically overweight in April 2019, which was a couple of months into the “accumulation phase” of the bull market underway. The accumulation phase is the start of an uptrend, typically after a bear market, when smart money begins to buy stocks; fundamentals still look bleak and valuations are at exceptionally depressed levels. Chart 2China’s Economy Should Be On Track To A Cyclical Upturn Chinese Stocks: Stay Invested Chinese Stocks: Stay Invested The public participation phase typically exhibits a massive increase in trading volumes and explosive growth in new investor accounts. This phase begins when the market is already off the bottom and negative sentiment begins to wane on signs of economic improvement (Chart 2). As the bull trend is clearly established, technical and trend traders also begin to pile in, generating a self-feeding cycle. The market begins to feel overheated, making value investors uncomfortable, but valuations are not yet extreme (Chart 3). This phase tends to last longer than the other two stages in a bull market primary trend. The expansion of multiples remains the dominant driver for the broad market while earnings struggle (Chart 4). Chart 3Valuations In A Shares Are Not Too Extreme Valuations In A Shares Are Not Too Extreme Valuations In A Shares Are Not Too Extreme For investable shares, we believe that the bull market is probably more than halfway through the public participation phase (Chart 5). The market has decisively broken out of its key technical resistance and entered into expensive territory (Chart 6). Still, neither A-share nor investable markets seem to be in the “excess phase” as witnessed in 2015 (Table 1). Chart 4Market Returns Between Multiples And Earnings Growth: Chinese A Shares Market Returns Between Multiples And Earnings Growth: Chinese A Shares Market Returns Between Multiples And Earnings Growth: Chinese A Shares Chart 5Market Returns Between Multiples And Earnings Growth: Chinese Investable Shares Market Returns Between Multiples And Earnings Growth: Chinese Investable Shares Market Returns Between Multiples And Earnings Growth: Chinese Investable Shares Chart 6Valuations In Chinese Investable Shares Are Becoming Expensive, But Not Too Stretched Valuations In Chinese Investable Shares Are Becoming Expensive, But Not Too Stretched Valuations In Chinese Investable Shares Are Becoming Expensive, But Not Too Stretched Table 1Multiples In Chinese Stocks Are Not Yet In The “Excess Phase” Chinese Stocks: Stay Invested Chinese Stocks: Stay Invested China's short and volatile stock market history provides some classic examples of equity boom-bust cycles. The massive bull market in Chinese A shares between 2013 and 2016 fits the three phases perfectly: stock prices jumped by a whopping 93% in the three phases of the bull market between early 2013 and May 2015. The bull market eventually marched onto the excess phase in the first half of 2015 and reached the ultimate top in May 2015 with a trailing P/E of 25 and price-to-book of over 3. Bottom Line: Both the A-share and investable bourses still have room for upside in the ongoing bull market. Remain overweight on both investable and domestic shares, but domestic stocks have more latitude for rally as China’s economy and earnings continue to recover. Pullbacks Not Enough To Turn Bearish On July 1 we upgraded our tactical (0 to 3 months) call on Chinese stocks and initiated long Chinese domestic and investable stock trades relative to global benchmarks. While it is impossible to predict whether the current market will supercharge into a boom-bust cycle as seen in 2014-15, we intend to keep the trades given our conviction that cyclically there is still upside to Chinese stock prices. To turn cyclically bearish on Chinese shares, the following conditions need to develop: First, the broad market should reach an overvalued extreme, at which point gravity would set in. Some sectors and small-cap names, particularly in the ChiNext board, are currently stretched (Chart 7).  However, overall market valuations still appear reasonable, based on our composite valuation indicator. Historically, major peaks in the market occurred when the valuation indicator reached much higher levels. Further, cyclically-adjusted equity risk premiums (ERPs) in both Chinese onshore and offshore stocks are materially higher than their historical means (Chart 8). This suggests investors have already priced in extremely high uncertainties surrounding the Chinese economy. Perhaps overdone, in our view. As China's economy continues to recover, their ERPs should shrink, pushing stock prices higher. Chart 7A Structural Bull Run In Chinese Tech Stocks A Structural Bull Run In Chinese Tech Stocks A Structural Bull Run In Chinese Tech Stocks Chart 8Equity Risk Premium In Chinese Stocks Are Extremely High And Will Likely Shrink, Pushing Stock Prices Higher Equity Risk Premium In Chinese Stocks Are Extremely High And Will Likely Shrink, Pushing Stock Prices Higher Equity Risk Premium In Chinese Stocks Are Extremely High And Will Likely Shrink, Pushing Stock Prices Higher   Secondly, liquidity should tighten. An important liquidity source is margin lending, which has gone up exponentially since late June and invited regulatory attention (Chart 9). Instead of waiting for overleverage in the market to form a momentum like in the 2014 cycle, Chinese regulators seem to be more vigilant and restrictive this time. By acting early and removing some steam from recent market velocity, a healthier secular bull market can develop.   China’s overall monetary conditions are another important source of liquidity. If the policy stance turns from easing to tightening before the economy fully recovers, then it will lead to a compression in multiples in the equity market before stock prices can gain support from an earnings recovery. Historically, Chinese authorities tend to maintain an easing stance for at least three quarters following a nadir in the economy (Chart 10). The track record of Chinese policymakers suggests that the PBoC will likely keep monetary policy accommodative through the end of this year. Chart 9Chinese Authorities Have Been Cracking Down On Overleverage Early In This Bull Run Chinese Authorities Have Been Cracking Down On Overleverage Early In This Bull Run Chinese Authorities Have Been Cracking Down On Overleverage Early In This Bull Run Chart 10Easy Policy Should Sustain Through End Of 2020 Easy Policy Should Sustain Through End Of 2020 Easy Policy Should Sustain Through End Of 2020 Finally, the economy should weaken significantly, which would elevate the equity risk premium and threaten the earnings outlook. A second wave of COVID-19 would have to be severe enough to substantially impact China’s economic recovery, however, the pandemic situation in China seems to be contained and earnings recovery is on course (Chart 11, 12A, 12B, and 12C). Additionally, a major pandemic-triggered shock would only force Chinese authorities to up their ante on reflation and revive domestic demand, which could benefit stocks. Chart 11COVID-19 Virus Spread Has Been Largely Contained Within China COVID-19 Virus Spread Has Been Largely Contained Within China COVID-19 Virus Spread Has Been Largely Contained Within China Chart 12AA Share Prices Are Not Too Far Ahead Of Earnings Recovery A Share Prices Are Not Too Far Ahead Of Earnings Recovery A Share Prices Are Not Too Far Ahead Of Earnings Recovery Bottom Line: Chinese equities will likely experience technical corrections in the near term, but the downside risks are not enough to turn bearish.   Chart 12BChinese Investable Stock Prices Seem A Bit Ahead Of Its Own Historical Performance… Chinese Investable Stock Prices Seem A Bit Ahead Of Its Own Historical Performance... Chinese Investable Stock Prices Seem A Bit Ahead Of Its Own Historical Performance... Chart 12C…But Still Not Too Expensive Compared With Global Benchmarks ...But Still Not Too Expensive Compared With Global Benchmarks ...But Still Not Too Expensive Compared With Global Benchmarks Investment Conclusions Regardless of the direction of Chinese stocks in absolute terms, we recommend investors overweight equities within a global equity portfolio (Chart 13). Investors should also tilt their exposure to battered cyclicals, particularly in China’s domestic stock market (Chart 14). We favor consumer discretionary, materials and industrials in the next 6 to 12 months. Chart 13We Remain Overweight On Chinese Stocks We Remain Overweight On Chinese Stocks We Remain Overweight On Chinese Stocks Chart 14Cyclical Stocks Are Likely To Prevail Over Defensives Cyclical Stocks Are Likely To Prevail Over Defensives Cyclical Stocks Are Likely To Prevail Over Defensives Chinese equity prices have run ahead of economic fundamentals and setbacks will be likely in the near term. Still, these setbacks are buying opportunities and we recommend buying on the dip if Chinese equities, in either onshore or offshore markets, were to fall by 5% to 10% from current levels. However, consecutive selloffs accumulating to a 15% or greater fall in Chinese stock prices within a short period of time (e.g. 2 to 3 weeks) would prompt us to close our long Chinese equity trades. Historically, when the prices of Chinese equities fell by such a magnitude, the selloffs tended to trigger panic among China’s massive retail investors and, in turn, form a self-reinforcing downward spiral and push Chinese stocks into a prolonged bear market (Chart 15). Chart 15Oversized Selloffs Historically Tend To Push Chinese Stocks Into Prolonged Bear Markets Oversized Selloffs Historically Tend To Push Chinese Stocks Into Prolonged Bear Markets Oversized Selloffs Historically Tend To Push Chinese Stocks Into Prolonged Bear Markets   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Three Phases Of A Bull Market," dated April 22, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights IG Energy: Investors should overweight Energy bonds within an overweight allocation to investment grade corporate bonds overall. Within IG Energy, the Independent sub-sector should perform best, and we recommend avoiding the higher-rated Integrated space. HY Energy: Investors should overweight high-yield Energy relative to the overall junk index. In particular, investors should focus their exposure on the Independent sub-sector, while avoiding the distressed Oil Field Services space. Feature This week we present part 2 of our two-part Special Report on Energy bonds. Last week’s report showed how to develop a model for Energy bond excess returns (both investment grade and high-yield) based on overall corporate bond index spreads and the oil price.1 This week, we delve deeper into the characteristics of both the investment grade and high-yield Energy indexes to better understand how both are likely to trade in the coming months. Chart 1High-Yield Energy Bond Returns Have Bottomed High-Yield Energy Bond Returns Have Bottomed High-Yield Energy Bond Returns Have Bottomed Chart 2Energy Index Sub-Sector Composition* The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy In this week’s deep dive, we don’t limit ourselves to an examination of the overall Energy index. We also consider the outlooks for its five main sub-sectors: Integrated: Major oil firms that are present along the entire supply chain – from exploration and production all the way down to refined products for consumers. Independent: Exploration & production firms. Oil Field Services: Support services for the Independent sector – notably drilling. Midstream: Transportation (pipelines), storage and marketing of crude oil. Refining Chart 2 shows the share of each sub-sector in both the investment grade and high-yield Energy indexes. Midstream (46%) and Integrated (31%) are the largest sub-sectors in the investment grade index. Independent (48%) and Midstream (36%) are the heavyweights in the high-yield space. Investment Grade Energy Risk Profile Overall, investment grade Energy bonds are highly cyclical. That is, they tend to outperform the corporate benchmark during periods of spread tightening and underperform during periods of spread widening. This cyclical behavior is due to Energy’s lower credit rating compared to the Bloomberg Barclays Corporate index. Sixty five percent of Energy’s market cap carries a Baa rating compared to 59% for the overall index (Chart 3). The sector’s cyclical nature is confirmed by its duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio,2 which is well above 1.0 (Chart 4A). Interestingly, Energy has only been a highly cyclical sector since the 2014-2016 oil price crash. Prior to that, Energy mostly tracked the corporate index’s performance and only slightly underperformed the benchmark during the 2008/09 financial crisis. More recently, Energy underperformed the corporate index dramatically when spreads widened in March, but has outperformed by 936 bps since spreads peaked on March 23 (Chart 4A, panel 3). Energy has only been a highly cyclical sector since the 2014- 2016 oil price crash. Turning to the sub-sectors, the Integrated sub-sector immediately stands out as the only one with a higher average credit rating than the corporate benchmark. Ninety-two percent of Integrated issuers are rated A or Aa (Chart 3). The presence of the global oil majors (Total SA, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP) is what gives the sub-sector its higher average credit quality and makes it the only defensive Energy sub-sector. Notice that Integrated even proved resilient during the 2014-16 Energy bond turmoil (Chart 4B). The remaining four sub-sectors (Independent, Oil Field Services, Midstream and Refining) all have lower average credit ratings than the corporate index (Chart 3) and all trade cyclically relative to the benchmark with Independent (Chart 4C) and Oil Field Services (Chart 4D) being more cyclical than Midstream (Chart 4E) and Refining (Chart 4F). Interestingly, Independent trades more cyclically than Midstream and Refining despite having a greater concentration of high-rated issuers. This is likely due the fact that Independent (aka Exploration & Production) firms are more dependent on the level of oil prices, and typically require a certain minimum oil price to support capital spending and growth. Meanwhile, crude oil is an input for Refining firms and lower oil prices can boost margins, helping offset some of the negative impact from growth downturns. Chart 3Investment Grade Credit Rating Distributions* The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy Chart 4AIG Energy Risk Profile IG Energy Risk Profile IG Energy Risk Profile Chart 4BIG Integrated Risk Profile IG Integrated Risk Profile IG Integrated Risk Profile Chart 4CIG Independent Risk Profile IG Independent Risk Profile IG Independent Risk Profile Chart 4DIG Oil Field Services Risk Profile IG Oil Field Services Risk Profile IG Oil Field Services Risk Profile Chart 4EIG Midstream Risk Profile IG Midstream Risk Profile IG Midstream Risk Profile Chart 4FIG Refining Risk Profile IG Refining Risk Profile IG Refining Risk Profile   Valuation In terms of value, we find that the Energy sector offers a spread advantage relative to the corporate index and its equivalently-rated (Baa) benchmark (Table 1). This advantage holds up after we control for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread. The four cyclical sub-sectors (Independent, Oil Field Services, Midstream and Refining) all also look cheap, whether or not we control for duration differences. Integrated, the sole defensive sub-sector, is roughly fairly valued compared to the equivalently-rated (Aa) benchmark. Table 1IG Energy Valuation The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy Balance Sheet Health The par value of outstanding investment grade Energy debt jumped sharply as oil prices plunged in 2014. But the sector has barely issued any debt since the 2014-16 collapse. Instead, Energy firms have relied on capital spending reductions, asset sales, equity issuance and dividend cuts to raise cash. This shift toward austerity explains why Energy’s weight in the index fell from 11% in 2015 to 8% today (Chart 5A). The median Energy firm’s net debt-to-EBITDA consequently improved between 2017 and 2019, but has once again started to rise as earnings have struggled in recent quarters (Chart 5A, bottom panel). At the issuer level, 15 out of the investment grade index’s 56 Energy issuers currently have a negative ratings outlook from Moody’s (Appendix A). Of the 23 Energy sector ratings that Moody’s has reviewed in 2020, 12 have been affirmed with a stable outlook and 11 were assigned negative outlooks. At the sub-sector level, Integrated debt growth lagged that of the corporate index during the last recovery (Chart 5B). Though the sub-sector has an average credit rating of Aa, most issuers carry negative ratings outlooks, including four of the five global oil majors (Total SA, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil and BP). Interestingly, Independent trades more cyclically than Midstream and Refining, despite having a greater concentration of high-rated issuers. The outstanding par value of investment grade Independent debt had been stagnant since 2015, it then plunged this year as three sizeable issuers were downgraded from investment grade to high-yield (Chart 5C). EQT Corp, Occidental Petroleum and Apache Corp were all downgraded during the past few months. They currently account for 21% of the high-yield Energy index’s market cap. Encouragingly, only two of the 16 remaining investment grade Independent issuers currently have negative ratings outlooks. The situation is less favorable for Oil Field Services. This sub-sector’s outstanding debt has remained low since the 2014-16 collapse (Chart 5D), but four of the six investment grade Oil Field Services issuers have negative ratings outlooks. Midstream (Chart 5E) and Refining (Chart 5F) both continued to grow their outstanding debt levels throughout the entirety of the last recovery, including during the 2014-16 period. At present, only three of the 23 investment grade Midstream issuers have negative ratings outlooks, while two of the four Refining issuers have negative outlooks. Chart 5AIG Energy Debt Growth IG Energy Debt Growth IG Energy Debt Growth Chart 5BIG Integrated Debt Growth IG Integrated Debt Growth IG Integrated Debt Growth Chart 5CIG Independent Debt Growth IG Independent Debt Growth IG Independent Debt Growth Chart 5DIG Oil Field Services Debt Growth IG Oil Field Services Debt Growth IG Oil Field Services Debt Growth Chart 5EIG Midstream Debt Growth IG Midstream Debt Growth IG Midstream Debt Growth Chart 5FIG Refining Debt Growth IG Refining Debt Growth IG Refining Debt Growth   Investment Conclusions As per last week’s report, we recommend that investors overweight Energy bonds within their investment grade corporate bond allocations. This recommendation stems from our view that corporate bond spreads will tighten during the next 12 months and that the oil price will rise. As such, we want to favor cyclical investment grade bond sectors that will outperform during periods of spread tightening. With that in mind, we would advise investors to focus their investment grade Energy allocations on the most cyclical sub-sector: Independent. Not only does the Independent sub-sector have the highest DTS ratio of the five sub-sectors, but its weakest credits have already been purged from the index and further downgrades are less likely. Oil Field Services offer less spread pick-up than Independent, and also have a higher proportion of issuers with negative ratings outlooks.  