Developed Countries

Overweight Energy prices in 2019 have been bouncing off the recent lows touched at the end of 2018 when global markets melted down. It appears that fears over a global slowdown in energy demand have been replaced by a focus on reduced crude inventories that point to a tight market (bottom panel), aided in large part by OPEC supply cuts and reduced Iranian and Venezuelan production. Nevertheless, the S&P integrated oil & gas energy index has not kept pace with the underlying commodity as their historically tight correlation has broken down in recent years and the index has moved laterally (top panel). Still, relative forward earnings estimates in this sector, that has seen its cost base dramatically rationalized, have been gaining steam relative to the broad market (second panel). The current message from sell-side earnings revisions is that profits have fallen out of their year-end funk (third panel). Bottom Line: Stock prices in the heavyweight S&P integrated oil & gas energy subindex should catch up to the index’s earnings power, particularly if BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service forecast of higher oil prices in 2019 plays out; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5IOIL – XOM, CVX and OXY.

Highlights The odds of a continued earnings contraction have not yet fallen to the point that would warrant an overweight stance towards Chinese versus global stocks over the coming 6-12 months. While we maintain Chinese stocks on upgrade watch and may recommend increasing exposure soon, the bottom line for investors is that it is still too early for us to confidently project a sustained uptrend. While most investors attribute the chronic discount of Chinese stocks relative to the global average as being due to a sizeable equity risk premium, our analysis suggests that China’s low payout ratio and mediocre earnings growth are the true causes. This implies that China’s re-rating potential is capped barring a major structural improvement in earnings growth. Investors should pay close attention to the details of a U.S./China currency stability pact that will reportedly be included in any trade deal between the two countries. Such a pact may set up an important natural experiment for CNY/USD, and could be a revelatory event for China’s exchange rate regime. Feature Last week’s FOMC meeting dominated the headlines of the financial press, and for good reason. The Fed surprised investors with a material downgrade to their expected path of the federal funds rate over the next three years, a shift that largely reflected concerns about global growth. The subsequent inversion of the U.S. 10-year / 3-month yield curve in response to the very disappointing euro area flash manufacturing PMI for March confirms that many investors remain convinced that Fed policy is too tight and that easing is likely over the coming year.1 On the positive side, investor concerns that reflationary policy is needed in the U.S. and euro area are likely overblown: the plunge in the euro area PMI at least in part reflects the near-term uncertainty over the possibility of a hard Brexit (which will probably be avoided), whereas the Fed is pausing at a level of real interest rates that is well below real GDP growth, which means that monetary policy is still stimulative for the U.S. economy (Chart 1). Chart 1U.S. Monetary Policy Is Still Stimulative But Chart 2 highlights that a generalized slowdown in global growth is responsible for at least part of the sharp weakness in Chinese export growth over the past few months, which we had been mostly attributing to a catch-up phase following a (perversely and ironically) beneficial tariff front-running effect that had temporarily boosted trade growth last year. Chart 2Global Weakness At Least Partly Responsible For A Sharp Export Slowdown Ongoing weakness in the global economy, were it to persist, would imply that China’s external demand outlook is even less encouraging than we had previously assumed. This would raise the stakes for a trade deal with the U.S. to be agreed upon soon, as well as a continued uptrend in the pace of Chinese credit growth. Investors should closely watch the new export orders component of the March NBS manufacturing PMI later this week for signs that exporter sentiment is improving, as well as the overall Caixin PMI to confirm that smaller firms continue to benefit from the PBOC’s targeted easing efforts. When Should Investors Upgrade Chinese Stocks On A Cyclical Basis? In our view, most global investors have been focused on the wrong risk factor for Chinese stocks for the better part of the past year. In the wake of the near-vertical February rise in Chinese domestic stocks, the most common question we have received from clients is whether they should be increasing their cyclical exposure to Chinese stocks in general, and A-shares in particular. In response to the January surge in credit we placed Chinese stocks on upgrade watch in our February 27 Weekly Report,2 but we are not yet ready to recommend an outright cyclical overweight. Investors should be at the ready and aiming, but should not yet fire. In our view, most global investors have been focused on the wrong risk factor for Chinese stocks for the better part of the past year. We have noted in several previous reports that investors have focused nearly exclusively on the U.S.