Developed Countries

Highlights A currency portfolio comprised of the US dollar, the Japanese yen and the Norwegian krone is likely to outperform a more diversified basket over multiple macroeconomic scenarios. Our work suggests that valuation matters for currencies over the long term. The cheapest currencies in our universe are the Norwegian krone, the Swedish krona and the Japanese yen, although the pound and euro are also attractive. Tactical investors should remain short the DXY index, but also have a higher concentration of dollar-neutral trades given the uncertainty surrounding global growth. Feature A currency investor can construct a long-term portfolio based on three criteria. The first task is to figure out what macroeconomic environment she or he is residing in. During inflationary periods, “hard” currencies tend to do best, since they are usually associated with countries where the private sector is running surpluses. The lack of excess demand in these countries leads to lower inflation, which tends to boost real rates. Examples in recent history include the deutschemark during the 1970s or the Japanese yen throughout most of the ‘80s. In a disinflationary world, the high-yielders tend to be the outperformers. This is not only because the lack of an inflationary pulse leads to very positive real rates, but these are also the countries that tend to be at the forefront of the disinflationary boom, leading to rising demand for their currencies. For example, the 2000s saw emerging market and commodity currencies as the outperformers on the back of a resources boom, while the ‘90s saw the dollar rise on the back of a US productivity boom. Over the long term, a currency portfolio should include a combination of both “hard” and carry currencies. Over the long term, a currency portfolio should include a combination of both “hard” and carry currencies, with the weights adjusted based on investor preferences. For example, the risk to the world economy today remains deflation. Looking at core inflation across countries, most prints are below the magical 2% target level (Chart I-1).  Inflation aside, the biggest catalyst for an investor to favor the disinflationary camp is the sequence of events we have experienced over the last two years – a trade war, Chinese deleveraging, a protracted economic expansion, bear markets in everything from sugar futures to energy stocks, and a virus outbreak. With the US 10-year versus 3-month yield curve having inverted anew, the obvious corollary is that a recession in the next few years (even of the stagflationary variety), will benefit the “hard” currencies. If we assume that the US 10-year CPI swap is a good reflection of investors’ perceptions of an inflationary versus deflationary world, then there are two crucial observations today. The first is that the British pound is the currency most attune to inflation today, while the Japanese yen thrives in deflation (Chart I-2). The second is that both the US dollar and the euro have been very indifferent to inflationary or deflationary risks over the past three years (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Using a very simple rule, an equally weighted basket of the British pound, US dollar1 and Japanese yen will make sense in this macroeconomic framework Chart I-1A Big F For Central ##br##Banks Chart I-2Inflation And Deflation Protection Are Important The Value Factor Our work suggests that valuation matters for currencies over the long term, a point we will discuss in an upcoming report. Therefore, the next challenge in building a protective portfolio is choosing currencies with the potential for long-term appreciation. While we look at a wide swathe of currency valuation models, we tend to adhere to the very simple and time-tested purchasing power parity (PPP) model. Our in-house PPP models have made two crucial adjustments. In order to get closer to an apples-to-apples comparison across countries, we divide the consumer price index (CPI) baskets into five major groups. In most cases, this breakdown captures 90% of the national CPI basket: food, restaurants and hotels (1), shelter (2), health care (3), culture and recreation (4), and energy and transportation (5). The second adjustment is to run two regressions with the exchange rate as the dependent variable. The first regression (call it REG1) uses the relative price ratios of the five subgroups grouped as independent variables. This allows us to observe the most influential price ratios that help explain variations in the exchange rate. The second regression (call it REG2) uses a weighted-average combination of the five groups to form a synthetic relative price ratio. If, for example, shelter is 33% in the US CPI basket, but 19% in the Swedish CPI basket, relative shelter prices will represent 26% of the combined price ratio. This allows for a uniform cross-sectional comparison, compared to using the national CPI weights. Our in-house PPP models have made two crucial adjustments. The results show that the cheapest currencies today are the Swedish krona, the Norwegian krone and the Japanese yen (Chart I-3). This is good news. The Japanese yen was already favored in our simple macroeconomic framework, and so it remains in the portfolio. However, given that the Swedish krona, the Norwegian krone, and the British pound tend to be highly correlated, it may be useful to reduce the list. Of all three, the Norwegian krone has the same macroeconomic attributes as the pound (most correlated to rising nominal rates), but comes at a cheaper price (Chart I-4). And so, it replaces the British pound in the portfolio. Chart I-3Lots Of Value In NOK, SEK And JPY Chart I-4NOK And USD Remain Carry Currencies The Sentiment Factor Sentiment is difficult to measure in currency markets, since it is hard to find an exhaustive list that encompasses investor biases. Speculative positioning tends to be our favorite contrarian indicator, but has limitations as a timing tool. Meanwhile, certain currencies tend to be momentum plays, while others are mean-reversion plays. In general, when both positioning and momentum are at an extreme and rolling over, this is generally a potent signal for a currency cross. Being long Treasurys and the dollar has been a consensus trade for many years now. According to CFTC data, this has been expressed mostly through the aussie and the yen, although our bias is that the Swedish krona and Norwegian krone have been the real victims (Chart I-5). That said, long positioning in the dollar has been greatly reduced over the past several weeks. Flow data supports this view. Net foreign purchases of US Treasurys by private investors are still positive, but the momentum of these flows is clearly rolling over. This is being more than offset by official net outflows. As interest rate differentials have started moving against the US, so has foreign investor appetite for Treasury bonds. Being long Treasurys and the dollar has been a consensus trade for many years now. The US dollar is a momentum currency, and the crossover between