By similar logic, we would avoid the Integrated sub-sector. This sub-sector trades defensively relative to the corporate benchmark and a high proportion of its issuers have negative ratings outlooks. High-Yield Energy Bonds Risk Profile On average, the High-Yield Energy index and the overall High-Yield corporate index have very similar credit ratings. However, the Energy sector has a more barbelled credit rating distribution with a greater proportion of Ba-rated securities (64% versus 55%) and a greater proportion of Ca-C rated issuers (8% versus 1%) (Chart 6). Chart 6High-Yield Credit Rating Distributions* The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy Chart 7AHY Energy Risk Profile HY Energy Risk Profile HY Energy Risk Profile It is likely some combination of the larger presence of very low-rated credits and increased oil price volatility that has caused the sector to trade cyclically versus the junk benchmark since 2014 (Chart 7A). Notice that Energy outperformed the junk index during the 2008 sell off, but has since turned cyclical, underperforming in both the 2015/16 and 2020 risk-off episodes. At the sub-sector level, there is currently only one high-yield rated Integrated issuer (Cenovus Energy Inc., Ba-rated, negative outlook). Based on their DTS ratios, the Independent and Oil Field Services sub-sectors are the most cyclical (Charts 7B & 7C). This is because the lower-rated (Caa & below) issuers are concentrated in the these spaces. This is particularly true for Oil Field Services where 41% of the sub-sector’s market cap is rated Caa or below. The Midstream sub-sector also trades cyclically relative to the junk benchmark, but with somewhat less volatility than Independent and Oil Field Services, as evidenced by its DTS ratio of 1.2 (Chart 7D). Refining has traded like a cyclical sector so far this year, but that may not continue now that its DTS ratio has fallen close to 1.0 (Chart 7E). Chart 7BHY Independent Risk Profile HY Independent Risk Profile HY Independent Risk Profile Chart 7CHY Oil Field Services Risk Profile HY Oil Field Services Risk Profile HY Oil Field Services Risk Profile Chart 7DHY Midstream Risk Profile HY Midstream Risk Profile HY Midstream Risk Profile Chart 7EHY Refining Risk Profile HY Refining Risk Profile HY Refining Risk Profile   Valuation The Energy sector offers a significant spread advantage over the High-Yield index and also relative to other Ba-rated issuers (Table 2). Adjusting for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread makes Energy look even more attractive. Energy spreads need to widen by 189 bps during the next 12 months to underperform duration-matched Treasuries. This compares to 93 bps for other Ba-rated issuers and 150 bps for the overall junk index. Table 2HY Energy Valuation The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy Four of the five Energy sub-sectors (Integrated being the exception) also offer attractive value relative to the overall index and their equivalently-rated benchmarks. This remains true after adjusting for duration differences. Balance Sheet Health The high-yield Energy sector has added much more debt than the overall junk index since 2010 (Chart 8A). But of greater concern is that Moody’s has already changed its ratings outlook from stable to negative for 58 Energy issuers since the start of the year. Meanwhile, only 17 high-yield Energy issuers have seen their ratings outlooks confirmed as stable in 2020. Nevertheless, we take some comfort knowing that the Energy sector should benefit from having a large number of issuers able to take advantage of the Federal Reserve’s Main Street Lending facilities. As a reminder, to be eligible for the Main Street facilities issuers must have fewer than 15000 employees or less than $5 billion in 2019 revenue. They must also be able to keep their Debt-to-EBITDA ratios below 6.0, including any new debt added through the Main Street programs. The Energy sector offers a significant spread advantage over the High-Yield index and also relative to other Barated issuers. Of the 61 US high-yield Energy issuers with available data (we exclude 23 foreign issuers that won’t have access to US programs), we estimate that at least 48 are eligible to receive support from the Main Street facilities (Appendix B). This not only includes 15 out of 20 B-rated issuers, but also 12 out of 15 Caa-rated issuers and 4 out of 7 issuers rated below Caa. This broad access is the result of deleveraging that has occurred since the 2014-16 bust (Chart 8A, bottom panel) and it should go a long way toward limiting defaults in the Energy space. The Independent sub-sector’s weight in the index jumped sharply this year, the result of adding three sizeable fallen angels (Chart 8B). Importantly, 24 out of the 28 US Independent issuers appear eligible for Fed support. In contrast, the Oil Field Services sector is in distress. Its weight in the index has been declining for more than a year (Chart 8C), and a large proportion of its issuers are concentrated in lower credit tiers. However, we estimate that out of 19 issuers with available data, 13 are eligible for the Fed’s Main Street Lending facilities. Both Midstream and Refining have high concentrations of Ba-rated issuers and neither has aggressively grown its presence in the index during the past decade (Charts 8D & 8E), though Midstream’s index weight did jump this year. The high credit quality of both indexes means that most issuers will have access to the Main Street facilities, though three of the five Refining issuers are not US based. Chart 8AHY Energy Debt Growth HY Energy Debt Growth HY Energy Debt Growth Chart 8BHY Independent Debt Growth HY Independent Debt Growth HY Independent Debt Growth Chart 8CHY Oil Field Services Debt Growth HY Oil Field Services Debt Growth HY Oil Field Services Debt Growth Chart 8DHY Midstream Debt Growth HY Midstream Debt Growth HY Midstream Debt Growth Chart 8EHY Refining Debt Growth HY Refining Debt Growth HY Refining Debt Growth   Investment Conclusions The conclusion from the model we presented in last week’s report was that high-yield Energy should outperform the junk index during the next 12 months, assuming that overall junk spreads tighten and the oil price rises. However, we remain concerned that, despite the nascent economic recovery, some low-rated Energy names will go bust during the next few months, weighing on index returns. The pattern from the 2014-16 default cycle argues that our concerns may be overblown. In February 2016, high-yield Energy started to outperform the overall junk index slightly after the trough in oil prices and eleven months before the peak in the 12-month trailing default rate (Chart 1 on page 1). If oil prices are indeed already past their cyclical trough, then it may already be a good time to bottom-fish in the high-yield Energy space. The fact that the bulk of high-yield Energy issuers are eligible for support through the Main Street lending facilities tips the scales, and we recommend that investors overweight high-yield Energy relative to the overall junk index. In particular, we think investors should focus on the Independent sub-sector where value is very attractive and most issuers can tap the Fed for help if needed. We would, however, avoid the Oil Field Services sector where the bulk of Energy defaults are likely to come from. Midstream and Refining should perform well, but are less cyclical and less attractively valued than the Independent sub-sector. Jeremie Peloso Senior Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007.   Appendix A Investment Grade Energy Issuers The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy Appendix B High-Yield Energy Issuers The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy  

  Highlights Q2/2020 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark by +11bps during the second quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio outperformed by +8bps, led by overweights in the US (+4bps), Canada (+4bps) and Italy (+3bps). Spread product generated a small outperformance (+3bps), with overweights in US investment grade (+43bps) offsetting underweights in emerging market debt (-35bps). Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: We are sticking close to benchmark on overall duration and spread product exposure, focusing more on relative value between countries and sectors to generate outperformance amid economic uncertainties caused by the growing spread of COVID-19. We continue favoring markets where there is direct buying from central banks, but we are also increasing our recommended exposure to EM USD-denominated debt versus US investment grade corporates. Feature The first half of 2020 has been one of rapid market moves and regime shifts for global fixed income markets. In the first quarter, developed market government debt provided the best returns as bond yields plunged with central banks racing to support collapsing economies through rate cuts and liquidity injections. In Q2, corporate credit delivered the top returns, as economies started to emerge from the COVID-19 lockdowns and, more importantly, the Fed and other major central banks delivered direct support to frozen credit markets through asset purchases. Now, even as an increasing number of global growth indicators are tracing out a "V"-shaped recovery, new cases of COVID-19 are surging though the southern US and major emerging economies like Brazil and India. This raises new challenges for investors for the second half of 2020. A second wave of the coronavirus could jeopardize the nascent global economic recovery, even after the massive easing of monetary and fiscal policies, at a time when valuations on many risk assets appear stretched. In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the second quarter of 2020. We also present our recommended portfolio positioning for the next six months. Given the lingering uncertainties from the renewed spread of COVID-19, we continue to take a more measured approach in our portfolio allocations. That means focusing more on relative value between countries and sectors while staying closer to benchmark on overall global duration and spread product exposure versus government bonds (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q2/2020 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Slight Outperformance For Both Sovereigns And Credits Chart 1Q2/2020 Performance: Modest Gains From Relative Positioning Q2/2020 Performance: Modest Gains From Relative Positioning Q2/2020 Performance: Modest Gains From Relative Positioning The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the second quarter was 3.22%, modestly outperforming the custom benchmark index by +11bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +8bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +3bps. That government bond return includes the small gain (+2bps) from inflation-linked bonds, which we added as a new asset class in our model portfolio framework on June 23.2 In a world of very low bond yields (Table 2), our preference for the higher-yielding government bond markets in the US, Canada, the UK and Italy was the main source of outperformance, delivering a combined excess return of +13bps (including inflation-linked bonds). Our underweight in Japan delivered a surprising positive excess return of +4bps as longer-dated JGB yields – which do not fall under the Bank of Japan’s yield curve control policy – rose during the quarter. Underweights in the low-yielding core euro area countries of Germany and France were a drag on the portfolio (a combined -10bps), particularly the latter where longer-maturity French bonds enjoyed a very strong rally in Q2. Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism In spread product, our overweights in US investment grade corporates (+43bps), UK investment grade corporates (+7bps) and US commercial MBS (+5bps) squeezed out a combined small gain versus underweights in emerging markets (EM) USD-denominated credit (-35bps), euro area high-yield (-8bps) and lower-rated US high-yield (-6bps). In a world of very low bond yields (Table 2), our preference for the higher-yielding government bond markets in the US, Canada, the UK and Italy was the main source of outperformance. That modest outperformance of the model bond portfolio versus the benchmark is in line with our cautious recommended stance on what are always the largest drivers of the portfolio returns: overall duration exposure and the relative allocation between government debt and spread product. We have stuck close to benchmark exposures on both, eschewing big directional bets on bond yields or credit spreads while focusing more on relative opportunities between countries and sectors. This conservative approach is how we are approaching what we have dubbed “The Battle of 2020” between the opposing forces of coronavirus contagion (which is bullish for government bonds and bearish for credit) and policy reflation (vice versa).3 The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Government Bond Performance Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism The most significant movers were: Biggest Outperformers Overweight US investment grade industrials (+28bps) Overweight US investment grade financials (+12bps) Overweight UK investment grade corporates (+7bps) Overweight US CMBS (+5bps) Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (+5 bps) Biggest Underperformers Underweight EM USD denominated corporates (-24bps) Underweight EM USD denominated sovereigns (-10bps) Underweight EUR high-yield corporates (-8bps) Underweight French government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (-5bps) Underweight US B-rated high-yield corporates (-4bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q2/2020. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q2/2020 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral).4 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio In Q2/2020 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism The top performing sectors in our model bond portfolio universe in Q2 were all spread product: EM USD-denominated sovereign (+12.9% in USD-hedged terms, duration-matched to the custom model portfolio benchmark index), EM USD-denominated corporate debt (+12.6%), UK investment grade corporates (+11.3%), US investment grade corporates (+10.9%), and high-yield corporates in the euro area (+6.7%) and US (+5.6%). The top performing sectors in our model bond portfolio universe in Q2 were all spread product. During the quarter, we maintained relative exposures to those sectors within an overall small above-benchmark allocation to global spread product – overweight US and UK investment grade versus underweight emerging market credit, neutral overall US high-yield (favoring Ba-rated debt) versus underweight euro area high-yield. Those allocations were motivated by our theme of “buying what the central banks are buying”, like the Fed purchasing US investment grade corporates. Importantly, we had limited exposure to the worst performing sectors during Q2: underweight government bonds in Japan (index return of -0.47% in USD-hedged, duration-matched terms) and Germany (+0.47%), a neutral allocation to Australian sovereign debt (-0.07%) and an underweight in US Agency MBS (+0.20%). The latter two positions came after we downgraded US MBS to underweight in early April and cut our long-held overweight in Australia to neutral in mid-May. Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio modestly outperformed its benchmark index in the second quarter of the year by +11bps – a positive result driven by our relative positioning that favored higher yielding government debt and spread product sectors directly supported by central bank purchases. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Chart 5Overall Portfolio Allocation: Slightly Overweight Credit Vs Governments GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism Typically, in these quarterly performance reviews of our model bond portfolio, we make return forecasts for the portfolio based off scenario analysis and quantitative predictions of various fixed income asset classes. However, the current environment is unprecedented because of the COVID-19 outbreak. Not only is there now elevated economic uncertainty, but central banks are running extreme monetary policies in response - including direct intervention in markets through purchases of both government bonds and spread product. Thus, we are reluctant to rely on historical model coefficients and correlations to estimate expected fixed income returns. Instead, we will focus on the logic behind our current model portfolio allocations and the expected contribution to overall portfolio performance over the next six months. At the moment, the main factors that will drive the performance of the model bond portfolio over the next six months are the following: Our recommended overweight stance on relatively higher-yielding sovereigns like the US, Canada and Italy versus low-yielders like Germany, France and Japan; Our allocation to inflation-linked bonds out of nominal government debt in the US, Italy and Canada; Our recommended overweight stance on spread product backstopped by central bank purchases - US investment grade corporates, US Agency CMBS, US Ba-rated high-yield, and UK investment grade corporates; Our recommended underweight stance on riskier spread product - euro area high-yield, US B-rated and Caa-rated high-yield, and EM USD-denominated corporates and sovereigns. The portfolio currently has a small aggregate overweight allocation to spread product relative to government bonds, equal to three percentage points (Chart 5). We feel that is an appropriate allocation to credit versus sovereigns in an environment that is still highly uncertain concerning the spread of COVID-19 and how global growth will evolve over the next 6-12 months. This also leaves room to increase the spread product allocation should the news on the virus and the global economy take a turn for the better. We also remain neutral on overall portfolio duration exposure. Our Global Duration Indicator, which contains growth data like our global leading economic indicator and the global ZEW expectations index, has rebounded sharply and is signaling that bond yields should bottom out in the second half of 2020 (Chart 6). A rise in yields will take longer to develop, however, with virtually all major central banks signaling that policy rates will stay near 0% for an extended period. Chart 6Our Global Duration Indicator Says Bond Yields Will Bottom Out In H2/2020 Our Global Duration Indicator Says Bond Yields Will Bottom Out In H2/2020 Our Global Duration Indicator Says Bond Yields Will Bottom Out In H2/2020 Chart 7Within Governments, Overweight Inflation-Linked Bonds Vs. Nominals Within Governments, Overweight Inflation-Linked Bonds Vs. Nominals Within Governments, Overweight Inflation-Linked Bonds Vs. Nominals The recent moves in developed market government bonds are interesting in terms of the underlying drivers of yields – real yields and inflation expectations. Longer-maturity inflation breakevens – the spread between the yields of nominal and inflation-linked government debt – have drifted higher since late March after major central banks began rapidly easing monetary conditions. At the same time, the actual yields on inflation-linked bonds, i.e. real yields, have moved lower and largely offset the gains in inflation breakevens (Chart 7). Nominal yields have been stuck in very narrow ranges as a result. We do not see that dynamic changing, at least in the near term. Inflation breakevens are too low on our models across all developed markets, and are likely to continue inching higher in the coming months on the back of a pickup in global growth and rising energy prices. At the same time, central banks will be staying on hold for longer while continuing to buy large quantities of nominal bonds, helping push real yields lower. Given these opposing forces on nominal government bond yields, we think it is far too soon to contemplate reducing overall duration – even with equity and credit markets having rallied sharply off the lows and global economic indicators rebounding. Thus, we are maintaining an overall duration exposure close to benchmark in the model portfolio (Chart 8). At the same time, we are playing for wider breakevens and lower real bond yields through allocations to markets where our models indicate better value in being long breakevens: US TIPS, Italian inflation-linked BTPs, and Canadian Real Return Bonds. Within the government bond side of the model bond portfolio, we continue to recommend focusing more on country allocation to generate outperformance. That means concentrating exposures in relatively higher yielding markets like the US, Canada and Italy while maintaining underweights in low-yielding core Europe and Japan. Turning to spread product allocations, we continue to recommend focusing more on policymaker responses to the COVID-19 recession, and its uncertain recovery, rather than the downturn itself. The now double-digit year-over-year growth in global central bank balance sheets - which has led global high-yield and investment grade excess returns by one year in the years after the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 9) – is pointing to additional global corporate bond market outperformance versus governments over the next 6-12 months. Chart 8Overall Portfolio Duration: Close To Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Close To Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Close To Benchmark In other words, we are focusing on global QE rather than global recession, while maintaining a modest recommended overall weighting on global spread product. That allocation could be larger, but we suggest picking the lowest hanging fruit in the credit universe rather than going for the highest beta credit markets like Caa-rated US high-yield that have already seen significant spread compression relative to higher-rated US junk bonds (bottom panel). Chart 9Global QE Supporting Credit Markets Global QE Supporting Credit Markets Global QE Supporting Credit Markets Chart 10Overall Credit Allocation: Keep Buying What The Central Banks Are Buying Overall Credit Allocation: Keep Buying What The Central Banks Are Buying Overall Credit Allocation: Keep Buying What The Central Banks Are Buying We continue to focus our recommended spread product allocations on the parts of global credit markets where central banks are directly buying. We continue to focus our recommended spread product allocations on the parts of global credit markets where central banks are directly buying (Chart 10). In the US, that means overweighting US investment grade corporate bonds (particularly those with maturities of less than five years), US Ba-rated high-yield that the Fed can hold in its corporate bond buying program, US Agency CMBS that is also supported by Fed programs, and UK investment grade corporate bonds that the Bank of England is buying. We also put Italian government bonds into this category, with the ECB buying greater amounts of BTPs as part of its COVID-19 monetary support efforts. What about emerging market debt? We have expressed reservations in recent months about upgrading EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt, even within our portfolio theme of being “selectively opportunistic” about recommended spread product allocations. We have long felt that the time to buy those markets would be when the US dollar had clearly peaked and global growth had clearly bottomed. The latter condition now appears to be in place, and the strong upward momentum in the US dollar is starting to weaken. This forces us to reconsider our stance on EM debt in the model portfolio. Even after the powerful Q2 rally in EM corporate and sovereign debt, EM credit spreads still look relatively attractive using one of our favorite credit valuation metrics – the percentile rankings of 12-month breakeven spreads. Those breakeven spreads are calculated, as the amount of spread widening that would make the return of EM credit equal to duration-matched US Treasuries over a 12-month horizon. We then compare those spreads to their own history to determine how attractive current spread levels are now on a “spread volatility adjusted” basis. Current 12-month breakeven spreads for EM USD-denominated sovereigns and corporates are in the upper quartile of their own history. This compares favorably to other spread products in our model bond portfolio universe, particularly US investment grade corporates where the 12-month breakevens are now just below the long-run median (Chart 11). Chart 11A Comparison Of Credit Sectors Using 12-Month Breakeven Spreads GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism The current Bloomberg Barclays EM corporate benchmark index option-adjusted spread (OAS) is around 300bps above that of the US investment grade corporate index OAS. That spread still has room to compress further if global growth continues to rebound and the US dollar softens versus EM currencies. Leading growth indicators like the China credit impulse, which has picked up sharply as Chinese authorities have ramped up economic stimulus measures, are now back to levels last seen in 2016 when EM credit strongly outperformed US investment grade corporates (Chart 12). Chart 12Upgrade EM Credit Versus US Investment Grade Upgrade EM Credit Versus US Investment Grade Upgrade EM Credit Versus US Investment Grade Chart 13Overall Portfolio Yield: Close To Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Close To Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Close To Benchmark This week we are upgrading our weighting on EM USD-denominated corporates and sovereigns to neutral, from underweight, in our model bond portfolio. Although we acknowledge that the EM story has been made more complicated by the rapid spread of COVID-19 through the major EM economies, an underweight stance – particularly versus US investment grade credit – is increasingly unwarranted. Therefore, this week we are upgrading our weighting on EM USD-denominated corporates and sovereigns to neutral, from underweight, in our model bond portfolio (see the updated table on pages 17-18). That new allocation will be “funded” by reducing our overweight in US investment grade corporates. Model bond portfolio yield and tracking error considerations Importantly, the selective global government bond and credit allocations we have just outlined do not come at a cost in terms of forgone yield. The portfolio yield after our upgrade of EM debt will be slightly above that of the custom benchmark index (Chart 13), indicating no “negative carry” even when avoiding parts of the US and euro area high-yield markets. Chart 14Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Finally, turning to the risk budget of the model portfolio, we are aiming for a “moderate” overall tracking error, or the gap between the portfolio’s volatility and that of the benchmark index. The portfolio volatility has fallen dramatically from the surge seen during the global market rout in March, moving lower alongside realized market volatility. The tracking error now sits at 64bps, well below our self-imposed limit of 100bps and within the 50-70bps range we are targeting as a “moderate” level of overall portfolio risk (Chart 14). Bottom Line: We are sticking close to benchmark on overall duration and spread product exposure, focusing more on relative value between countries and sectors to generate outperformance amid economic uncertainties caused by the growing spread of COVID-19. We continue favoring markets where there is direct buying from central banks. We are also increasing our recommended exposure on EM USD-denominated debt to neutral, funded by a reduced allocation to US investment grade corporates where valuations are less attractive.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations'", dated June 23 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Contagion Vs. Reflation: The Battle Of 2020 Rages On", dated June 30, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q2/2020 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Energy Bond Model: This report presents models for both investment grade and high-yield Energy bond excess returns. The models are based on overall corporate bond index spreads and the oil price. They can be used to generate Energy bond excess return forecasts for investment horizons up to 12 months. IG Energy Bonds: Our model suggests that investment grade Energy bond excess returns will be strong during the next 12 months under likely economic scenarios. We recommend an overweight allocation to investment grade Energy bonds.  HY Energy Bonds: Our models imply positive excess return outcomes for high-yield Energy bonds, but we remain concerned about near-term default risk for lower-rated issuers. We advise a cautious (neutral) allocation for now. Part 2 of this Special Report, to be published next week, will dig further into the high-yield Energy index on an issuer-by-issuer basis. Feature Table 1Energy Bond Excess Return* Scenarios (12-Month Investment Horizon) The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns During the past couple of months we’ve published several reports that take more detailed looks at specific industry groups within both the investment grade and high-yield corporate bond markets. So far, we’ve published reports on: Banks1 Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals2 Technology3 This week and next week, we continue our series with a deep dive into Energy bonds that is split between two Special Reports. This week’s report develops a model for Energy bond excess returns based on overall corporate bond index excess returns and the oil price. In next week’s report, we look more deeply into the characteristics of the investment grade and high-yield Energy indexes. We also consider the outlooks for the five sub-categories of Energy debt: Independent, Integrated, Oil Field Services, Refining and Midstream. A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns A good starting point for modeling the excess returns of any corporate bond sector is to combine the sector’s Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) ratio with the excess returns of the overall corporate bond index.4 Please note that “excess returns” refers to returns relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. The DTS-only model explains 86% of the variance in monthly investment grade Energy excess returns. Considering only a sector’s DTS ratio, we can define the following model for monthly investment grade Energy excess returns: EXSENRG = (DTSENRG / DTSCORP) * EXSCORP Where: EXSENRG = Monthly investment grade Energy excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries (DTSENRG / DTSCORP) = The investment grade Energy sector’s DTS ratio EXSCORP = Monthly investment grade corporate index excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries For example, the current DTS for the investment grade Energy sector is 18. The DTS for the overall corporate index is 12. This means that the DTS ratio for the Energy sector is 18/12 = 1.5. According to our simple model, we would expect Energy sector excess returns to be 1.5 times corporate index excess returns in any given month. It turns out that our simple model performs quite well. Chart 1 shows monthly investment grade Energy sector excess returns versus our model’s prediction. Our sample period spans from 1997 to the present. Specifically, we find that our model explains 86% of the variance in monthly investment grade Energy excess returns. Chart 1Investment Grade Energy Monthly Excess Returns*: DTS-Only Model** The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The simple (DTS-only) model’s performance is admirable, but we can do slightly better if we also incorporate the oil price. Chart 2 shows a statistically significant relationship between the residual from the DTS-only model and the monthly change in the Brent crude oil price. Chart 2Residual From DTS-Only Model* Versus Oil Price The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns Combining the models shown in Charts 1 and 2, we get a model for investment grade Energy monthly excess returns based on both corporate index excess returns and the oil price: EXSENRG = (DTSENRG / DTSCORP) * EXSCORP + (376.84 * ∆ ln Oil) – 1.0587 Where excess returns are measured in basis points and (∆ ln Oil) = the monthly change in the natural logarithm of the Brent crude oil price. Chart 3 shows the historical performance of this complete model. Note that the model now explains 91% of the historical variance of investment grade Energy excess returns, 5% more than the initial DTS-only model. Chart 3Investment Grade Energy Monthly Excess Returns*: Complete Model (DTS & Oil)** The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns Robustness Checks We performed the same analysis for 3-month, 6-month and 12-month excess returns and found very consistent results (Table 2). The oil price adds significant explanatory power to the model in each case, but the bulk of variation in investment grade Energy excess returns is determined by trends in the overall corporate index spread. Table 2Investment Grade Energy Excess Returns*: Model Results Using Different Return Frequencies (1997 - Present) The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns We also find consistent results when looking at high-yield Energy returns (Table 3). Once again, the bulk of excess return variation is explained by multiplying the DTS ratio and the benchmark index’s excess returns. The oil price also adds a statistically significant amount of extra explanatory power. Table 3High-Yield Energy Excess Returns*: Model Results Using Different Return Frequencies (1997 - Present) The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns One final observation is that oil explains a greater proportion of the variation in Energy sector excess returns if we limit our sample period to the past few years. Specifically, we re-ran the monthly iterations of both the investment grade and high-yield models from July 2014 to present. We found that the DTS component of the model explains the same amount of excess return variation as it did for the full sample. However, we also found that the oil price has a much greater impact if the sample is limited to the past six years (Table 4). Table 41-Month Excess Return* Models: Full Sample (1997 - Present) Versus Recent Sample (2014 - Present) The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns Energy Excess Return Scenarios Finally, using our 12-month excess return models for investment grade and high-yield