-China trade war since the beginning of 2018, and have largely ignored a slowing domestic economy (Chart 3). Given this, it is not surprising that a sharp improvement in the odds of a deal (which occurred at the beginning of November) has led to a material rally over the past few months versus global stocks. Chart 3The Prospect Of A Trade Deal Has Been The Primary Driver Of China-Related Assets In fact, we predicted in our December 5 Weekly Report that positive sentiment about a deal would boost the relative performance of Chinese stocks over the coming few months, and recommended a tactical overweight stance at that time.3 A cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) overweight, however, is a different story. Sentiment alone rarely drives financial markets over a 1-year time horizon, meaning that investors need to have some degree of confidence that domestic demand will meaningfully improve over the next 12 months to justify a cyclical upgrade. Certainly, we acknowledge that there have been several positive developments pointing to such an outcome. Chinese monetary conditions have become extremely easy, credit is no longer contracting and surged in January, the Caixin PMI rose notably in February, and some form of a trade deal remains the most likely outcome of the ongoing talks. In addition, Chinese stocks still remain significantly below their 2018 peak (Chart 4), meaning that there is still material potential upside if Chinese earnings do not contract. Chart 4Chinese Stocks Still Have Room To Rise If The Earnings Outlook Stabilizes A moderate credit expansion appears to be underway, but coincident activity continues to weaken and earnings appear to have more downside. However, there are also several reasons to be cautious cyclically: Chart 5The Past Three Months Imply A Moderate Credit Uptrend Chart 6Chinese Coincident Economic Activity Continues To Weaken Chinese and U.S. policymakers have not only failed to set a date for an agreement to be signed by President’s Xi and Trump, but recent new reports suggest that momentum may be slowing and that a meeting may be postponed until June or later.4 Even if the deal does not fall through, material further delays could cause investors to get anxious and vote with their feet. Such a selloff could be violent, given the extremely sharp rise in domestic stock prices over the past six weeks. The evidence so far points to a moderate expansion in credit (Chart 5), reflecting the fact that policymakers are still somewhat concerned about financial stability and the need to prevent significant further leveraging of the private sector. This means that the odds are not yet in favor of a credit “overshoot” like what occurred in 2015/2016, implying that the pickup in growth is likely to be comparatively weaker this time around. Since 2010, monetary conditions and money & credit growth appear to be the best predictors of investment-relevant Chinese economic activity.5 While a moderate credit expansion appears to be underway, there has been no discernable pickup in money growth.6 This discrepancy likely means that the recent improvement in credit has occurred due to non-bank financial institutions, further suggesting that this economic recovery will probably be less powerful and less broad-based than during past cycles. While a moderate expansion in credit does suggest that China’s economy will bottom at some point in the coming months, coincident economic activity continues to decelerate (Chart 6). A continuation of this trend, particularly if coupled with an investor “crisis of faith” in the trade talks, could lead to a very significant retracement in Chinese equity prices before durably bottoming for the year. Trailing EPS growth is decelerating, but it has yet to contract on a year-over-year basis as would be implied by the net earnings revisions ratio (Chart 7) and the coincident activity indicators shown in Chart 6. Chinese investable EPS fell 30% during the 2015/2016 episode (20% for domestic stocks), implying meaningful further downside even if economic activity does not weaken as significantly over the coming months. Chart 7Net Earnings Revisions Point To More Downside For Earnings Chart 8 presents a helpful way for investors to make a net assessment of all of the factors highlighted above. The chart shows our earnings recession model for the MSCI China Index, and shows what is likely to occur if a trade deal causes a full recovery in Chinese exporter sentiment, China’s export-weighted RMB stays roughly at current levels, and the very recent pace of credit growth (Dec-Feb) continues along its trend. Chart 8A Trade Deal And A Moderate Credit Expansion Will Likely Stabilize The Earnings Outlook This scenario, were it to occur, would reduce the odds of a continued earnings contraction to the point that we would be comfortable recommending an overweight stance towards Chinese versus global stocks over the coming 6-12 months. While such a recommendation could come as soon as mid-April, the bottom line for investors is that it is still too early for us to confidently project this outcome. Should Chinese Stocks Be Priced At A Premium Or A Discount To Global Stocks? Most investors attribute the discount applied to Chinese stocks to a high equity risk premium (ERP), but our work paints a different picture. Besides questions about the appropriate cyclical allocation to Chinese stocks, the recent spike in interest among global investors towards A-shares has also led to a renewed focus about the degree to which Chinese stocks are cheap versus the global average. In a world where many financial assets are chronically expensive and Chinese policymakers appear to be responding to weaker economic activity, some investors question whether Chinese stocks deserve to be priced at