the 50-day and 200-day moving average has been good at signaling shifts in its intermediate trend (Chart I-6). Despite the recent uptick in the DXY, this still suggests downside in the coming months. Chart I-5Lots Of USD Longs Chart I-6Watch The DXY Technical Pattern So What? Chart I-7Who Will Be The Leaders In 2022? Regular readers of our bulletin are well aware that we are dollar bears. However, in constructing a currency portfolio that will stand resilient in the face of multiple macroeconomic shocks, our recommendation is an equal-weighted basket of the US dollar, the Japanese yen and the Norwegian krone. How has this protector portfolio performed over time? Not so well. Since the financial crisis, the basket has underperformed the DXY index, but has been relatively flat over the last half decade, while generating a positive carry (Chart I-7). In the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis, positive returns on the Norwegian krone and Japanese yen offset dollar weakness, an environment that could be replayed once global growth bottoms. Obviously, this requires further research. Portfolio Calibration Our portfolio strategy for the last half year or so has focused on dollar-neutral trades, given the uncertainty that has been grappling currency markets. Most of these trades are agnostic to the three fundamental factors outlined above. Stick with them. Long AUD/NZD: This is a play on rising terms of trade between Australia and New Zealand, as well as a much more advanced housing downturn in Australia. Over the past five years, the cross has fluctuated between 1.02 and 1.12, currently sitting at the lower bound of this range. Increased agricultural exports from the US to China will hurt New Zealand at the margin, but long-term Aussie LNG imports and coal exports to China should remain relatively resilient. Long AUD/CAD: It is becoming clearer that the People’s Bank of China has a stronger incentive to stimulate its economy relative to the Fed. This will benefit the Chinese and Australian economies at the margin, and by extension the AUD/CAD cross (Chart I-8).  Short CAD/NOK: A play on diverging oil fundamentals between North Sea crude and Canadian heavy oil. A swift rebound in the European economy relative to the US will also benefit this cross.  Short USD/JPY: A top recommendation for the protector portfolio. It is noteworthy that this cross has a strong positive correlation to rising gold prices (and falling real rates).  Long SEK/NZD: A mean reversion trade, primarily based on valuation and relative fundamentals. The latest PMI print suggests a meaningful improvement in the Swedish economy in the months ahead (Chart I-9).   Chart I-8Stay Long AUD/CAD Buy ##br##AUD/CAD Chart I-9Bet On A Swedish (And European) Recovery A Tentative Bottom In Euro Area Data Short USD/NOK: A top recommendation for the protector portfolio as well as a play on rising oil prices.  Ditto for the petrocurrency basket. Long EUR/CAD: A swift rebound in the European economy relative to the US will benefit this cross, similar to short CAD/NOK positions.  Short CHF/JPY: Low-cost portfolio insurance negatively correlated to rising yields, and a strong positive correlation to rising gold prices (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Yen Is Better Insurance   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  We use the USD/EUR exchange rate since the carry is positive. Returns are unhedged.  Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the US have been positive: The ISM manufacturing PMI soared to 50.9 while the Markit manufacturing PMI increased slightly to 51.9. The ISM non-manufacturing PMI increased to 55.5 and the Markit services PMI edged up to 53.4 in January. Nonfarm productivity grew by 1.4% quarter-on-quarter on an annualized basis in Q4 2019. Initial jobless claims fell to 202K from 217K for the week ended January 31st. The Johnson Redbook index of same-store sales grew by 5.7% year-on-year in January. The DXY index appreciated by 0.4% this week. In addition to coronavirus fears, a strong showing in domestic data has helped push up the USD. With the number of new coronavirus cases flattening outside of the Hubei province, it appears the rally in the DXY could end as early as mid to late-February. Report Links: Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been mixed: GDP growth fell to 0.1% year-on-year from 0.3% in Q4 2019. The Markit manufacturing PMI moved up slightly to 47.9 while the services PMI increased to 52.5 in January. Retail sales growth slowed to 1.3% year-on-year from 2.3% in December. Core CPI inflation decreased slightly to 1.1% in January. The euro depreciated by 0.3% against the US dollar this week. While retail sales disappointed, the manufacturing and services PMI numbers beat expectations, confirming our expectations for a global growth rebound. With a European green deal on the horizon, and interest rates near the lower bound of negative territory, the euro is poised for recovery. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been mixed: The Markit manufacturing PMI declined to 48.8 from 49.3 in January while the services PMI increased to 51 from 49.4. Passenger vehicle sales continued to contract, going down 11.5% year-on-year in January. Construction orders rebounded strongly by 21.4% year-on-year in December, moving out of contractionary territory. The contraction in housing starts slowed to 7.9% year-on-year in December. The Japanese yen depreciated by 0.8% against the US dollar this week. The contraction in passenger vehicle sales can be largely attributed to extensive damage from typhoon Hagibis and typhoon Faxai. However, the Japanese economy will be buoyed by strong construction growth ahead of the summer Olympics, putting a floor under our short USD/JPY hedge. Report Links: Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the UK have been positive: The Markit manufacturing PMI increased to 50 from 49.8 in January while the services PMI increased to 53.9 from 52.9. The GfK Group consumer confidence index ticked up to -9 from -11 in January. Consumer credit increased to GBP 1.22 billion in December from 0.66 billion in November. The British pound depreciated by 0.9% against the US dollar this week. In a speech delivered an hour before the UK left the European Union, PM Boris Johnson appeared defiant, rejecting EU rules on British industry and demanding a free trade agreement. Despite a decent uptick in the PMI numbers, the pound is weighed down by uncertainty about coming negotiations with the European Union. For option traders, pound volatility is set to rise. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been positive: The Markit manufacturing PMI increased to 49.6 from 49.1 while the services PMI increased to 50.6 from 48.9 in January. Building permits grew by 2.7% year-on-year in December, moving out of contractionary territory. Exports grew by 1% month-on-month in December, slowing slightly from a growth rate of 1.3% the previous month. The Australian dollar appreciated by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. Despite concerns about coronavirus, and the bushfires, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) decided to hold rates at 0.75%. The recovery in house prices now making its mark on building permits data, and the manufacturing PMI edging towards expansionary territory giving the RBA’s wiggle room in being patient. We are long AUD/NZD, AUD/CAD and AUD/USD. This makes a rebound in AUD one of our most potent bets. Stick with it. Report Links: On AUD And CNY - January 17, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been positive: Building permits soared by 9.9% month-on-month in December, from an 8.4% contraction the prior month.  The labor force participation rate moved down slightly to 70.1% in Q4 2019. The labor cost index grew by 2.4% year-on-year in Q4 2019, compared to growth of 2.3% in the previous quarter.  The unemployment rate fell slightly to 4% in Q4 2019. The New Zealand dollar depreciated by 0.2% against the US dollar this week. With the data remaining positive and cases of the coronavirus outside the Hubei province set to peak in the coming weeks, the downward pressure on the New Zealand Dollar should ease. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been solid: The Markit manufacturing PMI increased to 50.6 from 50.4 in January. Canadian GDP growth remained fairly flat at 0.1% month-on-month in November. Imports increased slightly to C$ 49.69 billion in December 2019 while exports moved up to C$ 48.38 billion. The raw material price index grew by 2.8% in December, picking up pace from November’s reading of 1.4%. The Canadian dollar depreciated by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. The growth in Canadian exports was led by crude oil exports, which posted a monthly gain of 18% following the resolution of a rupture in the Keystone pipeline in North Dakota. However, a widening trade deficit with countries other than the US will put downward pressure on the Canadian dollar at the crosses. Report Links: The Loonie: Upside Versus The Dollar, But Downside At The Crosses Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been mixed: The SVME manufacturing PMI decreased to 47.8 from 48.8 in January. Real retail sales grew by 0.1% year-on-year in December, slowing from 0.5% in November. The SECO consumer climate indicator for Q1 2020 printed slightly better at -9.4 from -10.3 in Q4 2019. The Swiss franc depreciated by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. Domestically, consumer sentiment was buoyed by the general outlook on economic growth. However, the outlook for households’ own budget remains gloomy. The decrease in global volatility will undermine the Swiss franc and with an uncertain domestic outlook, stealth intervention might be on the horizon. Report Links: Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been mixed: The credit indicator, which measures growth in private sector debt, grew by 5.1% year-on-year in December, slowing from 5.6% the previous month. Registered unemployment (NSA) increased to 2.4% from 2.2% the previous month. The Norwegian Krone depreciated by 0.3% against the US dollar this week. However, the dramatic plunge in the NOK over the last few weeks, which has mirrored a similar drop in the WTI oil price, has taken contrarian investors by surprise. Our Commodity & Energy Strategists currently expect OPEC to respond with additional cuts of 500k barrels per day. In addition, if coronavirus cases peak sooner than expected, this will quicken the recovery in Asian economies, bolstering oil demand and driving up prices. Remain short USD/NOK. Report Links: On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been mostly positive: The Swedbank manufacturing PMI soared to 51.5 from 47.7 in January. Industrial production contracted by 3.2% year-on-year in December, compared to growth of 0.1% the previous month. Manufacturing new orders contracted by 4.7% year-on-year in December, deepening the contraction of 1.8% in November. The Swedish Krona remained flat against the US dollar this week. As we noted last week, the Swedbank PMI has risen in lockstep with the business confidence number. It is now in expansionary territory for the first time since August of last year. Within the Swedbank survey, the sub-indices for new orders and production posted the largest gains. While the hard data on production and new orders for the month of December was disappointing, we expect it to follow the soft data upwards in the coming months as global growth concerns fade. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights Trump's odds are still only around 55%. Biden remains the frontrunner in the Democratic primary election, albeit a weak one. Sanders brings forward the risk to this view. Evidence does not suggest that Trump would beat Sanders in a landslide. Bloomberg’s “moment” is arriving but Biden and Buttigieg must fall for him to win. The Democrats will likely avoid a contested convention. If they don’t, Trump benefits. Expect equity volatility in the near term. The market must clear the coronavirus and Democratic primary hurdles before it can rally sustainably. Feature Chart 1China: Bad News, Then Stimulus Boost Over the past week we visited clients in New York and Toronto and debated a range of intriguing questions. The coronavirus impact was top of mind. The outbreak will delay the Chinese economic rebound we expected in the first quarter. It also reinforces one of our key geopolitical views on Chinese policy: bad news will be followed by good news in the form of increased stimulus (Chart 1). The problem is that this is good news for the second half of the year at best, while the near term is extremely murky. After the virus, the US election cycle was clearly the greatest source of policy uncertainty. Because clients asked so many questions on this topic, we devote this report to the election. We still expect US equity volatility in the near term. Aren’t Trump’s Odds Of Reelection Better Than 55%? No. Clients hardly raised an eyebrow this time when we argued that President Trump was favored to win reelection – a stark turnaround from just three months ago, when many believed that his goose was cooked. So much has the climate changed that many clients now argue that Trump’s odds have reached 70% and he is likely to win by a landslide. But that is going too far – according to the data. Certainly Trump is coming off a string of successes. So far this year he has deterred Iran, struck trade deals with the US’s top trading partners – China, Canada, and Mexico – and been acquitted of impeachment articles (Chart 2). The Republican-led Senate resisted a last-ditch effort to admit witnesses and prolong the impeachment trial, and few Republicans defected in the final vote.1 Chart 2Trump Acquittal: Political Constraints In Action Chart 3Trade Deals, Impeachment Boosted Trump Approval Trump’s approval rating hit its all-time high just as the Senate voted to acquit (Chart 3). The impeachment process backfired on the Democrats, a point corroborated by the recent shift