Energy, we can project likely outcomes for Energy excess returns versus Treasuries for the next 12 months. All we have to do is assume different outcomes for the overall benchmark index spread (either the investment grade or High-Yield index, depending on the model) and the oil price.5 The results of this scenario analysis are shown in Table 1. Starting with investment grade Energy, we see that all scenarios where the investment grade corporate index spread tightens lead to positive Energy excess returns. This is true even in a scenario where the oil price falls by $20 during the next year. Our model also suggests that a $10-$20 increase in the oil price during the next 12 months will keep Energy excess returns positive, even in a modest “risk off” scenario where the corporate index spread widens by 25 bps. All scenarios where the investment grade corporate index spread tightens lead to positive Energy excess returns. The story is similar in high-yield, though returns are much more variable. For example, high-yield Energy is projected to lose money relative to Treasuries in a scenario where the junk index spread tightens 50 bps and the oil price falls by $20. There are no scenarios where benchmark index spread tightening coincides with negative Energy excess returns in the investment grade model. Chart 4Watch For Falling Inventories Watch For Falling Inventories Watch For Falling Inventories In terms of likely scenarios for the next 12 months, we anticipate further spread tightening for corporate bonds rated Ba & above. But we also view B-rated and lower spreads as too tight given the default outlook for the next 12 months and the fact that these lower-rated issuers usually can’t access the Fed’s emergency lending facilities.6 With that in mind, we would confidently bet on investment grade index spread tightening during the next 12 months, but can envision high-yield spread widening driven by the lower credit tiers. On oil, our Commodity & Energy Strategy service forecasts an average Brent crude oil price of $65 in 2021, a sizeable increase relative to the current price of $43.27.7 Our strategists expect a significant supply contraction in the second quarter of this year that will cause the oil market to enter a physical deficit in the second half of 2020. Investors can look for falling storage levels in the coming months to confirm whether that forecast is playing out (Chart 4). Escalating tensions between the US and Iran pose an additional near-term upside risk to oil prices. This risk increased during the past few weeks as a string of mysterious explosions struck several Iranian military and economic facilities.8 However, with major oil producers now operating significantly below capacity, any net impact on oil prices from a supply disruption in the Persian Gulf would likely be short-lived. Investment Conclusions All in all, our bullish outlook for both investment grade corporate bond spreads and the oil price makes us inclined to overweight investment grade Energy bonds on a 12-month horizon. Within high-yield, our model also suggests that we should have a bullish bias toward Energy, but we remain concerned about default risk for lower-rated (B & below) Energy issuers during the next few months. We will dig into the high-yield Energy index on an issuer-by-issuer basis in Part 2 of this report, to be published next week. For now, we advise a more cautious stance toward high-yield Energy.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007. 5 We translate changes in benchmark index spread into 12-month excess returns using the formula: excess return = option-adjusted spread – (duration * change in option-adjusted spread) 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Low Vol, High Uncertainty Keeps Oil-Price Rally On Tenterhooks”, dated June 18, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “Cyber-Rattling In The Middle East”, dated July 10, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com

Feature Over the last several years when I travelled to Europe, I would meet with Ms. Mea, an outspoken client of the Emerging Markets Strategy service. We have published our conversations with Ms. Mea in the past and this semi-annual series has complemented our regular reports. She has challenged our views and convictions, serving as a voice for many other clients. In addition, these conversations have highlighted nuances of our analysis, for her and to the benefit of our readers. With travel restrictions in force, this time we had to resort to an online meeting with Ms. Mea. Below are the key parts of our conversation from earlier this week. Ms. Mea: Let’s begin with your main thesis, which over the past several years has been as follows: China’s growth drives EM business cycles and financial markets overall. Indeed, as long as China’s growth dithers, EM growth and asset prices languish. However, since the pandemic started China has stimulated aggressively and there are clear signs that the economy is recovering. The latest surge in Chinese share prices confirms that a robust recovery is underway. Why do you not think China’s economy is on the upswing? Answer: True, we believe China’s business cycle is instrumental to EM economies’ growth and balance of payments. We upgraded our outlook for Chinese growth in our May 28 report as the National People’s Congress set the objective for monetary policy in 2020 to significantly accelerate the growth rate of broad money supply and total social financing relative to last year. Indeed, broad money growth as well as both private and public credit have accelerated since April and will continue to increase (Chart I-1). Domestic orders have also surged though export orders are still languishing (Chart I-2). Chart I-1China: Money And Credit Will Continue Accelerating China: Money And Credit Will Continue Accelerating China: Money And Credit Will Continue Accelerating Chart I-2China: Improvement In Domestic Orders But Not In Export Ones China: Improvement In Domestic Orders But Not In Export Ones China: Improvement In Domestic Orders But Not In Export Ones     That said, financial markets, including the ones leveraged to China, have run ahead of fundamentals and a pullback is overdue. We have been waiting for such a setback to turn more positive on EM risk assets and currencies. Further, the snapback in business activity following the lockdown should not be confused with an economic expansion. As economies around the world reopened, business activity was bound to improve. Were any asset markets priced to reflect months or a whole year of closures? Even at the nadir of the global equity selloff in late March, we do not think risk assets were priced for extended lockdowns. The Chinese economy will likely eventually experience a robust expansion later this year but the nearterm outlook for global risk assets and commodities remains risky. In our view, the rally in global stocks and commodities has been much stronger than is warranted by the near-term economic conditions in a majority of economies around the world. In short, we have not been surprised at all by the economic data that has emerged since economies have reopened, but we have been perplexed by the markets’ response to these data. Even in China, which is ahead of all other countries in regards to the reopening and normalization of business activity, the level and thrust of economic activity remains worrisome. Specifically: China's manufacturing PMI new orders and the backlog of orders sub-components remain below the neutral 50 line (Chart I-3). The imports subcomponent of the manufacturing PMI has shown signs of peaking below the 50 line, portending a risk to industrial metals prices (Chart I-4). Chart I-3China Manufacturing PMI: Measures Of Orders Are Still Below 50 China Manufacturing PMI: Measures Of Orders Are Still Below 50 China Manufacturing PMI: Measures Of Orders Are Still Below 50 Chart I-4A Yellow Flag For Commodities A Yellow Flag For Commodities A Yellow Flag For Commodities   Marginal propensity to spend for both enterprises and households continues to trend lower (Chart I-5). These gauge the willingness of consumers and companies to spend and, hence, reflect the multiplier effect of the stimulus. These indicators contend that the multiplier so far remains low/weak. Finally, with the exception of new economy stocks (such as Ali-Baba and Tencent) that have been exceptionally strong worldwide, Chinese share prices leveraged to capital expenditure and consumer discretionary spending had not been particularly strong before last week, as illustrated in Chart I-6.  Chart I-5Marginal Propensity To Spend Among Chinese Households And Enterprises Marginal Propensity To Spend Among Chinese Households And Enterprises Marginal Propensity To Spend Among Chinese Households And Enterprises Chart I-6Chinese Stocks Had Been Languishing Till Late Outside New Economy Ones Chinese Stocks Had Been Languishing Till Late Outside New Economy Ones Chinese Stocks Had Been Languishing Till Late Outside New Economy Ones In a nutshell, the Chinese economy will likely eventually experience a robust expansion later this year but the near-term outlook for global risk assets and commodities remains risky. As to EM risk assets, the key risk to our stance is a FOMO-driven rally buoyed by the “visible hand” of governments. Ms. Mea: What is your interpretation of the latest policy push in China for higher share prices? Is it also a part of the “visible hand” of government? Don’t you think this could create another strong multi-month run like it did in early 2015? Answer: Yes, this is one of many instances of the “visible hand” of governments around the world. It is not clear why Beijing is boosting investor sentiment and explicitly promoting higher share prices given how badly similar efforts in 2015 ultimately ended. At the moment, we can only speculate that one or several of the following reasons are behind this move: Beijing is preparing for an escalation in the US-China geopolitical confrontation ahead of the US presidential elections. This latter is highly probable in our opinion.1 To limit the impact of this confrontation on their economy, they want to ensure that the stock market remains in an uptrend. The same can be said for the US authorities. Apparently, the “visible hands” of both Washington and Beijing have and will continue to push share prices higher in their domestic markets. Robust equity markets will become a prominent feature of the geopolitical confrontation between the US and China. In the long run, however, this is a very negative phenomenon for the world because the two of the largest and most prominent stock markets could increasingly be driven by the “visible hand” of their governments rather than by fundamentals. As a result, equity markets could regularly send wrong price signals and will no longer serve as an efficient mechanism of capital allocation. Chart I-7Foreign Inflows Into China Have Accelerated This Year Foreign Inflows Into China Have Accelerated This Year Foreign Inflows Into China Have Accelerated This Year Beijing has been luring foreign investors to buy onshore stocks and bonds and this strategy has become more vital in expectation of an escalation in the US-China confrontation. Chart I-7 shows that net inflows into onshore stocks and bonds have been surging. The more US investors buy into mainland markets, the more these investors will exercise pressure on the current and future US administrations to go soft on China. Like those US companies relying on Chinese demand, large US investment funds will have a notable exposure to Chinese financial markets and will accordingly lobby the White House and Congress to take a less adversarial stance toward China. This will reduce the maneuvering room of US politicians in this geopolitical confrontation. Finally, it is also possible that these latest media reports encouraging a bull market in China were not initiated by leaders in Beijing but were in fact spurred by mid-level bureaucrats. If that is the case, a full-blown mania akin to the one in 2015 will not be repeated and the latest frenzy surrounding Chinese stocks could end up being the final surge before a correction sets in. In brief, Chinese stocks, like other bourses worldwide, are in a FOMO-driven mania that might last for a while. Nevertheless, regardless of the direction of Chinese stocks in absolute terms, we reiterate our overweight stance on Chinese equities within the EM benchmark. Also, we have a strong conviction with respect to the merits of a long Chinese/short Korean stocks trade. Both these positions were initiated on June 18 before the latest surge in Chinese stocks. The “visible hands” of both Washington and Beijing have and will continue to push share prices higher in their domestic markets. Ms. Mea: What will it take for you to go long EM risk assets and currencies in absolute terms? Answer: EM equities, credit markets and currencies are driven by three, or more recently four, factors. We need to witness or foresee an imminent improvement in three out of four of these to go outright long. These factors include: (1) China’s business cycle and its impact on EM via global trade; (2) each individual EM country’s domestic fundamentals (inflation/deflation, balance of payments, return on capital, domestic economic cycles, monetary and fiscal policies, health of the banking system, domestic politics, etc.); (3) global risk-on and risk-off cycles that drive portfolio flows into EM. The direction of the S&P500 is an important trendsetter for these risk-on and risk-off cycles; (4) swings in geopolitical confrontation between the US and China. The first element – China’s impact on EM – is becoming positive. There could be a minor setback in mainland business cycles in the near term, but this should be used as a buying opportunity. As to structural problems in China like credit/money and property bubbles as well as the misallocation of capital, ongoing money and credit growth acceleration will fill in holes and kick the can down the road. That said, those structural problems will become even more challenging in the years to come. In short, Beijing is making credit, money and property bubbles even bigger. The second factor – domestic fundamentals in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan – remain downbeat. The COVID-19 outbreak has been out of control in a number of EM economies (Chart I-8). In addition, outside of China, Korea and Taiwan, EM fiscal stimulus has not been as large as in DM economies. Critically, the monetary transmission mechanism has been broken in several developing economies. In particular, central banks’ rate cuts have not translated to lower lending rates in real terms (Chart I-9). Chart I-8The COVID-19 Pandemic Has Not Peaked In Several Major EM Economies The COVID-19 Pandemic Has Not Peaked In Several Major EM Economies The COVID-19 Pandemic Has Not Peaked In Several Major EM Economies Chart I-9Lending Rates Are Still High In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Lending Rates Are Still High In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Lending Rates Are Still High In EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan   The basis is two-fold: First, banks saddled with non-performing loans are reluctant to bring down their lending rates and lend more; and second, the considerable decline in EM inflation has pushed up real lending rates (Chart I-9). The third variable driving EM financial markets – the S&P 500 – remains at risk of a material setback. If the S&P drops more than 10 or 15%, EM stocks, currencies and credit markets will also sell off markedly. Finally, there is the fourth aspect of the EM view – geopolitics – which could be critical in the coming months. The US-China confrontation will likely heighten leading up to the US elections. This will likely involve North and South Korea and Taiwan. Chart I-10EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Stocks And Currencies EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Stocks And Currencies EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Stocks And Currencies Chinese investable stocks as well as Korean and Taiwanese equities altogether make up 65% of the MSCI EM benchmark. Hence, a flareup in geopolitical tensions will weigh on these three bourses. Outside these markets, EM share prices and currencies have already rolled over (Chart I-10). In sum, out of the four factors listed above only the Chinese business cycle warrants an upgrade on overall EM. The other three drivers of the EM view are still negative. This keeps us on the sidelines for now. Importantly, we have been gradually moving our investment strategy from bearish to neutral on EM. Specifically, we: Took profits on the long EM currencies volatility trade on March 5. Took large profits on the long gold / short oil and copper trade on March 11. Booked gains on the short position in EM stocks on March 19. Recommended receiving long-term (10-year) swap rates (or buying local currency bonds while hedging the exchange rate risk) in many EMs on April 23. Upgraded EM sovereign credit from underweight and booked profits on our short EM corporate and sovereign credit / long US investment grade bonds strategy on June 4. The only asset class where we have not yet closed our shorts is EM currencies. In fact, we now recommend shifting our short in EM currencies (BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, KRW, PHP and IDR) from the US dollar to an equal-weighted basket of the Swiss franc, the euro and the Japanese yen. Unlike the March selloff, the dollar could depreciate even if the S&P 500 and global stocks drop. Ms. Mea: What is the rationale behind switching your short positions in EM currencies against the US dollar to short positions versus the Swiss franc, the euro and Japanese yen? Wouldn’t the selloff in global stocks drive the greenback higher? Answer: We have been bullish on the US dollar since 2011, consistent with our negative view on EM and commodities prices and recommendation of favoring the S&P 500 versus EM. What is making us question this strategy are