a discount (Chart 9). Our sense is that most investors attribute the discount to a high equity risk premium (ERP) stemming from the enormous rise in Chinese non-financial corporate debt over the past decade, but our research paints a different picture. Chart 9The Chinese Equity Discount: A High ERP, Or Something More Sinister? One way of analyzing the risk premium of an equity market is to use the well-known constant Gordon growth model. Equation 1 below presents the theoretically justified 12-month trailing P/E ratio as a function of the payout ratio, the risk-free rate, the ERP, and the long-term dividend growth rate (which is equal to the long-term earnings growth rate given a constant payout ratio). Equations 2 and 3 re-arrange equation 1 to express the ERP and long-term growth rate, respectively, on the left-hand side of the equation. Equation 1: P0/E0 = (D1/E0)/(rf + ERP – g) Equation 2: ERP = [(D1/E0)/(P0/E0)] + g - rf Equation 3: g = rf + ERP-[(D1/E0)/(P0/E0)] To illustrate the approach, Chart 10 applies equation 2 to the U.S. equity market and compares it with the annual dividend discount model equity risk premium published by Professor Aswath Damodaran from New York University’s Stern School of Business,7 a well-known expert in the theory and practice of asset valuation. While there are some differences in the level of the series owing to slightly different methodologies, the overall profile of the two series is generally similar. Chart 10Our DDM Methodology For The U.S. Generates Results Similar To Other Important Estimates Proxying the market’s long-term growth expectations in a large, mature economy such as the U.S. is materially easier than is the case in an emerging market such as China. As such, instead of solving for the equity risk premium directly when judging whether China’s discount is “deserved”, we use equation 3 to solve for the implied long-term growth rate given an assumed (and very conservative) ERP range of 2-3%, using the global P/E ratio. In other words, we ask the following question: what kind of earnings growth do Chinese stocks need to achieve over the long run in order to justify the same earnings multiple as the global average, given an equity risk premium of 2-3%? Chart 11 presents the answer to this question, for both the domestic and the investable market. We use domestic 10-year bond yields as the risk-free rate in the case of the A-share market, and U.S. 10-year bond yields in the case of the MSCI China index as a proxy for the global risk-free rate. Finally, in each panel, the dashed horizontal lines denote the actual compound annual growth rate in earnings per share for each market, since the year noted next to each line. Chart 11A Low But Still Difficult L/T Earnings Hurdle Rate To Be Priced In Line With Global Stocks Two important points are apparent from the chart: The required growth rate for both markets to be priced in line with global stocks are quite low, well below Chinese nominal GDP growth. At first blush, this might suggest that the valuation discount applied to China reflects a sizeable equity risk premium that could shrink over the coming 6-12 months (i.e. a beneficial re-rating of Chinese stocks). Since 2010 or 2011, actual growth rates in EPS are materially above the required growth range in both markets. However, over more recent time horizons, particularly 2013 and later, actual earnings growth has not only been below the range but has also been extremely poor in absolute terms. This is particularly true for the investable market, which has actually recorded negative growth in 12-month trailing EPS since 2014 or 2015. A dividend discount model approach suggests that the Chinese equity market discount is justified, barring a major structural improvement in earnings growth. Chart 12 highlights the problem with China’s stock market in a nutshell. For both the investable and domestic equity markets, the dividend payout ratio is well below the global average. This is a normal circumstance for small companies with high growth potential; firms re-invest a high portion of their earnings back into the company in order to build out their asset base and deliver even higher earnings in the future. Chart 12The Chinese Discount Visualized: A Low Payout Ratio, And Mediocre Earnings Growth But panel 2 of Chart 12 shows that relative earnings for Chinese stocks versus the global average have not trended higher over the past decade, meaning that a higher earnings retention ratio among Chinese stocks has not led to a superior earnings profile. In response, global investors have rightly discounted Chinese stocks versus their global peers, a circumstance that is likely to continue unless Chinese earnings growth materially and sustainably improves. Our analysis implies that there is a natural limit to how far Chinese equities can ultimately be re-rated barring a major structural improvement in the economy, a factor that we may eventually have to contend with were we to recommend a cyclical overweight stance. Capped re-rating potential is unlikely to prevent Chinese stocks from trending higher in relative terms if economic fundamentals warrant an uptrend, but it may suggest that the duration or magnitude of the rise may be shorter than many investors hope. A Sino-U.S. Trade Deal: A Natural Currency Experiment In The Making? What explains the link between CNY-USD and the interest rate differential between the two countries? Finally, a brief note on the RMB. Since June 2018, changes in CNY-USD appear to have been closely aligned with the magnitude of proposed tariffs as a share