in the public’s party identification that puts the Republicans right alongside the Democrats after a period in which they trailed (Chart 4). Just before his acquittal, the president delivered a State of the Union Address in which he rattled off a catalogue of record-setting, late-cycle economic statistics. Meanwhile the Democrats suffered a debacle at their first primary election, the Iowa caucus, when a rushed attempt to improve their digital savvy in the electoral process resulted in a software malfunction that delayed the announcement of election tallies. Nevertheless, the ballot is nine months away and the path to reelection is fraught with danger. First, President Trump has not yet proven that he can keep his approval rating in the upper 40s, let alone over 50%. A true game changer would be cracking 50% on a sustainable basis. If Trump slips beneath the 46% of the vote he received in 2016 his odds fall back toward 50%. Assuming the economy rebounds he cannot afford to slip much below his stable range of 43% and still win, according to the model. Second, the manufacturing sector is only just poking its head out of the woods, leaving the critical swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin hanging in the balance, albeit with positive news (Chart 5). Chart 4More Voters Identify As Republican Post-Impeachment Chart 5US Manufacturing Rebounding, But Watch For Virus Hit Our quantitative election model suggests the election is too close to call. Technically the model shows Trump slipping beneath the threshold for victory for the first time since we unveiled it in November (Chart 6). The reason is that the leading economic indicators in Wisconsin and especially Pennsylvania took a turn for the worse in December. These indicators are forward-looking – they predict the 6-month growth rate of the state coincident indexes, which include nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing by production workers, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index. Chart 6Quantitative Election Model Shows Election A Toss Up Chart 7Pennsylvania Job Growth A Risk To Trump Of course, the state leading indicators also tend to be heavily revised in subsequent prints, which can make our model volatile. Month-on-month total employment growth from the Bureau of Labor Statistics corroborates the shaky status of Pennsylvania, but not Wisconsin (Chart 7). This slight shift in our model from a Trump win to a Trump loss does not change our overall election forecast, which has a qualitative overlay. The point is that Trump is still skating on thin ice, the US manufacturing sector.2 Going forward, the US and global economy should continue improving, especially in the second half of the year. The demand shock emanating from the coronavirus outbreak in China should be temporary. The eventual rebound in Chinese demand combined with the lagged effect of China’s new stimulus measures will benefit US manufacturing states. The manufacturing sector’s woes are still a clear and present danger for Trump. Bottom Line: Trump is still favored but his odds of winning are still only 55% qualitatively. The election will remain a major source of uncertainty throughout the year. Investors need to be prepared for either outcome. Volatility is also frontloaded due to the coronavirus shock to the global economy. Is Biden Still The Frontrunner? Yes. Former Vice President Joe Biden bombed in the Iowa caucus, the first of the Democratic Party’s primary elections, coming in fourth place behind South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. He barely beat the sensible but uninspiring Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar (Chart 8). Chart 8Iowa: Buttigieg Surged, Biden Slumped Chart 9Biden Still The Democrats’ Frontrunner Traditionally Iowa delivers a polling boost to the victor, since it goes first and attracts attention disproportionate to its size. But this year the first-comer effect is largely moot because of the reporting debacle. Both Buttigieg’s win and Biden’s loss have been drowned out. This is consolation for Biden because he is far more competitive in later states than Buttigieg – he is in fact still the (weak) frontrunner in national polling (Chart 9). Biden also continues to lead our back-of-the-envelope projection of the delegates who will be pledged to candidates at the end of the primary election season on June 6 in Washington, DC. True, Biden is lined up for a plurality at best, not a majority. There are still plenty of “other” delegates to be redistributed, which could leave Biden in the dust if his polling breaks down due to a loss of momentum in the early states (Chart 10A). Nevertheless the centrist “lane” now has a commanding lead over the progressive lane for the first time in the race, creating our base case in which Biden wins a plurality of votes that translates into winning the nomination (Chart 10B). Chart 10ABiden Leads Back-Of-Envelope Delegate Count For Democratic Nomination Chart 10BCentrists Lead Back-Of-Envelope Delegate Count For Democratic Nomination If Biden continues to underperform his polling in New Hampshire and Nevada then he could stumble into a huge disappointment in South Carolina, his bulwark, on February 29 (Chart 11). As the first southern state, South Carolina is the bellwether for Super Tuesday, March 3, when about 35% of the delegates are up for grabs, 54% of which are southern (Chart 12). Anything that shakes Biden’s substantial lead in South Carolina sets him up for failure overall and pushes Sanders into the frontrunner position. Chart 11Biden’s Bulwark Is South Carolina Chart 12Biden’s ‘Southern Strategy’ Should Pay On Super Tuesday Sanders would then face an emerging centrist in the shape of Buttigieg or Bloomberg. (Or Warren will pivot to the center.) Aside from Biden’s lead in the national polling, and many of the southern and Midwestern states, he continues to benefit from a tailwind in that he is the more “electable” or competitive candidate against Trump. Head-to-head polls continue to bear this out (Chart 13). These polls will congeal around almost any candidate once he or she becomes the de facto nominee, but over the past year Biden has performed far better than any of the others. Chart 13Biden Beats Trump Head-To-Head In Every Swing State (So Far) Bottom Line: Anyone who wants to show their electability against Trump must first prove it by dethroning Biden. This could happen in February if Bernie Sanders generates runaway momentum in the early primaries, so the equity market faces major election risk imminently. Is A Sanders Nomination Suicide For The Democrats? Not Necessarily. Chart 14Sanders Generating Momentum In Early Primaries Sanders is only slightly less likely to win the Democratic nomination than Biden. He is clearly capable of doing so – he rivals Biden in the nationwide polling and surpasses him in the early states. Strong finishes in New Hampshire and Nevada are expected and could generate momentum that lasts through Super Tuesday and beyond (Chart 14). Ideologically Sanders is not unthinkable