the following, in order of importance: First, the Federal Reserve is monetizing US public and some private debt. The amount of US dollars is surging. Meanwhile, the pace of broad money supply growth is much more timid in the euro area, Switzerland and Japan. Broad money growth is 23% in the US, 9% in the euro area, 2.5% in Switzerland, 5% in Japan and 11% in China. This will reduce investors’ willingness to hold dollars as a store of value, incentivizing them to switch to other DM currencies. Second, the pandemic is out of control in the US and this will damage its near-term growth outlook. More fiscal stimulus and more debt monetization will be required to revive the economy. Third, the Fed will not hike interest rates even if inflation rises well above their 2% target in the next several years. This implies that the Fed will prefer to be behind the inflation curve in the years to come, which is bearish for the greenback. Finally, the yen and the euro as well as EM currencies are cheaper than the US dollar (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11The US Dollar Is Expensive, The Yen Is Cheap The US Dollar Is Expensive, The Yen Is Cheap The US Dollar Is Expensive, The Yen Is Cheap Chart I-12EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Currencies Are Cheap EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Currencies Are Cheap EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Currencies Are Cheap     The broad trade-weighted US dollar has yet to break down as per the top panel of Chart I-13, but we are becoming nervous about it. Unlike the March selloff, the dollar could depreciate even if the S&P 500 and global stocks drop. Ms. Mea: That is interesting. Has there ever been an episode where the US dollar depreciated while the S&P 500 sold off? Answer: Yes, it occurred in late 2007 and H1 2008. The 2007-08 bear market in global stocks can be split into two periods. During the initial phase of that bear market, the US dollar depreciated substantially despite the drawdowns in global equity and credit markets (Chart I-14, top and middle panels). Chart I-13Trade-Weighted Dollar And Asian Currencies: At A Critical Juncture Trade-Weighted Dollar And Asian Currencies: At A Critical Juncture Trade-Weighted Dollar And Asian Currencies: At A Critical Juncture Chart I-14In Late 2007 And H1 2008: The US Dollar Fell Amid An Equity Bear Market In Late 2007 And H1 2008: The US Dollar Fell Amid An Equity Bear Market In Late 2007 And H1 2008: The US Dollar Fell Amid An Equity Bear Market   EM stocks performed in line with DM ones during the first phase (Chart I-14, bottom panel). The economic backdrop was characterized by the US recession and US banks tightening credit. In fact, EM growth was still robust during that phase even though the US economy was shrinking. Remarkably, commodities prices were surging – oil reached $140 per a barrel and copper $4 per ton in June 2008. The second phase of that bear market commenced in autumn of 2008 when Lehman went bust. The orderly bear market in global stocks gave way to an acute phase – a crash in all global risk assets. Business activity collapsed worldwide and the US dollar surged. In the current cycle, the order will likely be the reverse of the 2007-08 bear market. March 2020 witnessed a crash in global risk assets and the global economy plunged similar to the second phase of the 2007-08 bear market while the US dollar surged. The second stage of this recession could resemble the first phase of the 2007-08 bear market. There will be neither worldwide lockdowns nor a crash in business activity. However, the level of activity might struggle to recover as rapidly as markets have priced in or there might be relapses in economic conditions in certain parts of the world. This is especially true for the US and other countries where the pandemic has not been effectively contained. On the whole, the second downleg in the S&P 500 and global stocks will be less dramatic but could last for a while and still be meaningful (more than 10-15%). Critically, unlike the March 2020 selloff, the greenback will likely struggle during this episode for the reasons we outlined above. Ms. Mea: What about overweighting EM equities and credit versus their DM peers? Will EM equities, credit and currencies underperform their DM peers in the potential selloff that you expect? Wouldn’t USD weakness help EM risk assets to outperform even in a broad risk selloff? Answer: Yes, we can see a scenario where EM stocks and credit markets perform in line or better than their DM peers in a potential selloff. The key is the dollar’s dynamics. If the dollar rebounds, EM stocks and credit markets will underperform their DM counterparts. If the dollar weakens during this selloff, EM stocks and credit will likely perform in line with or better than their DM peers. In sum, a technical breakdown in the broad trade-weighted dollar and a breakout in the emerging Asian currency index – both shown in Chart I-13 – would lead us to upgrade our EM allocation in both global equity and credit portfolios. For now, we are only switching our shorts in EM currencies from the US dollar to an equally-weighted basket of the Swiss franc, the euro and the Japanese yen. Ms. Mea: What are some of your other current observations on financial markets? Answer: The breadth and thrust of this global equity rally has already peaked and is weakening. It is just a matter of time before a narrowing breadth translates into lower aggregate stock indexes for both EM and DM equities as illustrated by our advance-decline lines in Chart I-15. Chart I-15EM and DM Equity Breadth Measures Have Rolled Over EM and DM Equity Breadth Measures Have Rolled Over EM and DM Equity Breadth Measures Have Rolled Over Chart I-16Cyclicals And High-Beta Stocks Have Been Struggling Cyclicals and High-Beta Stocks Have Been Struggling Cyclicals and High-Beta Stocks Have Been Struggling Consistently, there has already been a decoupling between various sectors and industries. The rally has been solely focused on tech and new economy stocks. Equity prices in China and Taiwan have been surging while the rest of the EM equity index has been languishing. In the DM equity space, global industrials, US high-beta stocks and micro caps have already rolled over (Chart I-16). Further, our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency index is flashing red for EM equities (Chart I-17). Chart I-17A Red Flag For EM Equities? A Red Flag For EM Equities? A Red Flag For EM Equities? Chart I-18Long Gold / Short Stocks Long Gold / Short Stocks Long Gold / Short Stocks Finally, EM share prices have outperformed DM stocks since late May mostly due to the sharp rally in Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks. Hence, the breadth of EM equity outperformance has been subdued. Ms. Mea: To wrap up our conversation, I want to ask you what is your strongest conviction trade for the coming months? Answer: Our strongest conviction trade is long gold / short global or EM stocks (Chart I-18). This trade will do well regardless of the direction of global share prices, the US dollar, and bond yields. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "Watch Out For A Second Wave (Of US-China Frictions)," dated June 10, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Chart 1More Stimulus Required More Stimulus Required More Stimulus Required The unemployment rate fell for the second consecutive month in June, down to 11.1% from a peak of 14.7%. Bond markets shrugged off the news, and rightly so, as this recent pace of improvement is unlikely to continue through July and August. The main reason for pessimism is that the number of new COVID cases started rising again in late June, consistent with a pause in high-frequency economic indicators (Chart 1). This second wave of infections will slow the pace at which furloughed employees are returning to work, a development that has been responsible for all of the unemployment rate’s recent improvement. Beneath the surface, the number of permanently unemployed continues to rise (Chart 1, bottom panel). The implication for policymakers is that it is too early to back away from fiscal stimulus. In particular, expanded unemployment benefits must be extended, in some form, beyond the July 31 expiry date. We are confident that Congress will eventually pass another round of stimulus, though it may not make the July 31 deadline. For investors, bond yields are still biased higher on a 6-12 month horizon, but their near-term outlook is now in the hands of Congress. We continue to recommend benchmark portfolio duration, along with several tactical overlay trades designed to profit from higher yields. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 189 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -529 bps. The average index spread tightened 24 bps on the month. We still view investment grade corporates as attractively valued, with the index’s 12-month breakeven spread only just below its historical median (Chart 2). With the Fed providing strong backing for the market, we are confident that investment grade corporate bond spreads will continue to tighten. As such, we want to focus on cyclical segments of the market that tend to outperform during periods of spread tightening (panel 2). One caveat is that the Fed’s lending facilities can’t prevent ratings downgrades (bottom panel). Therefore, we also want to avoid sectors and issuers that are mostly likely to be downgraded. High-quality Baa-rated issues are the sweet spot that we want to target. Those securities will tend to outperform the overall index as spreads tighten, but are not likely to be downgraded. Subordinate bank bonds are a prime example of securities that exist within that sweet spot.1 In recent weeks we published deep dives into several different industry groups within the corporate bond market. In addition to our overweight recommendation for subordinate bank bonds, we also recommend an overweight allocation to investment grade Healthcare bonds.2 We advise underweight allocations to investment grade Technology and Pharmaceutical bonds.3 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff High-Yield: Neutral High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 90 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -855 bps (Chart 3A). The average index spread tightened 11 bps on the month and has tightened 500 bps since the Fed unveiled its corporate bond purchase programs on March 23. We reiterated our call to overweight Ba-rated junk bonds and underweight bonds rated B and below in a recent report.4 In that report, we noted that high-yield spreads appear tight relative to fundamentals across the board, but that the Ba-rated credit tier will continue to perform well because most issuers are eligible for support through the Fed’s emergency lending facilities. Specifically, we showed that “moderate” and “severe” default scenarios for the next 12 months – defined as a 9% and 12% default rate, respectively, with a 25% recovery rate – would lead to a negative excess spread for B-rated bonds (Chart 3B). The same holds true for lower-rated credits. Chart 3AHigh-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview Chart 3BB-Rated Excess Return Scenarios Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff We appear to be on track for that sort of outcome. Moody’s recorded 20 defaults in May, matching the worst month of the 2015/16 commodity bust and bringing the trailing 12-month default rate up to 6.4%. Meanwhile, the trailing 12-month recovery rate is a meagre 22%. At the industry level, in recent reports we recommended an overweight allocation to high-yield Technology bonds5 and underweight allocations to high-yield Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals.6 MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -44 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS index option-adjusted spread (OAS) has tightened 5 bps since the end of May, but it still offers a pick-up relative to other comparable sectors. The MBS index OAS stands at 95 bps, greater than the 81 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds (Chart 4), the 54 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS and the 76 bps offered by Agency CMBS. At some point this spread advantage will present a buying opportunity, but we think it is still too soon. As we wrote in a recent report, we are concerned that the elevated primary mortgage spread is a warning that refinancing risk could flare in the second half of this year (bottom panel).7 The primary mortgage rate did not match the decline in Treasury yields seen earlier this year. Essentially, this means that even if Treasury yields are unchanged in 2020 H2, a further 50 bps drop in the mortgage rate cannot be ruled out. Such a move would lead to a significant increase in prepayment losses, one that is not priced into current index spreads. While the index OAS has widened lately, expected prepayment losses (aka option cost) have dropped (panels 2 & 3). We are concerned this decline in expected prepayment losses has gone too far and that, as a result, the current index OAS is overstated. Government-Related:  Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 78 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -399 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 112 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -828 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 37 bps in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -764 bps. Local Authority debt outperformed Treasuries by 268 bps in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -439 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 14 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -58 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 12 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -19 bps. We updated our outlook for USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign bonds in a recent report.8 In that report we posited that valuation and currency trends are the primary drivers of EM sovereign debt performance (Chart 5). On valuation, we noted that the USD sovereign bonds of: Mexico, Colombia, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa all offer a spread pick-up relative to US corporate bonds of the same credit rating and duration. However, of those countries that offer attractive spreads, most have currencies that look vulnerable based on the ratio of exports to foreign debt obligations. In general, we don’t see a compelling case for USD-denominated sovereigns based on value and currency outlook, although Mexican debt stands out as looking attractive on a risk/reward basis. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 68 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -582 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Municipal bond spreads versus Treasuries widened in June and continue to look attractive compared to typical historical levels. In fact, both the 2-year and 10-year Aaa Muni yields are higher than the same maturity Treasury yield, despite municipal debt’s tax exempt status (Chart 6). Municipal bonds are also attractively priced relative to corporate bonds across the entire investment grade credit spectrum, as we demonstrated in a recent report.9 In that report we also mentioned our concern about the less-than-generous pricing offered by the Fed’s Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF). At present, MLF funds are only available at a cost that is well above current market prices (panel 3). This means that the MLF won’t help push muni yields lower from current levels. Despite the MLF’s shortcomings, we aren’t yet ready to downgrade our muni allocation. For one thing, federal assistance to state & local governments will probably be the centerpiece of the forthcoming stimulus bill. The Fed could also feel pressure to reduce MLF pricing if the stimulus is delayed. Further, while the budget pressure facing municipal governments is immense, states are also holding very high rainy day fund balances (bottom panel). This will help cushion the blow and lessen the risk of ratings downgrades. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve was mostly unchanged in June. Both the 2-year/10-year and 5-year/30-year slopes steepened 1 bp on the month, reaching 50 bps and 112 bps, respectively. With no expectation – from either the Fed or market participants – that the fed funds rate will be lifted before the end of 2022, short-maturity yield volatility will stay low and the Treasury slope will trade directionally with the level of yields for the foreseeable future. The yield curve will steepen when yields rise and flatten when they fall. With that in mind, we continue to recommend duration-neutral yield curve steepeners that will profit from moderately higher yields, but that won’t decrease the average duration of your portfolio. Specifically, we recommend going long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell.10 In a recent report we noted that valuation is a concern with this recommended position.11 The 5-year yield is below the yield on the duration-matched 2/10 barbell (Chart 7), and the 5-year bullet also looks expensive on our yield curve models (Appendix B). However, we also noted that the 5-year bullet traded at much more expensive levels during the last zero-lower-bound period between 2010 and 2013 (bottom panel). With short rates once again pinned at zero, we expect the 5-year bullet will once again hit levels of extreme over-valuation. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 99 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -400 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 19 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.39%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 5 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.62%. TIPS breakevens have moved up rapidly during the past couple of months, but they remain low compared to average historical levels. Our own Adaptive Expectations Model suggests that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate should rise to 1.53% during the next 12 months (Chart 8).12 On inflation, it also looks like we are past the cyclical trough. The WTI oil price is back up to $41 per barrel after having briefly turned negative (panel 4), and trimmed mean inflation measures suggest that the massive drop in core is overdone (panel 3). If inflation has indeed troughed, then the real yield curve will continue to steepen as near-term inflation expectations move higher. We have been advocating real yield curve steepeners since the oil price turned negative in April.13 The curve has steepened considerably since then, but still has upside relative to levels seen during the past few years (bottom panel). ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 103 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -2 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 8 bps in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +7 bps. Meanwhile, non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 233 bps in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -88 bps (Chart 9). Aaa ABS are a high conviction overweight, given that spreads remain elevated compared to historical levels and that the sector benefits from Fed support through the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF). However, spreads are even more attractive in non-Aaa ABS and we recommend owning those securities as well. This is despite the fact that non-Aaa bonds are not eligible for TALF. We explained our rationale for owning non-Aaa consumer ABS in a recent report.14  We noted that the stimulus received from the CARES act caused real personal income to increase significantly during the past few months and, faced with fewer spending opportunities, households used that windfall to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Granted, further fiscal stimulus will be needed to sustain those recent income gains. But we are sufficiently confident that a follow-up stimulus bill will be passed that we advocate moving down in quality within consumer ABS. Non-Agency CMBS:  Overweight  Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 211 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -501 bps. Aaa CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 164 bps in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -233 bps. Non-Aaa CMBS outperformed by 407 bps in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -1451 bps (Chart 10). Our view of non-agency CMBS has not changed during the past month, but we realize that it is more accurately described as a “Neutral” allocation as opposed to “Overweight”. Our view is that we want an overweight allocation to Aaa-rated CMBS because that sector offers an attractive spread relative to history and benefits from Fed support through TALF. However, we advocate an underweight allocation to non-Aaa non-agency CMBS. Those securities are not eligible for TALF and, unlike consumer ABS, their fundamental credit outlook has deteriorated significantly as a result of the COVID recession.15  Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 104 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -58 bps. The average index spread tightened 19 bps on the month to 77 bps, still well above typical historical levels (bottom panel). The Fed is supporting the Agency CMBS market by directly purchasing the securities as part of its Agency MBS purchase program. The combination of strong Fed support and elevated spreads makes the sector a high conviction overweight. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of July 3, 2020) Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of July 3, 2020) Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 57 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 57 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of July 3, 2020) Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff Watch Out For July’s Fiscal Cliff Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Case Against The Money Supply”, dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Treasury Market Amid Surging Supply”, dated May 12, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bonds Are Vulnerable As North America Re-Opens”, dated May 26, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 The rationale for why this position will profit from curve steepening is found in US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 13 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 14 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 15 We discussed our outlook for CMBS in more detail in US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights Silver will outperform gold in 2H20, as industrial production and consumer-product demand revives on the back of the massive global stimulus deployed to reverse the hit to aggregate demand inflicted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Silver’s physical supply growth largely is a by-product of base-metals mining, specifically copper, zinc and lead.  As mining capex for these base metals is reduced in response to weaker demand, silver’s physical surplus will continue to contract.  On the demand side, a pick-up in industrial activity will benefit silver more than gold, given its relatively higher share of industrial consumption. The gold/silver ratio most likely contracts from its current level of 99 over the remainder of the year, given our expectation gold will appreciate 7% in 2H20 and finish the year at $1,900/oz, while silver is expected to appreciate ~ 16% ending 2020 at $21/oz. Elevated economic and political uncertainty – chiefly escalating US-China and US-Europe trade tensions – likely will keep a bid under gold and the USD. This could limit the rally in commodities (ex-gold) generally. We are getting long December 2020 COMEX silver at tonight’s close. Feature While silver is sensitive to the same financial variables driving gold’s performance – chiefly real rates, the broad trade-weighted USD, inflation and inflation expectations – it is far more responsive to the evolution of the real economy. When investors seek a safe haven in especially volatile or highly uncertain markets, silver is not their first choice. Nor is it the go-to portfolio diversifier investors seek out to hedge against higher inflation or inflation expectations. Investors typically turn to the USD and gold when risks rise (Chart of the Week).1 While silver is sensitive to the same financial variables driving gold’s performance – chiefly real rates, the broad trade-weighted USD, inflation and inflation expectations – it is far more responsive to the evolution of the real economy than gold: More than half of silver’s demand is accounted for by industrial applications – e.g., solar panels, batteries and electronics, vs. ~ 10% for gold (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekUSD, Gold Attract Investors In Volatile, Uncertain Markets USD, Gold Attract Investors In Volatile, Uncertain Markets USD, Gold Attract Investors In Volatile, Uncertain Markets Chart 2Silver Is More Responsive To the Real Economy Than Gold Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20 Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20 Gold is a far deeper market than silver (Chart 3). Greater two-way flow on the bid and offer – augmented by the greater involvement of institutions and central banks in those flows – makes the gold market more efficient in terms of processing financial and economic information. Because of this, gold prices and gold options’ implied volatility are useful parameters for following investors’ (and central banks’) assessments of future economic conditions. Silver tends to overshoot and undershoot in its response to the arrival of new economic and financial information – e.g., economic shocks like the COVID-19 outbreak (Chart 4).2 Chart 3Gold Market Is Deeper Than Silver ... Gold Market Is Deeper Than Silver ... Gold Market Is Deeper Than Silver ... Chart 4... Making Gold Less Volatile Relative To Silver ... Making Gold Less Volatile Relative To Silver ... Making Gold Less Volatile Relative To Silver Because silver is sensitive to the same financial variables driving gold, it can attract more retail speculative interest when the larger investment narrative favors gold as a portfolio hedge. All the same, because silver is sensitive to the same financial variables driving gold, it can attract more retail speculative interest when the larger investment narrative favors gold as a portfolio hedge. For this reason, it is difficult to recommend silver as a long-term portfolio hedge. It is, however, useful in expressing a view on short-term economic and financial expectations. Supply Growth Will Be Subdued Mining output of silver is largely a by-product of copper, zinc and lead mining, as the white metal often is found in deposits of these ores. Because of the COVID-19-induced base-metals demand destruction, miners most likely will reduce capex at least for this year (Chart 5).3 This will cause mine production to fall, which will reduce the rate of growth in supply, even with recycling remaining fairly constant (Chart 6). As a result, the white metal’s physical surplus is expected to continue contracting relative to demand this year (Chart 7). Chart 5Expect Lower Base-Metals Capex To Reduce Silver Supply Growth Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20 Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20   Chart 6Falling Supplies Of Silver Will Tighten Physical Balances Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20 Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20 Chart 7Silver’s Supply Surplus Likely Will Contract Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20 Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20   Demand Follows The Real Economy Slightly more than half of silver demand is accounted for by industrial applications (Chart 8). Gold’s industrial-applications share is ~ 10%, as noted above. This keeps the silver-to-gold ratio closely aligned with global industrial production (Chart 9). Chart 8Industrial Usage Dominates Silver Demand Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20 Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20 Chart 9Silver Prices Closely Tied To Global Industrial Production Silver Prices Closely Tied To Global Industrial Production Silver Prices Closely Tied To Global Industrial Production The massive fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed by governments and central banks globally certainly raises the odds of an overshoot, as demand revives and miners are reducing capex (Chart 10).4 Against this backdrop, a better-than-expected recovery in commodity demand cannot be ruled out. However, it is important to emphasize that – given the profound uncertainty dogging commodities generally – a severe undershoot also is possible.  Chart 10Massive Global Stimulus Could Cause Metals (Silver Included) To Overshoot Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20 Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20 Silver Poised To Outperform In modeling prices, we capture silver’s safe-haven vs. industrial demand using precious and industrial metals prices (Chart 11). Historically, silver has been as substitute to gold for investors seeking lower-cost exposure to precious metals. This implies silver will follow gold in times of decreasing real rates, rising inflation and/or increasing economic uncertainty. Following a sharp increase in gold prices, silver becomes an attractive safe-haven asset and gets bid up until the disequilibrium between both variables closes. These series are cointegrated in the long-run. On the other hand, silver prices are more responsive to the global industrial cycle than gold. Thus, it partly follows the same underlying trend as industrial metals – mainly copper – prices. Chart 11BCA's Silver Model: Rally Expected BCA's Silver Model: Rally Expected BCA's Silver Model: Rally Expected The model shown in Chart 11 leads us to expect silver prices will outperform gold prices in 2H20. We expect silver to end the year at $21/oz, a 16% increase over the next six months, versus $1,900/oz for gold (up 7%). Given our assessment of these respective markets, we are recommending a long December 2020 COMEX silver position at tonight’s close. We are remaining long gold, as it is more likely to respond favorably to the additional fiscal and monetary stimulus such a turn of events would prompt. Bottom Line: Silver is a thinner market than gold and is more subject to higher volatility. In an environment of historically high global economic policy uncertainty, rising Sino-US and -European trade tensions, and the economic destruction wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, this amounts to a significant risk for investors (Chart 12). While our modeling indicating silver should outperform gold in 2H20 inclines us to go long December 2020 silver, this could be upended by another wave of COVID-19-induced lockdowns in systematically important economies. This would stop a global economic recovery dead in its tracks. For this reason, we are remaining long gold, as it is more likely to respond favorably to the additional fiscal and monetary stimulus such a turn of events would prompt. Chart 12Heightened Economic Uncertainty Elevates Risk To Silver Positions Heightened Economic Uncertainty Elevates Risk To Silver Positions Heightened Economic Uncertainty Elevates Risk To Silver Positions     Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com       Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Expectations of a deal allowing Libya’s National Oil Corporation (NOC) to resume oil production at some of its fields have increased, following reports of discussions between the Government of National Accord (GNA), the NOC and regional countries overseen by the United Nations and the United States.5 Nonetheless, restarting production will be gradual, as the lack of elementary maintenance since the start of the conflict left pipelines corroding and storage facilities collapsing. Base Metals: Neutral The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) rebounded by more than 300% from its May 2020 low, led by rising iron ore exports to China (Chart 13). As Chinese economic growth resumes, iron ore and base metals demand is expected to increase in 2H20. However, some of the recent support to shipping markets is due to China’s restocking of iron ore, which will fade as inventories return to desired levels. While we expect the BDI to end the year higher, a near-term pullback is possible, given iron ore and freight rates appear to have overshot to the upside. Precious Metals: Neutral The risk of an incessantly strong US dollar remains a headwind to gold and silver prices. The dollar benefits from mounting global economic uncertainty. Thus, the risk of a severe second COVID-19 infection wave, escalating Sino-US and US-European tensions, and the upcoming US election could increase economic and market volatility in 2H20 and keep the dollar in its bull market, which began in 2011, intact (Chart 14). Ags/Softs:  Underweight The USDA this week reported farmers rated 73% of corn planted this season in good to excellent condition for the week ended Jun 28, vs. 56% last year. Soybeans were rated 71% vs 54% in good to excellent condition last year. Winter wheat bucked the year-on-year improvement trend, with 52% of the crop in good to excellent condition vs. 63% last year. Chart 13BDI Rebounding Sharply BDI Rebounding Sharply BDI Rebounding Sharply Chart 14Elevated Policy Uncertainty Supports Gold Elevated Policy Uncertainty Supports Gold Elevated Policy Uncertainty Supports Gold     Footnotes 1     We have noted the anomalous correlation between the broad trade-weighted USD and gold during periods of elevated uncertainty in pervious research. See, e.g., Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Lifts Gold And USD Together, which we published October 24, 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic’s outbreak. This correlation has increased in the wake of the pandemic. 2     For an excellent discussion of information processing by markets, please see Timmerman, Allan and Clive W.J. Granger (2004), “Efficient market hypothesis and forecasting,” International Journal of Forecasting, 20:1, pp. 15 27. 3    Please see PwC’s Mine 2020, Resilient and Resourceful, June 2020 report for discussion of miners’ capex intensions. 4    We would note in passing OPEC 2.0 – the oil-production coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – faces a similar problem in our estimation: It is attempting to sharply lower crude oil output against a highly stimulative global fiscal and monetary backdrop.  The risk that the stimulus is insufficient to revive demand is very real, but a faster-than-expected recovery would spike prices to the upside if demand revives before the producer coalition can increase supply sufficiently to absorb that demand. 5    Please see Libya's NOC confirms international talks on resuming oil output published by reuters.com June 29, 2020..     Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q1 Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20 Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2020 Summary of Trades Closed Trades Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20 Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20