of Chinese exports to the U.S., as would be implied in a simple open economy model with flexible exchange rates. Chart 13shows the levels implied by this framework in a variety of tariff scenarios, calculated based on the percent decline from the peak in the exchange rate in 1H 2018. As noted in our March 13 Weekly Report,8 CNY-USD today is consistent with the current tariff regime, implying potential upside if a trade deal with the U.S. rolls back some of the tariffs that have been imposed. Chart 13A Simple Equilibrium Framework Suggests CNY-USD May Rise Materially Further If Tariffs Are Rolled Back However, Chart 14 shows that CNY-USD has been closely correlated with the interest rate differential between the two countries for several years, with the relationship having recently become a leading one. Chart 14 highlights that CNY-USD has moved higher than the rate differential would imply (painting the opposite picture as that shown in Chart 13), suggesting that the currency is more likely to depreciate than appreciate over the coming 6-12 months barring tighter monetary policy in China or outright rate cuts in the U.S. Chart 14Will Policymakers Or Rate Differentials Drive CNY-USD Over The Coming Year? The relationship shown in Chart 14 is surprising, and we have struggled to understand the exact dynamics at play. As we highlighted in a September report,9 many global investors take the relationship for granted, given the strong historical link between interest rate differentials and exchange rates in developed countries. However, a major problem that arises in explaining Chart 14 is the fact that uncovered interest rate arbitrage (or the “carry trade”) cannot easily occur or cannot occur at all when one or both countries involved maintains capital controls. It is an important conundrum, and one that we have not been able to solve. From our perspective, there are only two scenarios that explain the close relationship between the exchange rate and interest rate differentials between the two countries: The relationship is causal, implying that capital flows in and out of the country are sufficiently large to enable a carry trade. The two series are correlated because of a third factor related in some way to the other two. In our view, scenario 1 is not likely. Capital is flowing out of China, but at a much slower rate than before,10 and the relationship shown in Chart 14 did not break down following China’s capital crackdown in 2015/2016. Ruling out scenario 1 necessarily implies that scenario 2 is correct. Our best guess concerning the missing third factor is that Chinese policymakers are looking to the rate differential as a guide to set the exchange rate, in order to mimic a market-based exchange rate in support of China’s goals to progressively liberalize (and internationalize) the currency. If true, this implies that China has full control of their exchange rate regardless of the prevailing interest rate differential, but that they are often choosing to follow what the differential implies. This is significant, because if Chinese and U.S. negotiators do agree to a “yuan stability pact” as has been reported in the press, a trade deal may set up an important natural experiment for the currency. In our view, a major upward move in the rate differential is unlikely over the coming year, implying that CNY-USD will persistently deviate from the relationship shown in Chart 14 if President Trump is not inclined to tolerate any real weakness in the RMB over the coming year. While the details of the currency agreement and the trade agreement more generally could allow for some decline in CNY-USD if coupled with an offsetting benefit for the U.S. (such as materially higher U.S. exports to China for some period), our bias is to believe that President Trump does not want to see a stronger dollar over the coming year in the lead-up to the 2020 election. If true, investors should pay close attention to the behavior of CNY-USD, as it is stands to be a revelatory event for China’s exchange rate regime.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Reports “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy” and “Forward Guidance On Steroids”, dated March 26, 2019, for a detailed update on our view for Fed rate hikes and how investors should interpret the recent inversion in the yield curve. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Dealing With A (Largely) False Narrative”, dated February 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “2019 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year”, dated December 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see “Some U.S. Officials Said To See China Walking Back Trade Pledges”, Bloomberg News, dated March 19, 2019, and “Donald Trump-Xi Jinping meeting to end US-China trade war may be pushed back to June, sources say”, South China Morning Post. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China’s Business Cycle”, dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: A Sustainable Rally Or A False Start?”, dated March 7, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Professor Damodoran’s website for more information on his estimates of the equity risk premium. 8 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China Macro And Market Review”, dated March 13, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Moderate Releveraging And Currency Stability: An Impossible Dream?”, dated September 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows”, dated March 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration: None of the economic indicators that have reliably signaled peak interest rates in prior cycles are sending a signal at the moment. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that further Fed rate hikes are likely at some point before the end of the cycle. With the Fed now projecting an essentially flat path for interest rates, the next surprise from the Federal Reserve will probably be a hawkish one. Fed: The Fed is currently waging a war on two fronts. It wants to keep interest rates low enough to send inflation expectations higher, back to levels consistent with its 2% target. But it also wants to avoid excessively easy financial conditions that could threaten the sustainability of the economic recovery. We expect that easier financial conditions will cause the Fed to shift back toward a tightening bias near the end of this year. Yield Curve: Inversion of the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope is cause for concern, if it persists. But we expect it to reverse in the coming months as global growth recovers and the Fed remains accommodative. Eventually, after financial conditions have eased sufficiently, the Fed’s next move will be a hawkish surprise. Investors can profit from this move by entering positive carry yield curve trades: short the 5-year or 7-year bullet and go long a duration-matched barbell. Feature The Last Dovish Surprise Or The Beginning Of The End? Treasury yields moved sharply lower following last week’s Fed meeting, as FOMC participants made larger-than-anticipated downward revisions to their interest rate projections. As of last December, 11 out of 17 Fed members expected to lift rates at least twice in 2019. Now, 11 out of 17 expect to keep rates flat (Chart 1). Chart 1Fed Sees No Hikes This Year Judging from the bond market’s reaction, the Fed clearly managed to deliver a dovish surprise at last week’s meeting. Now, the relevant question for investors becomes whether that dovish surprise can be repeated. With the Fed signaling an essentially flat path for interest rates, a dovish surprise from these levels would involve the suggestion of rate cuts. History tells us that rate cuts are only likely to occur if the economy is headed into recession, an event that still seems relatively far off. As such, we expect that the next surprise from the Fed will be a hawkish one, and that the next large move in Treasury yields will be higher. Our conviction that the economy is not yet close to recession comes from our analysis of economic markers that have reliably signaled peak interest rates in past cycles.1 For example, one such marker is when year-over-year nominal GDP growth falls below the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 2). At present, year-over-year nominal GDP growth is running at 5.3%. That growth rate is bound to slow during the next few quarters, but it would need to slow a lot before it falls below the current 10-year Treasury yield of 2.40%. Chart 2GDP Growth Suggests That Monetary Policy Remains Accommodative The New York Fed’s GDP Nowcast projects that real GDP growth will be 1.29% in the first quarter. Incorporating 2% inflation, that is roughly 3.3% in nominal terms. If Q1 turns out to be the trough in growth for the year, it suggests that interest rates still have considerable room to rise before the economic recovery ends. Second, we have observed that peak interest rates tend to coincide with material declines in the 12-month moving averages of single-family housing starts and new home sales. While the housing data weakened somewhat in 2018, the data have rebounded sharply since mortgage rates fell near the end of last year. Housing starts have already jumped back above their 12-month moving average, as has the weekly Mortgage Application Purchase index (Chart 3). Chart 3Housing & Employment Support Higher Rates Finally, we have noted that peak interest rates tend to coincide with an uptrend in initial jobless claims. Much like with housing, the initial claims data sent a warning near the end of last year. But that tentative increase in claims has already reversed course (Chart 3, bottom panel). None of those historically reliable indicators suggest that we have reached peak interest rates for the cycle.  We will continue to keep a close eye on nominal GDP growth, the housing data and initial jobless claims. But all in all, none of those historically reliable indicators suggest that we have reached peak interest rates for the cycle. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that further Fed rate hikes are likely at some point and that the next surprise from the Federal Reserve will probably be a hawkish one. Given this skewed risk/reward trade-off, we recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios on the view that the next large move in Treasury yields will be higher. The difficult part is timing when that move will occur. In the remainder of this report we provide some thoughts on how to think about that timing, and also some trade ideas that should be profitable in the meantime. The New Battleground: Inflation Expectations Vs. Financial Conditions Recent remarks from Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and other FOMC participants have made it clear that an important rationale for the Fed’s pause is a desire to re-anchor inflation expectations at a level closer to the Fed’s target. For example, here is Chairman Powell from last week’s press conference: So, if inflation expectations are below two percent, they’re always going to be pulling inflation down, and we’re going to be paddling upstream and