for most Democrats – the average Democrat is shifting to the left of the political spectrum (Chart 15). Most Biden supporters say Sanders is their second choice (Chart 16). Voters are interested in electability, so if Sanders can prove that he is more electable than Biden, voters will flock to him. Chart 15Democrats More Liberal Than In The Past Chart 16Biden Voters Support … Sanders! Thus the question of Sanders is more about the general election than the primary. “Movement candidates” like Alf Landon, Barry Goldwater, and George McGovern have racked up some of the most humiliating defeats in the history of US elections. The self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders has some of the defining traits – he has a movement, he is ideologically “pure” and outside the mainstream, and his nomination is a gamble on whether his youthful supporters’ enthusiasm will carry over to the general public. It is plausible that the Democratic Party could choose Sanders out of a desire to fight populist fire with fire, only to find that Trump overwhelmingly benefits from the stigma of socialism in the swing states. Sanders could still win the nomination and even the White House. So far, however, the evidence does not bear out this interpretation. The aforementioned Chart 13 shows that Sanders is second only to Biden against Trump. It is notable that he outperformed Hillary Clinton versus Trump in 2016 (Chart 17). He is specifically competitive against Trump in the Midwest swing states because of his ability to compete for the vote of the blue-collar worker. Thus he has a viable path to winning the Electoral College: the Clinton 2016 states plus Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Biden’s primary advantage, by this measure, is that he is also competitive in Florida as well as the Midwest, which broadens his Electoral College options. And while Sanders captivates the youth, Biden appeals to African Americans and moderates who turn out to vote more reliably (Chart 18). Chart 17Sanders Outperformed Hillary Versus Trump Chart 18Biden’s Supporters Have Higher Turnout Ultimately presidential elections are referendums on the incumbent party. Since World War II, incumbent parties have lost because of major shifts in the economic, social, or international context that discredit the current administration and drive voters to demand “regime change.” Sitting presidents strengthen the incumbent party and have only lost in a recessionary environment (1980, 1992) or a massive scandal (1976). And Trump’s scandal has been neutralized, for now, due to his acquittal in the Senate. Unless Trump suffers from a faltering economy, a policy humiliation at home or abroad, or a third party candidate who splits the Republican vote, he is unlikely to be discomfited. By the same token, if major changes occur, Sanders will be as good as or even better than Biden at riding the wave of disenchantment with the ruling party and its figurehead. PredictIt, the online betting site, currently puts Sanders at 29% chance of winning the White House, while Biden stands at 7%. Both are underrated given our assessment that Trump’s odds of election still stand at 55% and that he is only likely to fall as a result of economic weakness or an unforeseen policy humiliation. As things stand, either Biden or Sanders would see their chance of winning the White House rise toward 45% if they won the nomination. If Sanders wins the nomination, yet events all play to Trump’s favor such that he wins resoundingly, Sanders will forever after be seen as confirming the curse of the “movement candidate.” Yet under those circumstances Biden would likely have met the same fate. Bottom Line: Investors would be wrong to buy risky assets on a Sanders nomination in the belief that it guarantees Trump’s victory. Clinching the nomination sharply – and mathematically – increases any candidate’s chance of winning the White House. A Sanders White House in turn would be a paradigm shift in US politics: the first left-wing populist president. He would threaten a major increase in economically significant regulation even if no legislation were passed and as such would weigh on corporate profits and animal spirits. As a result, we expect volatility in the near term, since Sanders’s best hope is to build momentum now, unseat Biden, and then fend off Biden’s centrist replacements. Even if Sanders is only successful for a brief period in Q1, the market will have to discount the higher probability of a progressive populist in the Oval Office. What About Mayor Bloomberg? Show Us The Votes, Not Just The Money. Billionaire former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a notable challenger both to other Democrats and to Trump based on the fact that his aggressive advertising campaign is producing some results in opinion polling – as it would for anyone given the volume! He is polling just ahead of Buttigieg and thus is first in line to benefit if Sanders knocks off Biden (Chart 19). Chart 19Bloomberg Benefits If Biden Falls Chart 20Biden Beats Bloomberg In Big Primaries However, Bloomberg’s attempt to pole-vault over the early states and rack up big wins in March is untested. Moreover the data do not yet reflect the elite optimism about Bloomberg’s chances. First, Biden will be harder to knock off than the consensus holds. He has a strong base in the South, he still leads in many Midwestern states, unlike Iowa, while Bloomberg’s base is the Northeast, where he has to split votes with most of the other candidates (including Biden). Looking ahead to March, Biden is beating Bloomberg in all of the key states where Bloomberg’s strategy requires a win (Chart 20). While Biden beats Trump head-to-head in the swing states, Bloomberg loses to Trump in most of them. This reflects Biden’s electability, a tailwind in the primaries (Chart 21). Bloomberg also has the worst favorability among voters – although admittedly Trump once held that distinction (Chart 22). Chart 21Trump Beats Bloomberg In Swing States Chart 22Trump And Biden More Favorable Than Bloomberg Hence Bloomberg can emerge as the leading centrist or establishment candidate if Biden crumbles, and Buttigieg fails to replicate his Iowa success, but not before then. Otherwise his significance lies in that he could become a dark horse candidate at a contested Democratic National Convention in July – say if the leading progressive candidates prove capable of blocking Biden’s nomination but not securing their own. Bloomberg may be waiting in the wings for just such a moment. Bloomberg could also act as the grand spoiler of the election should he decide to run as an independent candidate in November. Ostensibly his candidacy would hurt the Democrats, especially if they choose a candidate who suffers from the taint of socialism. However, contrary to popular wisdom, a strong third party candidate is historically a negative sign for the incumbent.3 Third party candidacies are only strong if the general public is dissatisfied – and when the public is dissatisfied it swings heavily