Highlights Treasuries: Keep portfolio duration close to benchmark on a 6-12 month horizon, but continue to hold tactical overlay positions that will profit from modestly higher bond yields: Overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold duration-neutral nominal curve steepeners, hold real yield curve steepeners. IG Tech: Given our positive outlook for investment grade corporate bond spreads, the Technology sector’s high credit rating and defensive characteristics make it decidedly un-compelling. However, Tech spreads are attractive compared to other A-rated corporate bonds. HY Tech: We want to focus our high-yield allocation on defensive sectors where a large proportion of issuers are able to benefit from Fed support. The high-yield Technology sector checks both of those boxes and offers attractive risk-adjusted compensation to boot. Feature Chart 1Three Treasury Trades Three Treasury Trades Three Treasury Trades As we have previously written, bond yields should move modestly higher over the course of the summer as the US economy re-opens.1 However, there are enough potential medium-term pitfalls related to US politics and COVID transmission that we aren’t yet comfortable with below-benchmark portfolio duration. Instead, we recommend that investors keep portfolio duration close to benchmark on a 6-12 month horizon, but add three tactical overlay positions that will profit from higher bond yields: Overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries Duration-neutral nominal Treasury curve steepeners Real yield curve steepeners All three of these positions have performed well during the past couple of months (Chart 1), and in the first section of this report we assess whether they have further to run. The remaining two sections of this week’s report consider the outlooks for investment grade and high-yield Technology bonds, respectively. Three Trades To Profit From Higher Yields 1) Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart 2Adaptive Expectations Model Adaptive Expectations Model Adaptive Expectations Model TIPS breakeven inflation rates have moved up considerably since mid-March. Back then, the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate troughed at 0.50%. It currently sits at 1.31%. Despite the large move, TIPS breakeven inflation rates still have a considerable amount of upside. One way to assess how much is through the lens of our Adaptive Expectations Model (Chart 2).2 This model considers several different measures of inflation expectations (based on realized CPI inflation and surveys) and uses the difference between those measures of inflation expectations and the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate to forecast the future 12-month change in the 10-year TIPS breakeven. At present, the model forecasts that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will rise 23 bps during the next 12 months, bringing it to 1.54%. It’s important to note that our model is biased towards measures of longer-run inflation expectations. As a result, it can be surprised from time to time by large fluctuations in drivers of short-term inflation expectations, like the oil price. This year’s massive drop in oil – and concurrent decline in headline inflation – were the main factors that caused the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate to fall so far below our model’s fair value. However, as we discussed in last week’s report, the oil price looks to have troughed and there is preliminary evidence that we might also be past the lowest point for headline CPI.3 Profit from rising bond yields by entering a duration-neutral yield curve steepener. We see TIPS continuing to outperform nominal Treasuries over both short- and long-run horizons. 2) Duration-Neutral Yield Curve Steepeners Chart 3Stick With Steepeners Stick With Steepeners Stick With Steepeners Another way to profit from rising bond yields without taking a large duration bet is via a duration-neutral yield curve steepener. One example would be a long position in the 5-year note and a short position in a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. Alternatively, you could use the 2-year note and 30-year bond as the two legs of the barbell. These sorts of duration-matched trades where you take a long position in a bullet maturity near the middle of the curve and go short the wings are designed to perform well in periods of yield curve steepening.4  In the current environment, where dovish Fed guidance has dampened volatility at the front-end of the yield curve, any bond sell-off will be felt disproportionately at the long-end, leading to a steeper curve. The only problem with this proposed trade is that it is no longer cheap. The spread between the 5-year bullet and 2/10 barbell is -6 bps and the spread relative to the 2/30 barbell is -3 bps (Chart 3). What’s more, the 5-year bullet trades expensive relative to the 2/10 and 2/30 barbells, according to our fair value models (Chart 3, bottom panel). However, for the time being we are inclined to overlook stretched valuations. The 5-year bullet does appear expensive but it has been more expensive in the past, most notably during the last zero-lower-bound episode from 2010 to 2013. Similar to then, the market is now priced for an extended period of a zero fed funds rate. We would not be surprised to see bullets become much more expensive in that sort of environment, and possibly even return to extended 2010-2013 valuations.   We recommend holding onto duration-neutral yield curve steepeners, despite unattractive valuations. Specifically, we favor going long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. 3) Real Yield Curve Steepeners Chart 4Higher Inflation Means Steeper Real Yield Curve Higher Inflation Means Steeper Real Yield Curve Higher Inflation Means Steeper Real Yield Curve The final position we recommend is a steepener along the real yield curve. We first recommended this trade on April 28 when a plunge in oil (and spike in deflationary sentiment) caused the real 2-year yield to jump to 0.28% compared to a real 10-year yield of -0.70%.5 Since then, the real 2-year yield has collapsed to -1% compared to a real 10-year yield of -0.87%. Although the real 2-year/10-year slope is once again positive, it has typically been higher during the past few years (Chart 4). We therefore expect further steepening as long as the oil price and headline inflation continue to recover from April’s lows. Much like during the 2008/09 financial crisis, the combination of the Fed’s zero-lower-bound forward guidance and a massive drop in both oil and headline inflation caused short-dated real yields to jump. Subsequently, this led to a massive steepening of the real yield curve, once the oil price and headline inflation started to recover. We believe that same dynamic is playing out today. Investors should continue to hold real yield curve steepeners, at least until rebounding oil and headline CPI return short-dated inflation expectations to more reasonable levels. Investment Grade Tech Risk Profile Technology accounts for 9% of the overall Bloomberg Barclays investment grade corporate index, which makes it the second biggest industry group, after Banking. Its large index weight is due to the presence of three tech giants: Microsoft (Aaa-rated), Apple (Aa-rated) and Oracle (A-rated) which, combined, constitute 38% of the Tech sector.  Investment grade Technology is a highly defensive corporate bond sector. In sharp contrast with the equity market, Technology is a highly defensive corporate bond sector. That is, it tends to outperform the overall corporate bond index during periods of spread widening and underperform during periods of spread tightening. This largely comes down to the fact that Tech has a higher credit rating than the overall corporate index. Twenty five percent of the Tech sector’s market cap carries a Aaa or Aa rating compared to just 9% for the overall index (Chart 5). Further, of the high-flying FAANG stocks that garner a lot of attention from equity analysts, only Apple is a significant presence in the Technology bond index.6 Chart 5Investment Grade Credit Rating Distributions* Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds Chart 6IG Technology Risk ##br##Profile IG Technology Risk Profile IG Technology Risk Profile The Tech sector’s defensive nature is confirmed by looking at its duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio and historical excess returns (Chart 6).7 The sector’s DTS ratio is consistently below 1.0, and its excess returns show a clear pattern of outperformance during periods of spread widening and underperformance during periods of spread tightening. Valuation In terms of valuation, although the Tech sector does not offer a spread advantage over the corporate index – which should be expected given its higher credit rating – we find that it trades cheap relative to its comparable credit tier (Table 1). Tech offers an option-adjusted spread of 115 bps versus 111 bps for the A-rated corporate index, and the sector still appears attractive after controlling for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread. In absolute terms, Tech sector spreads are just above their median since 2010. The A-rated corporate index spread currently sits right on top of its post-2010 median. Table 1IG Technology Valuation Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds Balance Sheet Health Chart 7IG Technology Debt Growth IG Technology Debt Growth IG Technology Debt Growth The Technology sector added a large amount of debt during the last recovery. The par value of the Tech index’s outstanding debt has grown 5.2 times since 2010 compared to 2.4 times for the benchmark. As a result, Tech’s weight in the corporate index has more than doubled, from 4% to 9% (Chart 7). However, earnings have done a pretty good job of keeping pace with the large increase in debt. The market cap-weighted net debt-to-EBITDA ratio for the investment grade Tech index is only 2.4, and the sector’s average credit rating has been stable since 2010. At the individual issuer level, there are 58 issuers in the Tech index and only 4 currently have a negative ratings outlook from Moody’s (Appendix B). What’s more, of the 16 Tech sector ratings that Moody’s has reviewed this year, 12 have been affirmed with a stable outlook, 1 was assigned a positive outlook and only 3 were assigned negative outlooks. Macro Considerations Chart 8Technology Sector Macro Drivers Technology Sector Macro Drivers Technology Sector Macro Drivers The Tech sector can be split into three major segments that have distinct macro drivers: Software (26% of Tech index market cap, includes Microsoft and Oracle) Hardware (29% of Tech index market cap, includes Apple, IBM and Dell) Semiconductors (24% of Tech index market cap, includes Intel and Avago Technologies) Software investment has been in a structural bull market for many years, and should remain resilient during the COVID recession as demand for remote working solutions increases. While we only have data through the end of March, software investment did not see the same collapse as other sectors during the first quarter (Chart 8). The Hardware and Semiconductor segments are more cyclical and geared toward manufacturing. As such, their macro outlooks were already challenged pre-COVID, due to the US/China trade war and manufacturing downturn of 2019. Both US computer exports and global semiconductor sales were showing signs of life near the end of last year, but were decimated when the pandemic struck in 2020 (Chart 8, panels 3 & 4). A revival in this space is contingent upon continued gradual re-opening and a return to economic growth. More optimistically, US consumer spending on personal computers and peripheral equipment has not fallen as much as broad consumer spending during the past few months (Chart 8, bottom panel). In the long-run, the 5G smartphone rollout is a significant structural tailwind for both semiconductor issuers and Apple. Meanwhile, the threat of significant regulatory crackdown on Tech firms remains a long-run risk. Our sense is that any push toward stricter regulations won’t have that much impact on Technology bond returns. This is because the subjects of most lawmaker scrutiny – Facebook, Amazon and Google – are largely absent from the Bloomberg Barclays Tech index. Investment Conclusions We expect that investment grade corporate bond spreads will tighten during the next 6-12 months. Against this positive back-drop, investors should focus exposure on cyclical (lower-rated) sectors that offer greater expected returns. With that in mind, the Tech sector’s high credit rating and defensive characteristics make it decidedly un-compelling. However, Tech does offer a slight spread advantage compared to other A-rated bonds and the macro back-drop is reasonably supportive. We would therefore recommend Tech bonds to investors looking for some A-rated corporate bond exposure. But in general, we prefer the greater spreads on offer from sectors that occupy the high-quality Baa space, such as subordinate bank debt.8 High-Yield Tech Risk Profile High-Yield Technology’s credit rating profile is similar to that of the overall benchmark, but with a slightly larger presence of low-rated (Caa & below) issuers (Chart 9). The largest issuers in the space are Dell (5.7% of Tech index market cap, Ba-rated), MSCI Inc. (5.1% of Tech index market cap, Ba-rated, see copyright declaration) and CommScope (8.1% of Tech index market cap, B-rated). High-yield Tech recently transitioned from being a cyclical sector to a defensive one. Interestingly, the high-yield Tech sector recently transitioned from being a cyclical sector to a defensive one. The sector behaved cyclically during the 2008 recession, underperforming the index when spreads widened and outperforming when they tightened. But Tech then outperformed the High-Yield index during the spread widening episodes of 2015 and 2020. Based on the sector’s low DTS ratio, this defensive behavior should persist for the next 12 months (Chart 10). Chart 9High-Yield Credit Rating Distributions* Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds Chart 10HY Technology Risk Profile HY Technology Risk Profile HY Technology Risk Profile Valuation The High-Yield Technology option-adjusted spread (OAS) is significantly lower than the average OAS for the benchmark High-Yield index. However, it offers a spread premium compared to other Ba-rated issuers (Table 2). Adjusting for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread makes high-yield Tech look significantly more attractive. The high-yield Tech spread would have to widen by 146 bps for the sector to underperform duration-matched Treasuries during the next 12 months. This compares to 96 bps for other Ba-rated issuers and 152 bps for the overall junk index. Table 2HY Technology Valuation Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds It is apparent that the Tech sector’s low average duration (Chart 10, bottom panel) is a major reason for its relatively tight OAS. On a risk-adjusted basis, high-yield Tech valuation actually appears quite compelling, with a 12-month breakeven spread only 6 bps below that of the overall index. Balance Sheet Health Chart 11HY Technology Debt Growth HY Technology Debt Growth HY Technology Debt Growth The amount of outstanding high-yield Technology debt has grown a bit more rapidly than overall junk index debt since 2010 (Chart 11). As a result, Technology’s weight in the index has increased from 5% in 2010 to 6% today. At the issuer level, the Tech sector should benefit from having a large number of issuers that will be able to take advantage of the Fed’s Main Street Lending facilities. To be eligible for the Main Street facilities, issuers must have less than 15000 employees or less than $5 billion in 2019 revenue. Also, the issuers must be able to keep their Debt-to-EBITDA ratios below 6.0, including any new debt added through the Main Street programs. Of the 43 high-yield Tech issuers with available data, we estimate that 30 are eligible to receive support from the Main Street facilities (Appendix C). This even includes 11 out of the 16 B-rated issuers. Typically, we don’t expect that many B-rated issuers will be eligible for the Main Street facilities, which makes this result encouraging for Tech sector spreads. Investment Conclusions We recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield Technology bonds. As we wrote last week, high-yield spreads appear too tight if we ignore the impact of the Fed’s emergency lending facilities and consider only the fundamental credit back-drop.9 With that in mind, we want to focus our high-yield allocation on defensive sectors where a large proportion of issuers able to benefit from Fed support. The Technology sector checks both of those boxes and offers attractive risk-adjusted compensation to boot. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 3Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds Appendix B Table 4Investment Grade Technology Issuers Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds Appendix C Table 5High-Yield Technology Issuers Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso Senior Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bonds Vulnerable As North America Re-Opens”, dated May 26, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For an explanation of why this works please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Of the other FAANG stocks: Google accounts for just 0.5% of Tech bond sector market cap, Facebook has close to no debt, Amazon is included in the Consumer Cyclical corporate bond index and Netflix is included in the Media: Entertainment sector of the High-Yield index. 7 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007. 