trying to, you know, keep inflation at two percent … And here is what the Chairman said about inflation expectations in his recent congressional testimony: In our thinking, inflation expectations are now the most important driver of actual inflation. With that in mind, consider that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have been below “well anchored” levels for pretty much the entire post-crisis period, as have long-term inflation expectations from the University of Michigan Consumer survey (Chart 4). Chart 4The Fed Wants Higher Inflation Expectations The Fed has clearly made the re-anchoring of inflation expectations a priority, meaning that we should monitor TIPS breakeven inflation rates and survey measures of inflation expectations to assess when rate hikes might re-start. However, we don’t think that higher inflation expectations are absolutely necessary before the Fed resumes hiking. Consider what Fed officials were saying as recently as December: Governor Lael Brainard on December 7, 2018:2 The last several times resource utilization approached levels similar to today, signs of overheating showed up in financial-sector imbalances rather than in accelerating inflation. Chairman Powell on June 20, 2018:3 Indeed, the fact that the two most recent U.S. recessions stemmed principally from financial imbalances, not high inflation, highlights the importance of closely monitoring financial conditions.   In other words, until recently the Fed seemed more concerned with financial conditions than with inflation expectations. What changed? Quite simply, financial markets sold off and financial conditions no longer appear excessively easy (Chart 5). Chart 5The Fed Doesn’t Want An Asset Bubble The Financial Conditions component of our Fed Monitor remains “easier” than its historical average, but shows that conditions have tightened significantly since last October (Chart 5, top panel). Junk spreads have widened since last October (Chart 5, panel 2), as has the excess corporate bond risk premium after accounting for expected default risk (Chart 5, panel 3). 4 The S&P 500’s 12-month forward Price/Earnings ratio is down to 16.5, from 17 last October and a 2018 peak of 18.8 (Chart 5, bottom panel). If financial markets rally during the next few months, then it is quite possible that financial conditions will once again force the Fed’s hand. In essence, financial asset valuations appear somewhat reasonable and are not an immediate cause for concern. This means that the Fed can turn its attention toward trying to drive inflation expectations higher. However, if financial markets rally during the next few months, then it is quite possible that financial conditions will once again force the Fed’s hand. The Outlook For Financial Conditions & Global Growth The Fed’s dovish policy shift should support a rally in risk assets in the coming months, though such a rally may also require evidence of improvement in global growth. Right now that evidence is scant. March Flash PMIs for the U.S. and Eurozone both fell last week, while Japan’s stayed flat below the 50 boom/bust line. This means that the Global Manufacturing PMI’s downtrend will almost certainly continue when the final March data are released next week (Chart 6). Chart 6Global Growth Is Weak ... However, while the coincident PMI data continue to soften, we have recently noticed some green shoots in leading global growth indicators (Chart 7). Chart 7... But Leading Indicators Are Improving First, our Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) Diffusion Index has moved above 50%, meaning that a majority of countries are seeing improvement in their LEIs for the first time since early 2018 (Chart 7, top panel). Second, our China Investment Strategy service’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator – a composite of six indicators of Chinese money and credit growth – has stabilized. While a 2016-style surge in credit growth is unlikely, even a stabilization in this leading indicator will help prop up global growth in 2019 (Chart 7, panel 2). We do not think that 3-month/10-year curve inversion will last very long.  Finally, the CRB Raw Industrials index has rebounded smartly during the past few weeks, and is now threatening to break above its 200-day moving average (Chart 7, bottom panel). Investment Implications The Fed is currently waging a war on two fronts. It wants to keep interest rates low enough to send inflation expectations higher, back to levels consistent with its 2% target. But it also wants to avoid excessively easy financial conditions that could threaten the sustainability of the economic recovery. Asset prices are not extended at the moment, so the Fed can maintain an accommodative policy focused on driving inflation expectations higher. However, at some point the combination of accommodative policy and improving global growth will cause the Fed’s attention to turn back toward financial conditions. That will put rate hikes back on the table and send Treasury yields higher. Timing when that shift will occur is difficult, which is why we recommend that investors enter positive carry yield curve trades to boost returns while we await a hawkish surprise from the Fed later this year (see next section). What The Yield Curve Is Telling Us The Fed’s dovish surprise sent Treasury yields lower last week and also led to significant changes in the shape of the yield curve. In particular, investors have focused on the fact that the 10-year yield is now below the 3-month T-bill rate. That focus is not surprising, given that curve inversion