against the incumbent party. Thus on the whole a large third party vote would tend to hurt Trump in 2020, just as it helped him in 2016 (by hurting the incumbent party). The fact that Bloomberg was formerly a Republican reinforces his risk to Trump – like the independently wealthy Ross Perot in 1992, he could produce a Democratic victory by splitting the conservative vote.4 Remember that 9-10% of Republicans believed that Trump should have been removed from office, according to impeachment polls over the past six months. If the economy holds up, this third party challenge is less likely to succeed, but it is still a risk. Such an outcome is far from assured and the Democratic Party would vilify Bloomberg for fear of him stealing votes from the Democratic candidate, especially if the occasion of his independent run were the nomination of a “socialist” like Sanders. Thus far Bloomberg claims he and his billions will support the Democratic Party’s nominee. Bottom Line: If Bloomberg’s intention were solely to unseat Trump, then he should have spent, or will spend, his billions waging a vigorous third party candidacy. On the contrary, by seeking the nomination of one of the two major parties, he apparently seeks to become president of the United States. In doing so he may weaken Biden and thus help Sanders. But we will not know the effect until we can observe his performance in actual elections, which he starts contesting in March. Nevertheless the big surprise of 2020 could well be an independently wealthy candidate capable of stealing enough votes from Trump to erase his very fine margins in the swing states. Bloomberg or someone else could play this role. Will There Be A Contested Convention? Probably Not. A contested convention – or its cousin, the “brokered convention” – is a situation in which the Democratic Party must decide its presidential nominee at its national convention, having failed to do so through the primary elections. Democratic delegates are awarded proportionately to the popular vote, unlike the Republican primary system which features many winner-take-all states. Several candidates each earning less than a third of the popular vote can continue struggling without any one of them hitting the “jackpot” and surging ahead. If none of the candidates has a majority of pledged delegates – or even a strong plurality – at the conclusion of the primaries on June 6 then the candidates will have to negotiate a solution. Otherwise they will show up in Milwaukee on July 13 for a chaotic four days in which the party delegates would have to hold a series of votes, on live television, to determine the nominee. The last time the Democrats had a contested convention was 1952, when they voted for three rounds; the Republicans saw a shorter-lived contest in 1976. In today’s context, in which a left-wing populist could win the nomination, such an unpredictable and arcane process would present a source of uncertainty for investors throughout June and July. A contested convention is more likely than usual because the party has four, possibly five viable candidates if we count Bloomberg. Biden, Bloomberg, and Sanders all have the financial ability to persist over the long haul. Yet with Buttigieg having won in Iowa and polling well in New Hampshire, he remains in the race, as does Warren, assuming they keep meeting the minimum threshold of 15% of the vote needed to receive delegates. So why isn’t a contested convention likely? Because there is a clear constraint: it would be a train wreck for the party. It would prolong divisions over ideology, it would exhaust everyone’s coffers (except Bloomberg’s), it would send a picture of a party in disarray to the general public (much like the Iowa caucus debacle), and it would deprive the party of months in which the de facto nominee could challenge President Trump. The bad press and divisiveness would actually increase Trump’s chances of winning. In the wake of the impeachment backfire, the candidates will be more attuned to these risks. Instead, with a common enemy, it is more likely that candidates will be pressured to drop out of the race once it is clear they cannot win. Democrats will bind together to pick a nominee – a contested convention helps Trump. Chart 23Iowans Want A Winner, Not A Platform Democratic voters are primarily concerned with beating President Trump – this has been confirmed in polling at the Iowa caucus (Chart 23). Therefore several candidates have a basis for sacrificing their own presidential bid. In exchange those who drop out will be offered cabinet positions, which they will sell as a political “dream team” against Trump’s small circle of loyalists and family members. The risk is that insurgent progressive candidates defy the party leadership and refuse to bow out. While Buttigieg is young and can live to fight another day, neither Sanders nor Warren will drop out easily if they think they still have a chance of winning the presidency. These two are also unlikely to cooperate with each other to consolidate the left-wing bloc. Bottom Line: Multiple competitive candidates make it possible that instead of bandwagoning around the candidate with a plurality – likely Biden – no candidate will have a commanding plurality of pledged delegates by June 6. If that is the case then expect the candidates to negotiate a solution prior to the convention. If a solution cannot be found, a contested convention will reflect a deeply divided party and hence imply higher odds of President Trump’s reelection, other things being equal. Investment Conclusions Investors can look at the three options as follows. Biden, Buttigieg, or Bloomberg would be a “known known,” a moderate Democratic whose policies would largely seek to restore and solidify those of the Obama administration. However, we still see this as negative for equities because of the increase in regulation that would ensue plus the high chance that victory would also bring the Senate and thus give rise to a more progressive policy shift than the consensus expects. Chart 24Centrists Outperformed In Iowa Trump is a “known unknown,” an unorthodox and aggressive president whose tactics have become familiar but whose approach is globally disruptive and would be more so in a second term relatively free of electoral constraints. We expect any melt-up in equities before or after a Trump win to be a sell signal given our base case that Trump’s reelection means Trade War II. Sanders or Warren would be an “unknown unknown,” the first-ever left-wing populist to take the White House. Above we show this is not at all improbable if one of them wins the nomination – which itself is about a 35% probability. The same odds apply to the Senate as under Biden, although moderate Democrats there would act as a constraint on a progressive pushing revolutionary legislation. Still, a progressive populist would be a generational paradigm shift in US policy and would justify a bear market. Where is the median voter? In the primary election, the Iowa caucus results reinforce the national trend suggesting