8 For more details on our recommendation to overweight subordinate bank bonds please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Despite the strong rally in stocks since mid-March and a looming second wave of the pandemic, we continue to recommend that investors overweight equities on a 12-month horizon. Needless to say, this view has raised some eyebrows. With that in mind, this week we present a Q&A from the perspective of a skeptical reader who does not fully share our enthusiasm. Q: You said last week that a second wave of the pandemic is now your base case, yet you’re still sticking with your positive 12-month equity view. Why? A: A second wave of the pandemic, along with uncertainty about how the coming fiscal cliff in the US will be resolved, could unnerve investors temporarily. Nevertheless, we expect global equities to rise by about 10% from current levels over the next 12 months, handily outperforming bonds. While low interest rates and copious amounts of cash on the sidelines will provide a supportive backdrop for stocks, the main impetus for higher equity prices will be a recovery in economic activity and corporate profits. Q: It is hard to see the economy recovering very much if there is a second wave. A: It is important to get the arrow of causation right. Part of the reason we expect a second wave is because we think policymakers will continue to relax lockdown measures even if, as has already occurred in a number of US states, the infection rate rises. Granted, a second wave will moderate the pace at which containment measures can be dismantled. It will also prompt people to engage in more social distancing. Thus, a second wave would make the economic recovery slower than it otherwise would have been. However, it is doubtful that growth will grind to a halt. The appetite for continued lockdowns has clearly waned. For better or for worse, most western nations will follow the “Swedish model” of trying to limit the spread of the virus without imposing draconian restrictions on society. Chart 1CBO Projects The Unemployment Rate Will Fall Very Slowly CBO Projects The Unemployment Rate Will Fall Very Slowly CBO Projects The Unemployment Rate Will Fall Very Slowly Q: Even if the Swedish model works, and I doubt it will, we are still in a very deep economic hole. The unemployment rate in many countries is the highest since the Great Depression. The Congressional Budget Office does not foresee the US unemployment rate falling below 5% until 2028. A return to positive growth seems like a very low bar for success. We may need many years of above-trend growth just to get back to the pre-pandemic level of GDP! A: The Congressional Budget Office is too pessimistic in assuming that the recovery will be as sluggish as the one following the Great Recession (Chart 1). That recovery was weighed down by the need to repair household balance sheets after the bursting of a debt-fueled housing bubble. The current downturn was caused by external forces – an exogenous shock in econospeak. Historically, recoveries following exogenous shocks have tended to be more rapid than recoveries following recessions that were instigated by endogenous problems. Q: That may be so, but Wall Street is already penciling in a very rapid recovery. Last I checked, analysts expect S&P 500 earnings next year to be close to where they were last year. A: One has to be careful when comparing earnings estimates with economic growth projections. Chart 2 shows a breakdown of S&P 500 EPS estimates by sector. Appendix A also shows the evolution of these estimates over time. While analysts expect overall earnings per share (EPS) to return to last year’s levels in 2021, this is mainly because of the resilient profit outlook in the technology and health care sectors (the two biggest sectors in the S&P 500 by market cap). Outside those two sectors, EPS in 2021 is expected to be down 8.6% from 2019 levels, or 11.2% in real terms. Chart 2Breakdown Of S&P 500 EPS Estimates By Sector Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A If one looks at the cyclically-sensitive industrials sector, earnings are projected to fall by 16% between 2019 and 2021. Energy sector earnings are projected to decline by 65%. Earnings in the consumer discretionary sector are expected to decline by 8%, despite the fact that Amazon accounts for nearly half of the sector by market cap.1 This suggests that analysts are expecting more of a U-shaped economic recovery than a V-shaped one. Chart 3The Present Value Of Earnings: A Scenario Analysis Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Q: Fair enough, but I am ultimately more interested in what the market is pricing in than what analysts are expecting. It seems to me that stock prices have rebounded much more rapidly than one would have anticipated based on the evolution in earnings estimates. A: That is true, but it is important to keep in mind that the fair value of the stock market does not solely depend on the expected path of earnings. It also depends on the discount rate we use to deflate those earnings. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that S&P 500 earnings only manage to reach $144 per share next year (10% below current consensus) and take five years to return to their pre-pandemic trend. All things equal, such a decline in earnings would reduce the present value of stocks by 4.2% relative to what it was at the start of the year (Chart 3). However, all things are not equal. The US 30-year Treasury yield, adjusted for inflation, has declined by 59 basis points this year. If we use this real yield as a proxy for the discount rate, the fair value of the S&P has actually increased by 8.7% since January 1st, despite the decline in earnings. Q: I think you’re doing a bit of a bait and switch here. You’re assuming that earnings estimates return to trend by the middle of the decade, but that long-term bond yields remain broadly unchanged over this period. If the economy and corporate earnings recover, won’t bond yields just go back to where they were last year, if not higher? A: Not necessarily. Conceptually, there is not a one-to-one mapping between interest rates and the full-employment level of aggregate demand.2 For example, consider a case where an adverse economic shock hits the economy, making households and businesses more reluctant to spend. If that were all there was to the story, the stock market would go down. But there is more to the story than that. Suppose the central bank cuts interest rates in response to this shock, which boosts demand by enough to return the economy to full employment. Now we have a new equilibrium where the level of demand – and by extension, the level of corporate profits – is the same as before but interest rates are lower. The fair value of the stock market has gone up! Q: Hold on. Central banks came into this recession with little fire power left. I agree that their actions have helped the stock market, but they have not been enough to rehabilitate the economy. A: Good point. That is where the role of fiscal policy comes in. One of the unsung benefits of lower interest rates is that they have incentivised governments to borrow more at a time when the economy needs all the fiscal support it can get. As Chart 4 shows, the fiscal response during this year’s downturn has been significantly larger than during the Great Recession. Thus, it is more correct to say that the combination of lower interest rates and fiscal easing have conceivably increased the fair value of the stock market. Chart 4Fiscal Stimulus Is Greater Today Than It Was During The Great Recession Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Q:  And yet despite all this fiscal and monetary support, GDP remains depressed. A: The point of the stimulus was not to raise output or employment. It was to keep households and businesses solvent during a time when their regular flow of income had dried up. Q: If households and businesses did not spend much of that money, where did it go? A: Much of it remains in the banking system. The US savings rate shot up to 33% in April. As Chart 5 illustrates, this was almost perfectly mirrored by the increase in bank deposits. Anyone who claims that savings have nothing to do with deposits should study this chart. Chart 5Lots Of Savings Slushing Around Lots Of Savings Slushing Around Lots Of Savings Slushing Around   Chart 6Stocks That Are Popular With Retail Investors Are Outperforming Stocks That Are Popular With Retail Investors Are Outperforming Stocks That Are Popular With Retail Investors Are Outperforming Q: And now, I suppose, these deposits are flowing into the stock market? A: Correct. That is one reason why stocks popular with retail investors have outperformed the S&P 500 by 30% since mid-March (Chart 6). Q: Have these retail flows really been important enough to matter? A: They have probably been more important than widely portrayed. Many of the online brokerages touting zero-commission trades make their money by selling order flow to hedge funds. Thus, the trading of individuals is magnified by the trading of institutional investors. More liquid markets tend to generate higher prices. There is also another subtle multiplier effect worth considering. You mentioned that money was “flowing into the stock market.” Technically speaking, “flow” is not the best word to use. For the most part, if I decide to buy some shares, someone else has to sell me their shares. On a net basis, there is no inflow of cash into the stock market. Rather, what happens is that my buy order lifts the price of the shares by enough to entice someone to sell their shares. Thus, if retail investors bid up the price of stocks to the point that institutions are forced to sell, those institutions are now left with excess cash that they have to deploy elsewhere in the stock market. As the value of investors’ stock portfolios rises, the percentage of their net worth held in cash falls. This game of hot potato only ends when the percentage of cash held by investors shrinks to a level that is consistent with their preferences. Importantly, this means that changes in the amount of cash on the sidelines can have a “multiplier” effect on stock prices. For example, if cash holdings go up by a dollar, and people want to hold ten times as much stock as cash, then stock market capitalization has to go up by ten dollars. Q: How far along are we in this game of hot potato? A: Despite the rally in stocks since mid-March, cash held in money market funds and savings deposits is still 10% higher as a share of market capitalization than at the start of the year. This suggests that the firepower to fuel further increases in the stock market has not been fully spent. Chart 7Equity Risk Premium Is Still Quite High Equity Risk Premium Is Still Quite High Equity Risk Premium Is Still Quite High Q: Wouldn’t you think that after a pandemic people would be more risk-averse and hence inclined to hold more cash? A: That would be a logical assumption, but it is not clear whether it is empirically true. There is some evidence from the psychological literature that people who survive life-threatening events tend to become less risk averse rather than more risk averse after the event has passed.3 A pandemic seems to qualify as a life-threatening event. In any case, when considering the equity risk premium, we should not only think about the riskiness of stocks; we should also think about the riskiness of bonds. Bond yields are near record lows. To the extent that yields cannot fall much from current levels, this makes bonds a less attractive hedge against downside economic news than they once were. So perhaps the equity risk premium, which is still quite high, should actually be lower than it currently is (Chart 7). Q: It seems that much of your optimism is based on the assumption that policy will stay stimulative. On the monetary side, that seems like a safe assumption. However, as you yourself mentioned at the outset, there is a risk that stocks will be upended by a premature tightening in fiscal policy. A: This is indeed a risk. In the US, the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) will run out of funds over the coming month. The additional $600 per week in benefits that jobless workers are receiving will expire on July 31st, causing average unemployment payments to fall by about 60%. Direct payments to households have also ceased. Together, these three fiscal measures amount to about 5.5% of GDP. Furthermore, most states begin their fiscal year on July 1st. Despite receiving $275 billion in federal aid, they are still facing a roughly $250 billion (1.2% of GDP) financing shortfall in the coming fiscal year, which could force widespread layoffs. The good news is that both Republicans and Democrats want to avert this fiscal cliff. While negotiations over the next stimulus package could unnerve investors for a while, they will ultimately culminate in a deal. The Democrats want more spending, as does the White House. And if public opinion polls are to be believed, congressional Republicans will also cave in to voter demands for continued fiscal largess (Table 1). Table 1There Is Much Public Support For Fiscal Stimulus Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Q: It seems to me that the fiscal cliff is not the only political risk to worry about. Tensions with China are running high and there is domestic unrest in many cities around the world. Even if fiscal policy remains accommodative, President Trump will probably lose in November. This makes a repeal of his tax cuts more likely than not. A: It is true that betting markets now expect Joe Biden to become president (Chart 8). They also expect Democrats to regain control of the Senate. My personal view is that Trump has a better chance of being reelected than implied by betting markets. While the protests have hurt Trump’s favorability ratings in recent weeks, ongoing unrest could help him, given his claim of being the “law and order” president. It is worth recalling that after falling for more than 20 years, the nationwide homicide rate spiked by 23% between 2014 and 2016 following protests in cities such as St. Louis and Baltimore (Chart 9). This arguably helped Trump get elected, just like the Watts Riot in Los Angeles helped Ronald Reagan get elected as Governor of California in 1966. Chart 8Betting Markets Now Expect Joe Biden To Become President Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A If Senator Biden were to prevail, then yes, Trump’s corporate tax cuts would be in jeopardy. A full repeal of the Trump tax cuts would reduce EPS of S&P 500 companies by about 12%. Chart 9Continued Unrest May Help Trump, As It Has In The Past Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A However, it is possible that Democrats would choose to only partially reverse the corporate tax cuts, while also lifting taxes on higher-income households. One should also note that trade tensions with China would probably diminish under a Biden presidency, which would be a mitigating factor for equity investors. Chart 10Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers... And A Weaker Dollar Should Also Help Non-US Stocks Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers... And A Weaker Dollar Should Also Help Non-US Stocks Cyclical Sectors Should Outperform Defensives As Global Growth Recovers... And A Weaker Dollar Should Also Help Non-US Stocks Q: So to sum up, you are still bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon, although you see some near-term risks stemming from the likelihood of a second wave of the pandemic and uncertainty about how and when the fiscal cliff problem in the US will be resolved. What are your favorite sectors, regions, and styles? A: Cyclical sectors should outperform defensives over the next 12 months as global growth recovers. Cyclicals are overrepresented outside the US, which should favor overseas markets. A weaker dollar should also help non-US stocks (Chart 10). The dollar generally trades as a countercyclical currency, implying that it will sell off as global growth recovers. Moreover, unlike last year, the greenback no longer enjoys the benefit of higher interest rates than those abroad. In terms of style, value should outperform growth. Growth stocks have done very well in a falling interest rate environment (Chart 11). However, interest rates cannot fall much further from current levels. Small caps should outperform large caps, both because small caps are more growth-sensitive and because they tend to be more popular among day traders. Google searches for “day trading” have spiked in the past few months (Chart 12). Chart 11Interest Rates Cannot Fall Much Lower From Current Levels, Which Will Allow Value To Outperform Growth Interest Rates Cannot Fall Much Lower From Current Levels, Which Will Allow Value To Outperform Growth Interest Rates Cannot Fall Much Lower From Current Levels, Which Will Allow Value To Outperform Growth Chart 12Day Trading Is Back In Vogue These Days Day Trading Is Back In Vogue These Days Day Trading Is Back In Vogue These Days Beyond the pure macro plays, the pandemic could lead to a number of unexpected changes that have yet to be fully discounted by markets. For example, we will likely see a surge in the demand for automobiles as people shun public transit. The pandemic could also accelerate the reshoring of manufacturing activity, particularly in the health care sector. Contract manufacturing companies with significant domestic operations will benefit. Additionally, more people will move to the suburbs to work from home and escape the virus and rising crime. This could boost the demand for new houses and lift suburban real estate prices. Since most suburbs are built on top of land previously zoned for agriculture, farmland prices could also rise. Appendix A Evolution Of S&P 500 EPS Estimates By Sector Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Amazon EPS is projected to rise by 54% between 2019 and 2021, from 11% of overall consumer discretionary earnings to 19%. 2 One can see this within the context of the IS-LM model that is taught to economics undergraduates. If the LM curve shifts outward while the IS curve shifts inward, one could end up with the situation where aggregate demand is the same as before, but the equilibrium interest rate is lower. 3  For example, Gennaro Bernile, Vineet Bhagwat, and P. Raghavendra Rau investigated the link between the intensity of early-life experiences on CEO’s attitudes towards risk. Their results suggest that CEOs who witnessed extreme levels of fatal natural disasters appear more cautious in approaching risk. In contrast, those that experience disasters without very negative consequences become desensitized to risk. For details, please see Gennaro Bernile, Vineet Bhagwat, and P. Raghavendra Rau, “What Doesn't Kill You Will Only Make You More Risk-Loving: Early-Life Disasters and CEO Behavior,“ The Journal of Finance, (72:1) February 2017.   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Current MacroQuant Model Scores Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A Our Bullish 12-Month Equity View: A Skeptical Q&A