has been a reliable leading indicator of recession in past cycles. We use the 2-year/10-year and 3-year/10-year slopes in our research into the phases of the cycle (Chart 8), and while both of those slopes remain positive – consistent with a “Phase 2” environment – we will keep a close eye on the 3-month/10-year slope in the coming weeks.5 Historically, inversion of the different curve segments has occurred at around the same time. Chart 8Still In Phase 2 Given that the Fed has already signaled a much more dovish policy stance and that global growth is likely to improve later this year, we do not think that 3-month/10-year curve inversion will last very long. However, if we are wrong and the 2-year/10-year and 3-year/10-year slopes are eventually pulled down into negative territory, then we may have to re-visit some of our asset allocation positions. But for now, we find the 5-year and 7-year maturities to be the most interesting points on the yield curve (Chart 9). In fact, the 5-year and 7-year yields are so low that investors can earn more yield by entering duration-matched barbells consisting of the long and short ends of the curve. For example, the 5-year Treasury note offers a lower yield than a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. Similarly, the 7-year note offers less yield than a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year note and 30-year bond (Chart 10). Chart 10Barbells Are Positive Carry Further, we have also observed that the 5-year and 7-year yields are most sensitive to changes in 12-month rate hike expectations. Chart 11 shows that when our 12-month discounter rises, the yield curve tends to steepen out to the 7-year maturity, and flatten thereafter. This means that the 5-year and 7-year yields have the most upside when rate hikes are eventually priced back into the curve. Chart 11Yield Curve Correlations Taken together, positive carry in the barbells and the sensitivity of 5-year and 7-year yields to 12-month rate expectations mean that investors should enter short positions in the 5-year or 7-year notes today, offset by long positions in duration-matched barbells (eg. the 2/10 or 2/30). These trades will earn significant capital gains when the Fed ultimately delivers a hawkish surprise, sending the 5-year and 7-year yields higher, and will also earn positive carry in the meantime, while we wait for financial conditions to ease enough to shift the Fed’s reaction function. We have also observed that the 5-year and 7-year yields are most sensitive to changes in 12-month rate hike expectations. These long barbell / short 5-year or 7-year bullet positions will only lose money if the market prices-in further rate cuts going forward. With the market already priced for 32 bps of cuts during the next 12 months, a further decline would be consistent with economic recession. This remains the least likely scenario. Bottom Line: Inversion of the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope is cause for concern, if it persists. But we expect it to reverse in the coming months as global growth recovers and the Fed remains accommodative. Eventually, after financial conditions have eased sufficiently, the Fed’s next move will be a hawkish surprise. Investors can profit from this move by entering positive carry yield curve trades: short the 5-year or 7-year bullet and go long a duration-matched barbell.   Ryan Swift,  U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Running Room,” dated January 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20181207a.htm 3  https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20180620a.htm 4 The Gilchrist and Zakrajsek (GZ) Excess Bond Premium is a measure of the excess spread available in a sample of nonfinancial corporate bonds, after removing a bottom-up estimate of expected default losses for each security. Default losses are estimated based on the Merton Default model, using each firm’s market value of equity and face value of debt. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2016/files/… 5 Our research into the different phases of the cycle based on the slope of the yield curve can be found in U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income,” dated December 18, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Overweight (High-Conviction) Software stocks are on fire and leading profit indicators suggest that more gains are in store in the coming months. Sustained capital outlays on software are a key driver of industry profits (bottom panel). In an otherwise muted Q4 GDP release, rising non-residential fixed investment in general and surging investment in software in particular suggest that our bullish software capex thesis is alive and kicking (middle panel). The move to cloud computing and SaaS, the proliferation of AI, machine learning and augmented reality are not fads but enjoy a secular growth profile, and signal that capital outlays on software are also in a structural uptrend. Not only private sector software capex is near all-time highs as a share of total outlays, but also government investment in software is reaccelerating at the fastest pace since the tech bubble. When productivity gains are anemic, both the business and government sectors resort to software upgrades in order to boost productivity. Bottom Line: We reiterated our high-conviction overweight recommendation on the S&P software index on Monday. Please see our Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT – MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, INTU, ADSK, RHT, CDNS, SNPS, ANSS, SYMC, CTXS, FTNT.