that the median voter prefers a centrist or establishment candidate (Chart 24). If Biden falters, either Buttigieg or Bloomberg will take up the slack. Nevertheless the risk of a Sanders success is imminent and therefore we expect volatility to be frontloaded this year, especially in February but also possibly in March if Sanders does a bang-up job on Super Tuesday. In the general election, polling consistently shows that the economy is the most salient issue for voters in 2020. This plays to President Trump’s favor. Health care is usually ranked second, which plays to the Democrats’ favor. However, a recent open-ended poll by Morning Consult suggests that security issues have supplanted health care as the second-highest voter concern, which would reinforce Trump’s position (Chart 25). Further economic deterioration would not only undermine Trump’s approval on his handling of the economy but would also increase concern over health care, since insurance is tied to employers. So this is a critical risk to Trump in wobbly swing states like Pennsylvania. Chart 25Median Voter Focused On Economy, Trump’s Strong Suit We maintain that Trump is slightly favored with 55% odds. But our mathematical model highlights how close of a call the election is, at least until the manufacturing sector and broader economy durably rebound. Investors need to be prepared for either electoral outcome, which means hedging against sectors under bipartisan scrutiny such as Big Pharma and Big Tech. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, no fan of President Trump, voted to convict him of the charge of abuse of power but not of obstruction of Congress. 2 This is the second time Wisconsin has switched across the threshold in our model since November – all else equal, a 0.01% increase in the state’s leading index would move it back to the Republicans. 3 See Allan J. Lichtman, Predicting The Next President (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 30-31. 4 Alternately he could ensure a Trump victory by producing an Electoral College tie! Demographic projections of the US electorate in 2020 by Robert Griffin, Ruy Teixeira, and William H. Frey show that a 2020 election in which voters behave exactly as they did in 2016, except that the third party vote normalizes from 5.7% (2016) to 1.7% (2012), would produce an Electoral College tie of 269-269 votes. Obviously this would be a Black Swan event. And the fact that electors in the college can be “faithless” to the candidate that their state elected complicates such projections. Nevertheless the result would be an extraordinary House of Representative vote according to state delegations in which Trump would emerge as the victor and the legitimacy of the election would be contested and debated once again. See "America’s Electoral Future: Demographic Shifts and the Future of the Trump Coalition," April 2018, brookings.edu.

Underweight The S&P chemicals bear market has entered its third year and we remain underweight this capital intensive basic materials subgroup. China macro dominates the direction of US chemical equities. Chinese authorities continue to ease monetary policy and are injecting liquidity in the banking system by slashing the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). The recent coronavirus epidemic almost guarantees further easing via the RRR channel. Such a monetary setting should eventually stabilize the economy. However, until a turnaround is evident, US chemical stocks will continue to follow down the path of the Chinese RRR (top panel). The Australian currency, which is hyper-sensitive to China’s growth, further corroborates that Chinese economic activity remains soft (second panel). Simultaneously, the resilient US dollar will continue to weigh on the competitiveness of US chemical exporters (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Stay underweight the S&P chemicals index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5CHEM – LIN, APD, ECL, SHW, DD, DOW, PPG, CTVA, LYB, IFF, CE, FMC, EMN, CF, ALB, MOS.

Special Report

In lieu of the next weekly report I will be presenting the quarterly webcast ‘What Are The Most Attractive Investments In Europe?’ on Monday 17 February at 10.00AM EST, 3.00PM GMT, 4.00PM CET, 11.00PM HKT. As usual, the webcast will take a TED talk format lasting 18 minutes, after which I will take live questions. Be sure to tune in. Dhaval Joshi Feature The recent coronavirus scare seems to have added a fresh deflationary impulse into the world economy, at a time that central banks are already struggling to achieve and maintain inflation at the 2 percent target. Begging the question: will central banks’ ubiquitous ultra-loose monetary policy ever generate inflation? The answer is yes, but not necessarily where the central banks desire it. Universal QE, zero interest rate policy (ZIRP), and negative interest rate policy (NIRP) have already created rampant inflation. The trouble is that it is in the wrong place. Rather than showing up in consumer price indexes it is showing up in sky-rocketing asset prices. Feature Chart Ultra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Feature ChartUltra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Since 2014, ultra-loose monetary policy has boosted the valuation of equities by 50 percent. But that’s the small fry. The really big story is that ultra-loose monetary policy has boosted the value of the world’s real estate from $180 trillion to $300 trillion (Chart I-2).1 Chart I-2Ultra-Low Bond Yields Have Boosted The Value Of The World’s Real Estate By $120 Trillion Just pause for a moment to digest those numbers. In the space of a few years the value of the world’s real estate has surged by $120 trillion, equivalent to one and half times the world’s $80 trillion GDP. Moreover, it is a broad-based boom encompassing not just Europe, but North America and Asia too. Now add in the surge in equity prices, as well as other risk-assets such as private equity, corporate bonds and EM debt and the rise in wealth conservatively equals at least two times world GDP. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other time in economic history that asset prices have risen so broadly and by so much as a multiple of world GDP in such a short space of time. Making this the greatest asset-price inflation of all time. Yet central banks seem unmoved. To add insult to injury, Europe’s central banks do not even include surging owner-occupied housing costs in their consumer price indexes. This seems absurd given that the costs of maintaining owner-occupied housing is one of the largest costs that European households face. Europe’s central banks do not include surging owner-occupied housing costs in their consumer price indexes. Including owner-occupied housing costs would lift European inflation closer to 2 percent, eliminating the need for QE and negative interest rates. But its omission has kept measured inflation artificially low (Chart I-3), forcing European central banks to double down on their ultra-loose policies. Which in turn lifts risk-asset prices even further, and so the cycle of asset-price inflation continues. Chart I-3Using The US Definition Of Inflation, The ECB Wouldn't Need Ultra-Loose Policy European QE has spawned other major imbalances. Germany, as the largest shareholder of the ECB, now owns hundreds of billions of ‘Italian euro’ BTPs that the ECB has bought. But given the fragility of Italian banks, the Italians who sold their BTPs to the ECB deposited the cash they received in German banks. Hence, Italy now owns hundreds of billions of ‘German euro’ bank deposits. This mismatch between Germans owning Italian euro assets and Italians owning German euro assets combined with other mismatches across the euro area constitutes the Target2 banking imbalance, which now stands at a record €1.5 trillion. It means that, were the euro to ever break up, the biggest casualty would be Germany (Chart I-4). Chart I-4ECB QE Has Taken The Target2 Banking Imbalance To An All-Time High Meanwhile, the US Federal Reserve, to its credit, does include surging owner-occupied housing costs in its measure of consumer prices. As a result, US inflation has been closer to the 2 percent target enabling the Fed to tighten policy when the ECB had to loosen policy. This huge divergence between euro area and US monetary policies, stemming from different treatments of owner-occupied housing costs, has depressed the euro/dollar exchange rate and thereby spawned yet another major imbalance: the euro area/US bilateral trade surplus which now stands at an all-time high. Providing President Trump with the perfect pretext to start a trade war with Europe, should he desire (Chart I-5).  Chart I-5ECB QE Has Taken The Euro Area/US Trade Surplus To An All-Time High What Caused The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time? Why did the past decade witness the greatest asset-price inflation of all time? The answer is that universal QE, ZIRP, and NIRP took bond yields to the twilight zone of the lower bound (Chart I-6). At which point, the valuation of all risky assets undergoes an exponential surge. Chart I-6The Past Decade Was The Decade Of Universal QE Understand that when bond yields approach their lower bound, bonds become extremely risky assets because their prices take on an unattractive ‘lose-lose’ characteristic. As holders of Swiss government bonds discovered last year, prices can no longer rise much in a rally, but they can collapse in a sell-off (Chart I-7). Chart I-7At Low Bond Yields, Bonds Become Much Riskier The upshot is that all (long-duration) assets become equally risky, and the much higher prospective returns offered on formerly more risky assets – such as real estate and equities – collapses to the feeble return offered on now equally-risky bonds. Given that valuation is just the inverse of the prospective return, this means that the valuation of risk assets undergoes an exponential surge. When bond yields approach their lower bound, bonds become extremely risky assets because their prices take on an unattractive ‘lose-lose’ characteristic.  An obvious question is: which valuation measure best predicts this depressed prospective return offered on equities? Most people gravitate to price to earnings (profits), but earnings are highly problematic – because even if you cyclically adjust them, they take no account of structurally high profit margins. The trouble is that earnings will face a headwind when profit margins normalise, depressing prospective returns. For this reason, price to earnings missed the valuation extreme of the 2007/2008 credit bubble and should be treated with extreme caution as a predictor of prospective returns (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Price To Earnings Missed The 2007/2008 Valuation Extreme A much more credible assessment comes from price to sales – or equivalently, market cap to GDP at a global level (Chart I-9). This is because sales are quantifiable, unambiguous, and undistorted by profit margins. Using these more credible prospective returns, we can now show that the theory of what should happen to risk-asset returns (and valuations) at ultra-low bond yields and the practice of what has actually happened agree almost perfectly (Feature Chart). Chart I-9Price To Sales (Or Global Market Cap To GDP) Is The Best Predictor Of Prospective Return Some Investment Conclusions It is instinctive for investors to focus first and foremost on the outlook for the real economy. After all, the evolution of the $80 trillion global economy drives company sales and profits. But the value of the world’s real estate, at $300 trillion, dwarfs the economy. Public and private equity adds another $100 trillion, while other risk-assets such as corporate bonds and EM debt add at least another $50 trillion. So even on conservative assumptions, risk-assets are worth $450 trillion – an order of magnitude larger than the world economy. Now combine this with the overwhelming evidence that risk-asset valuations are exponentially sensitive to ultra-low bond yields. A relatively modest rise in yields that knocked 20 percent off risk-asset valuations would mean a $90 trillion loss in global wealth. Even a 10 percent decline would equate to a $45 trillion drawdown. Could the $80 trillion economy sail through such declines in wealth? No way. Such setbacks would constitute a severe deflationary headwind, and likely trigger the next recession. Hence, though equities are preferable to bonds at current levels, a 50-100 bps rise in yields – were it to happen – would be a great opportunity to add to bonds. Meanwhile, the record high Target2 euro area banking imbalance means that the biggest casualty of the euro’s disintegration would not be Italy. It would be Germany. As all parties have no interest in such a mutually assured destruction, investors should go long high-yielding versus low-yielding euro area sovereign bonds. Finally, the record high euro area/US trade surplus is a political constraint to a much weaker euro versus the dollar. In any case, the ECB is close to the practical limit of monetary policy easing, while the Fed is not. Long-term bond investors should prefer US T-bonds versus German bunds or Swiss bonds. Long-term currency investors should prefer the euro versus the dollar. Fractal Trading System*  This week’s recommended trade is long EUR/CHF. As this currency cross has relatively low volatility, the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss is set at a modest 1 percent. In other trades, short NZD/JPY achieved its profit target, while long US oil and gas versus telecom reached the end of its 65-day holding period in partial loss having reached neither its profit target nor its stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-10EUR/CHF When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Source: Savills World Research. The last data point is $281 trillion at the end of 2017, but we conservatively estimate that the value has increased to above $300 trillion in the subsequent two years. Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations