Developed Countries

Highlights Fed Policy: The Fed’s move to a more dovish posture is positive for global risk assets in the near-term. This is setting up for a revival of volatility later in 2019, however, with U.S. growth unlikely to slow enough to justify a continuation of the Fed’s dovish stance. With the market now discounting no change in Fed policy rates over the next year, the risks for U.S. Treasury yields are now tilted to the upside. ECB Policy: Growth has slowed in Europe, but the ECB is limited in its ability to ease policy further given tight labor markets and rising wage growth. Policy rates will stay on hold over at least the next year. U.S. & European Duration: Keep global duration exposure below benchmark, with a more defensive stance on U.S. Treasuries over German Bunds given that the Treasury-Bund spread has overshot to the downside. Feature “In fact, our policy works through changing financial conditions, so it’s sort of the essence of what we do” – Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell Have central bankers now turned TOO dovish? That is a question that will be answered in the coming weeks and months after the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank (ECB) signaled a more cautious outlook on growth and inflation. Both central banks cited common causes for the increased caution, such as financial market instability related to geopolitical uncertainty (U.S.-China trade tensions, Brexit, the U.S. government shutdown). Importantly, neither the Fed nor ECB expressed conviction that monetary policy settings were now too restrictive. The sharp selloff in global stock and credit markets at the end of 2018 did tighten financial conditions which, in and of itself, should result in slower growth on either side of the Atlantic in the first half of 2019 (Chart of the Week). Yet we do not expect a move to a below-trend pace of growth that would trigger rising unemployment and weaker inflation pressures. Chart of the WeekFed Too Dovish, ECB Not Dovish Enough The shift to a more dovish posture by the Fed and ECB has already induced some easing of financial conditions to help support growth in the U.S. and Europe until the uncertainties over geopolitics and the Chinese economy are resolved. This appears to be providing more stimulus to economies that may not necessarily need it. That is a risk that policymakers have decided to take to protect against the downside tail risks to economic growth and confidence from global uncertainty. In terms of fixed income markets, more dovish policymakers have created a pro-risk backdrop that will support the outperformance of corporate bonds versus government debt over the next 3-6 months. Without a deeper slowdown of global growth beyond what is currently expected, however, this will only be a temporary respite as central banks revert back to fighting inflation pressures instead of calming financial markets. The result will be a return to monetary tightening and higher bond yields, although that is a far more likely scenario in the U.S. than in Europe over the next 6-12 months given the relative signals from our Central Bank Monitors (bottom panel). Fed Outlook – A Temporary Dovish Turn, Nothing More The quote at the beginning of this report was taken from Fed Chair Powell’s press conference after last week’s FOMC meeting, in response to a question on how the Fed thinks about financial conditions. We can think of no cleaner way to explain the Fed’s understanding of how its monetary policy actions get transmitted to the real economy. By inducing changes in financial asset values (equity prices, corporate bond yields, the value of the U.S. dollar) through adjustments in the fed funds rate – and perceptions about its forward path – the Fed is able to impact the cost of financing across much of the U.S. economy. The goal is either to slow or stimulate growth, as needed, to allow the Fed to reach its dual mandate of maximizing employment while keeping inflation stable. Viewed from this perspective, the Fed’s “dovish” turn last week was a necessary step to not only stabilize financial markets, but to induce a pro-growth rally in risk assets that had sold off too aggressively. On that front, the Fed can say “Mission Accomplished”. Year-to-date, the S&P 500 is up 8% while U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporate bond spreads have fallen by 26bps and 110bps, respectively. The U.S. dollar is also down 1.6% since the start of the year, providing further stimulus to the U.S. economy. U.S. Treasury yields, which had fallen thanks to lower real and inflation components, have also helped ease financial conditions. Real yields have declined as the market has moved to price out all Fed rate hikes for 2019 in response to some signs of cooling U.S. growth (i.e. housing) and the big fall in asset prices. At the same time, inflation expectations have drifted lower as markets now expect the plunge in oil prices seen in 2018 to filter though more broadly into lower realized inflation (Chart 2). Chart 2Too Much Pessimism In UST Yields The ability for yields to decline further is now limited, however, with U.S. economic growth likely to continue at an above-trend pace in the next few quarters, based on the readings from reliable indicators. The ISM Manufacturing index rebounded to 56.6 in January, still well above the 50 level indicating an expanding U.S. economy, even after the decline that began last September. Within the sub-components of the index, the New Orders series also rose last month by 6.9 points, suggesting that the bounce in the overall ISM series could persist. The 10yr UST yield broadly tracks the ISM Manufacturing index (Chart 3), with the post-crisis relationship indicating that the bond yield will have difficulty falling below 2.5% if the ISM remains above 55. Chart 3U.S. Treasuries Vulnerable To Better U.S. Data U.S. economic data continues to broadly meet expectations, and the momentum in U.S. Treasury yields has overshot to the downside versus data surprises (bottom panel). Admittedly, there have been far fewer data releases of late because of the U.S. government shutdown last month. Yet even if the bulk of the unreleased data was weak, Treasury yields at current levels already seem to be discounting very soft growth. Forward-looking indicators of growth - the Conference Board leading economic indicator and BCA’s U.S. employment and capital spending models – are all pointing to the U.S. economy continuing to expand at a solid, above-trend pace in the coming months (Chart 4). Chart 4No Signs Pointing To Slower U.S. Growth The U.S. labor market remains tight, as evidenced by continued low unemployment and solid growth in wage measures like Average Hourly Earnings and the Wages and Salaries component of the Employment Cost Index (Chart 5). At the same time, readings from leading inflation indicators like the New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge remain elevated (bottom panel). The combined message is that U.S. core inflation rates will remain surprisingly sticky in the coming months, even given the lagged impact of last year’s drop in oil prices. Chart 5Persistent U.S. Inflation Pressures Many have made the case that the current cycle looks a lot like the Fed’s 2016 pause on policy tightening, which ended up lasting one full year after the December 2015 initial post-QE rate hike. Back then, the Fed’s more dovish posture helped generate easier financial conditions through a weaker U.S. dollar, tighter U.S. corporate credit spreads and higher U.S. equity values. U.S. Treasury yields fell sharply as the market aggressively covered a large bearish tilt towards U.S. interest rates while removing all rate hikes that were discounted for 2016 (Chart 6). There is one major difference between then and now, however – the U.S. economy is growing at a much faster pace, with far less spare capacity (bottom panel). Chart 6This Is NOT A Repeat Of 2016 When looking at all the U.S. data objectively, we conclude that the Fed’s latest dovish turn will not last anywhere near as long as the 2016 episode. The current easing of U.S. (and global) financial conditions alongside still-solid U.S. growth will eventually set up a return to the Fed rate hiking cycle, at a time when no interest rate increases are discounted in U.S. money markets. This supports our current recommendation to be tactically overweight U.S. corporate debt versus U.S. Treasuries on a 3-6 month horizon, during this window when the Fed is deliberately easing financial conditions by being overly dovish. On a more medium term 6-12 month horizon, however, we are maintaining a below-benchmark stance on U.S. duration exposure. The only way Treasury yields can move lower from here is if a Fed rate cutting cycle starts to be discounted – a highly unlikely scenario given the signals from leading growth and inflation indicators. Bottom Line: The Fed’s move to a more dovish posture is positive for global risk assets in the near-term. This is setting up for a revival of volatility later in 2019, however, with U.S. growth unlikely to slow enough to prevent inflation pressures from surfacing. With the market now discounting a stand-pat Fed over the next year, with minimal expected inflation, the risks for U.S. Treasury yields are now tilted to the upside. ECB Outlook – Firmly Neutral The euro area is currently facing a fairly significant growth slowdown. The manufacturing PMI has fallen for 13 consecutive months and now sits just above the 50 line indicating expanding growth. The OECD’s leading economic indicator (LEI) has also declined over that same period. Both indicators are now back to levels last seen prior to the 2009 and 2012 recessions (Chart 7). Chart 7Euro Area LEI and PMI Overstating The Downturn? Yet at the same time, surveys of business and consumer confidence from the European Commission suggest that the current downturn is nothing like those previous slumps. Even the Commission’s indicator of exporter order books (bottom panel) suggests that things do not appear as bad as indicated by the PMI and LEI. So where does the truth lie about the euro area economy? When looking at the hard data on exports (using the IMF’s Direction of Trade statistical database that includes both goods and services), it is obvious that there was a sharp slowing of euro area exports last year (Chart 8). Slumping Chinese demand was a major reason for that slowdown, but exports to the rest of the world also took a major hit. For the more export-intensive economies of Europe, last year’s global growth deceleration was a major punch to the gut. Chart 8European Export Shock Should Bottom Out Later In 2019 Looking ahead, there is still likely to be some pain coming from weaker export demand in the first half of 2019. The Chinese credit impulse (measured as a 12-month change in Total Social Financing as a % of GDP) is still negative, while our global LEI measure continues to drift lower. However, there are some tentative signs that things may be stabilizing. The shorter 6-month China credit impulse has hooked up (the “x’ in the top panel of Chart 8). Our diffusion index of countries within our global LEI – itself a leading indicator of the global LEI – has also begun to move higher, meaning there are fewer countries within the euro area with falling LEIs. While it is still too early to draw firm conclusions, there is a chance that euro area export growth will bottom out by mid-year. This is especially true if a U.S.-China trade detente is soon reached and Chinese policymakers deliver some additional growth stimulus measures, which is BCA’s base case scenario. ECB President Mario Draghi noted last week that a stabilization of global trade tensions would reduce much of the perceived uncertainty within the euro area economy. The U.S.-China trade spat has not been the only thing weighing on euro area growth, though. In our framework for analyzing the ECB’s policy decisions, we look at how broad-based are the trends in growth and inflation within the euro area to determine the next likely move on monetary policy. The way we do that is by looking at diffusion indices of economic data, constructed using figures from as many euro area countries as possible, given data availability. We show those diffusion indices for real GDP growth, manufacturing PMIs, headline inflation and core inflation in the euro area in Chart 9. Chart 9No Pressure On The ECB To Adjust Interest Rates The diffusion indices show that the vast majority of euro area countries are now suffering slowing real GDP growth and falling PMIs, with levels seen during recessions. Yet the actual pullbacks in real GDP growth and the PMIs have been shallower than those past episodes. It is as if today, all countries are suffering a slump, but no deep downturn. This is consistent with the ECB’s belief that Europe has suffered a bunch of one-off triggers for slowing growth – cutbacks in German auto production related to new emission standards, large-scale French street protests, the Italian fiscal policy debate with the EU, slowing exports from global trade tensions – but no broad-based decline that can be attributed to, or solved by, monetary policy. This is especially true with the diffusion index for core euro area inflation which now rising, suggesting that core inflation could remain surprisingly sticky in the coming months. The diffusion indices for euro area labor markets provide additional information as to why the ECB has not shifted to an even more dovish stance, despite the signs of weaker growth. Not only is the overall euro area unemployment rate now below the OECD’s estimate of the full employment NAIRU, the vast majority of countries within the euro area are at full employment (Chart 10). That diffusion index correlates strongly with a traditional Taylor Rule estimate of the equilibrium ECB policy rate, and suggests that the ECB should be raising rates right now. That can also be seen in the diffusion index for wage growth (bottom panel), which shows that the majority of euro area countries are seeing higher wage inflation. Chart 10Tightening Labor Markets In Europe Given the readings on the core inflation and labor market related diffusion indices, the current backdrop is not one where the ECB should be shifting to a more dovish posture. Yet when looking at market-based measures of inflation expectations like CPI swaps, investors clearly do not believe that the ECB’s optimistic inflation forecasts will be achieved over the next two years – typically a sign of policy settings that appear too tight (Chart 11). Chart 11Bund Yields Will Stay Subdued Without More Euro Area Inflation It will require some signs of euro area growth reacceleration, and maybe some upside surprises on core inflation and wage growth, before inflation expectations (and Bund yields) begin rising again. Those are unlikely to become visible until at least the latter half of 2019, and the ECB is likely to keep policy rates unchanged over the balance of the year. Given our relative views on the Fed and ECB, we see the scope for the yield spread between the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury and German Bund to widen from current levels. That spread is wide on a long-term basis because of the relative policy stance of the two central banks, with the current 255bps gap roughly equal to the gap between the fed funds rate and ECB refi rate. Yet the momentum of that spread is closely correlated to the difference in the data surprise indices for the U.S. and euro area, and a divergence has opened up between those two measures on the back of better U.S. growth (Chart 12). Chart 12UST-Bund Spread Has Overshot To Downside With the forward curves currently pricing in some additional tightening of the Treasury-Bund spread, betting on some renewed spread widening is a positive carry trade that also makes sense on a fundamental basis. Bottom Line: Growth has slowed in Europe, but the ECB is limited in its ability to ease policy further given tight labor markets and rising wage growth. Policy rates will stay on hold over at least the next year.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chart 1Look For Rate Hikes In H2 2019 First things first: The Fed’s rate hike cycle is not over. Last week’s FOMC statement told us that the Fed will be “patient” and Chairman Powell cited slower global growth and tighter financial conditions as reasons to keep the funds rate steady. However, both of those reasons could soon evaporate. With the market now priced for 8 bps of rate cuts during the next 12 months and the dollar off its highs, there is scope for financial conditions to ease and global growth to improve in the first half of the year. According to our Fed Monitor, only tight financial conditions warrant a pause in rate hikes (Chart 1). The economic growth and inflation components of our Monitor (not shown) continue to recommend a tighter policy stance. The message is that if risk assets rally during the next six months causing financial conditions to ease, then all else equal, the Fed will have the green light to re-start rate hikes in the second half of the year. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 183 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 25 bps on the month and currently sits at 127 bps. We upgraded our recommended allocation to corporate bonds three weeks ago because spreads had become too wide given the current phase of the credit cycle.1 Presently, we observe that the 12-month breakeven spread for Baa-rated corporate bonds has been tighter 43% of the time since 1989 (Chart 2). In the phase of the credit cycle when the 3/10 Treasury slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps, corporate breakeven spreads are typically in the lower third of their distributions.2 Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Baa-rated bonds currently offer better value than higher-rated credits. The 12-month breakeven spread for A-rated debt has been tighter 29% of the time since 1989 (panel 2). Aa and Aaa-rated credits clock in at 25% and 4%, respectively. With the Fed in a holding pattern, we are comfortable taking credit risk for the next six months and recommend that investors move down in quality to capture the extra return. The Fed’s Q4 Senior Loan Officer Survey, released yesterday, showed that a net 3% of banks reported tightening lending standards on C&I loans. Tighter lending standards correlate with higher defaults and wider spreads, so this tentative development bears close monitoring going forward.   High-Yield: Overweight High-yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 408 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 103 bps, and currently sits at 416 bps. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for expected default losses is currently 224 bps, slightly below the historical average of 250 bps (Chart 3). In other words, if corporate defaults match the Moody’s baseline forecast for the next 12 months, high-yield bonds will return 224 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries, assuming no change in spreads. Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview Moody’s revised its baseline 12-month default rate forecast higher last month, from 2.6% to 3.4%, and as was discussed in last week’s report, the revised forecast looks reasonable given our economic outlook.3 Specifically, our measure of nonfinancial corporate sector gross leverage – calculated as total debt over pre-tax profits – is roughly consistent with a 4% default rate. This leverage measure improved rapidly during the past year, but should start to stabilize during the next few quarters as profit growth decelerates. All in all, baseline default rate expectations have moved higher in recent months, but junk spreads still offer adequate compensation for that risk. In fact, if we assume excess compensation equal to the historical average, then junk spreads embed an expected default rate of 3% (panel 4), not far from the Moody’s base case. While junk spreads offer adequate compensation given our 12-month default outlook, the near-term outlook for excess returns is somewhat brighter as the Fed’s dovish turn should lead to spread compression during the next few months. MBS: Neutral Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 32 basis points in January. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread tightened 3 bps on the month, driven by a 3 bps decline in the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) held flat. The drop in the 30-year mortgage rate to 4.46%, from 4.94% in November, led to a sharp spike in mortgage refinancings. However, refi activity remains very low relative to history (Chart 4). With the longer-run uptrend in mortgage rates still intact, the recent spike in refinancings is bound to reverse in the coming months. This will keep MBS spreads capped near historically low levels. Chart 4MBS Market Overview Outside of refi activity, MBS spreads are also influenced by changes in mortgage lending standards. The Federal Reserve’s Senior Loan Officer Survey showed no change in residential mortgage lending standards in Q4 2018 (bottom panel), while reported mortgage demand took a significant dip. Periods of tightening lending standards tend to coincide with MBS spread widening, but faced with weaker demand banks are much more likely to ease standards going forward. This is particularly true because very little progress has been made easing lending standards since the financial crisis. The median FICO score for new mortgages peaked at 781 in Q1 2011, but had only fallen to 758 as of Q3 2018. With relatively little risk of spread widening we are comfortable with a neutral allocation to Agency MBS, though tight spreads make the sector less appealing than corporate bonds from a return perspective. Later in the cycle, when the risk of corporate spread widening is more pronounced, MBS will likely warrant an upgrade. Government-Related: Underweight The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 53 basis points in January. Sovereign debt led the way, outperforming the Treasury benchmark by 221 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed by 65 bps, Local Authorities outperformed by 32 bps, and Supranationals outperformed by 3 bps. Domestic Agency bonds were the sole laggard, underperforming Treasuries by 3 bps on the month. The Fed’s pause and the accompanying weakness in the dollar spurred last month’s outperformance of USD-denominated Sovereign debt. But given the current attractiveness of U.S. corporate credit, we are not eager to chase the outperformance in Sovereigns. The option-adjusted spread advantage in Baa-rated U.S. corporate credit relative to the Sovereign index is as wide as it was in mid-2016 (Chart 5), a period when corporate bonds outperformed Sovereigns by a significant margin. Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview At the country level, our analysis of USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign spreads shows that only Argentina, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Poland offer excess spread compared to equivalently-rated U.S. corporates.4 We continue to view the Local Authority sector as very attractive. The sector offers similar value to Aa/A-rated corporate debt on a breakeven spread basis (bottom panel), and it is also dominated by taxable municipal securities that are insulated from weak foreign economic growth. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 7 basis points in January (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio fell 2% in January, and currently sits at 84% (Chart 6). This is about one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean but above the average of 81% that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Chart 6Municipal Market Overview In our research into the phases of the credit cycle, we often divide the cycle based on the slope of the yield curve. Since 1983, in the middle phase of the credit cycle when the 3/10 Treasury slope is between 0 bps and +50 bps (where it stands today), investment grade corporate bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of -14 bps. In contrast, municipal bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of +47 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage).5  Given strong historical returns during the current phase of the cycle and the fact that our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory (bottom panel), we advocate an overweight allocation to municipal bonds. Long maturity municipal debt continues to offer a substantial yield advantage relative to the short-end of the curve. For example, a muni investor needs an effective tax rate of 35% to equalize the after-tax yields between a 5-year Aa-rated municipal bond and the equivalent-duration U.S. credit index. For a 20-year muni the same breakeven tax rate is between 10% and 17%. Treasury Curve: Favor 2/30 Barbell Over 7-Year Bullet Treasury yields declined in January, with the 5-year and 7-year maturities falling more than the short and long ends of the curve. The 2/10 slope flattened 3 bps on the month, from 21 bps to 18 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 5 bps on the month, from 51 bps to 56 bps. In a recent report we looked at the correlations between different yield curve slopes and our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter.6 We found that the 5-year and 7-year maturities are most sensitive to changes in the discounter, while the short and long ends of the curve tend to be more stable. In other words, a decline in our 12-month discounter, like the one seen during the past two months (Chart 7), will tend to flatten the curve out to the 5-year/7-year maturity point and steepen the curve beyond that point. An increase in the discounter has the opposite effect. Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview We expect the market to price some Fed rate hikes back into the curve as financial conditions ease during the next few months. Based on that view, we recommend adopting a yield curve strategy that benefits from a rise in our 12-month discounter. A position short the 7-year bullet and long a duration-matched 2/30 barbell provides the appropriate exposure and is attractively valued by our yield curve models (panel 4).7 TIPS: Overweight TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 84 basis points in January. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 14 bps on the month, and currently sits at 1.88%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 9 bps, and currently sits at 2.04%. Both rates remain below the 2.3% - 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed’s target. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate also remains below the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations Model (Chart 8).8 This model is based on a combination of backward-looking and forward-looking inflation measures and is premised on the idea that investors’ expectations take time to adjust to changing macro environments. The current fair value reading from the model is 1.97%, but that fair value reading will trend steadily higher as long as core CPI inflation remains above 1.83%. The 1.83% threshold is the annualized trailing 10-year growth rate in core CPI, and it is the most important variable in our model.   Chart 8Inflation Compensation On that note, core CPI has increased at an annual rate of 2.48% during the past 3 months, well above the necessary threshold. And while some forward-looking inflation measures have moderated, notably the ISM Prices Paid index (panel 4), this is largely a reaction to the recent drop in energy prices. A drop that should reverse as global growth improves in the coming months. ABS: Neutral Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 16 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 8 bps on the month, and currently sits at 40 bps, 6 bps above its pre-crisis low. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that consumer ABS offer greater expected return than Domestic Agencies and Supranationals, though with a commensurate increase in risk. The Map also shows that Agency CMBS offer very similar return potential with much less risk. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for Q4 2018 showed that banks tightened lending standards slightly for both credit cards and auto loans. This is consistent with a continued gradual uptrend in consumer credit delinquencies (Chart 9). Chart 9ABS Market Overview Rising household interest expense further confirms that the consumer credit delinquency rate is biased higher, albeit from a low starting point (panel 4). All in all, ABS still offer a reasonable risk/reward trade-off but could warrant a downgrade in the coming quarters as credit quality worsens. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 67 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 11 bps on the month and currently sits at 105 bps. The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that banks tightened lending standards on commercial real estate (CRE) loans in Q4 and witnessed falling demand (Chart 10). This is a typical negative environment for CMBS spreads. Decelerating CRE prices are also a cause for concern (panel 3). Investors should maintain an underweight allocation to non-Agency CMBS. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 28 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 4 bps on the month and currently sits at 57 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector continues to make sense. Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Appendix A - The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 8 basis points of rate cuts during the next 12 months. Given that we expect the Fed to deliver rate hikes in the second half of this year, we recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Appendix B- Butterfly Strategy Valuation The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury yield curve. The models are explained in detail in the following two Special Reports: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of January 31, 2019)   Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of January 31, 2019)   Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C - Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Map employs volatility-adjusted breakeven spread analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Map does not incorporate any macroeconomic view. The horizontal axis of the Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps of excess return.   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Buy Corporate Credit”, dated January 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on how we divide the credit cycle based on the slope of the yield curve please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Running Room”, dated January 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk”, dated October 9, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearh 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Don’t Position For Curve Inversion”, dated January 22, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 The output from all of our yield curve models is shown in Appendix B of this report. 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Chinese reflation, the ongoing global capex upcycle, and the Fed induced cap on the greenback with the knock-on effect of higher commodity prices, all signal that it still pays to overweight S&P cyclicals at the expense of S&P defensives.  Sustained EM stock outperformance, a soft U.S. dollar, improving semi equipment operating metrics, along with compelling relative valuations and technicals, all suggest that there are high odds that the recent semi equipment run up has more upside.   Recent Changes There are no changes in the portfolio this week. Feature The SPX consolidated the 350 point advance since the Christmas Eve trough last week, setting the stage for a durable advance in the coming months. The Fed stood pat last Wednesday, and signaled a much more dovish policy stance going forward. Chairman Powell was clearly humbled by last December’s convulsing equity market and abrupt tightening in financial conditions. On that front, in the latest FOMC statement the explicit mention of patience is significant: “the Committee will be patient as it determines what future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate may be appropriate”. A definitively more dovish Fed, which will help restrain the greenback, remains one of the three key catalysts for a durable equity market advance as we have highlighted in recent research.1 Encouragingly, our proprietary Equity Capitulation Indicator (ECI) has bottomed at two standard deviations below the historical mean (Chart 1). Over the past two decades, such a depressed level in our ECI has marked previous equity market troughs including the early-2016, 2011, 2002 and 1998 iterations. Only the GFC episode was lower, falling to three standard deviations below the mean. Clearly the late-December selling frenzy registers as another investor capitulation point and, if history at least rhymes, more gains are in store for the broad equity market. Chart 1Capitulation Chart 2 shows some other measures of breadth that corroborate our ECI’s message: investors hit the panic button and exited equities in droves in Q4. The upshot is that with selling exhausted, stocks can now stage a durable recovery as long as profits continue to expand. As a reminder, the continuation of the earnings juggernaut is the second key catalyst we identified two weeks ago.2 Midway through earnings season, SPX EPS have held up well with growth approaching 16%. For calendar 2019 we expect mid-single digit EPS growth in line with the signal from our macro driven S&P 500 EPS growth model (please refer to Chart 4 from the mid-January Weekly Publication).3 Chart 2Selling Is Exhausted A positive resolution to the U.S./China trade spat is the third catalyst we highlighted recently in order for equities to break out to fresh all-time highs.4 Related to this, China’s reflation efforts are equally important. On that front, news of quasi QE from the PBOC suggests that the Chinese authorities remain committed to injecting liquidity into their economy.5 Already, the PBOC balance sheet, with over $5.5tn in assets, is expanding anew. Empirical evidence suggests that SPX momentum and the ebb and flow of the PBOC balance sheet are joined at the hip, and the current message is positive (second panel, Chart 3). Chart 3Heed The PBoC Message Beyond the PBOC balance sheet expansion, the Chinese six-month credit impulse is also in a sling shot recovery. This Chinese credit backdrop is enticing and moves more or less in tandem with the SPX six-month impulse (top panel, Chart 4). Chart 4Reflating Away Two forces explain these relationships. First, China’s rise to become the second largest economy in the world along with its insatiable appetite for commodities and durable goods. Second, 40% of S&P 500 sales are international and an increasing share now originates in emerging markets in general and in China in particular. Keep in mind that the S&P cyclicals/defensives ratio is not only a high beta play on the SPX itself (top panel, Chart 3), but also an S&P global versus domestic gauge. Thus, both of these Chinese indicators also enjoy a positive correlation with the cyclicals vs. defensives tilt (bottom panels, Charts 3 & 4). With that in mind, this week we are drilling deeper into why we continue to prefer S&P cyclicals over S&P defensives and also highlight a highly cyclical index we went overweight in mid-December that has gone parabolic. Double Down On Cyclicals Vs. Defensives Early-October 2017 marks the initiation of our cyclical vs. defensive preference. Initially, this tilt jumped and peaked in mid-2018 returning 18% since inception. Since then, it has given up all of those gains and then some before troughing with the market on Christmas Eve, suffering a 6% drop since inception. Currently, the ratio has moved full circle and is back to where it was when we first recommended this portfolio bent (Chart 5). Chart 5Full Circle Should investors commit capital to this tilt at this stage of the cycle and given the current global macro backdrop? The short answer is yes. Charts 3 & 4 show that China’s reflation efforts and the fate of the S&P cyclicals/defensives ratio are closely correlated. In addition to the PBOC’s expanding balance sheet and rising Chinese credit impulse, Chinese monetary easing also benefits S&P cyclicals at the expense of S&P defensives. The Chinese reserve requirement ratio (RRR) has plummeted to the lowest point since the GFC and Chinese interest rates are also plumbing multi-year lows (RRR shown inverted, top panel, Chart 6). Chart 6China Flashing Green Tack on a resurgent currency with the CNY briefly breaking 6.70 with the U.S. dollar, and factors are falling into place for a playable rally in the cyclicals/defensive ratio. Likely, the Chinese are trying to appease President Trump by underpinning the yuan, but the Fed’s recent more dovish stance on interest rate hikes is also pushing the greenback lower. Taken together, this is a boon for the commodity exposed U.S. cyclicals that also garner a significant share of their sales from abroad (bottom panel, Chart 6). Commodity prices troughed last September, staying true to their leading properties and have been in recovery mode ever since (top panel, Chart 7). Now that the Fed has capped the U.S. dollar, more gains are in store for commodities and that is a boon for commodity producers’ top line growth prospects. Chart 7Capex Remains Healthy The demand backdrop is also enticing at the current stage of the business cycle, not only domestically, but also in China. Capital outlays remain upbeat and despite some recent turbulence, U.S. capex intentions are near multi-year highs (third panel, Chart 7). In China, recent piece meal fiscal easing announcements are far from negligible; already infrastructure spending has jumped after contracting late last year (second panel, Chart 7). Were these announcements to get supplemented by a bigger and more comprehensive package, then commodity-levered equities will excel further. A look at the relative balance sheet health of cyclicals versus defensives is revealing. Cyclicals are paying down debt and their cash flow continues to improve, still recovering from the late-2015/early 2016 global manufacturing recession. On the flipside, defensives are piling on debt. All four safe haven sectors have been degrading their balance sheets (relative net debt-to-EBITDA shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 8). Interest coverage sends a similar message: cyclicals are in excellent health both in absolute terms and compared with defensives (top panel, Chart 8). Chart 8B/S Improvement Continues Sell-side analysts have not yet taken notice of the macro tide that is turning in favor of cyclicals over defensives. Relative forward profit growth has collapsed to nil and net EPS revisions are at previous nadirs (fourth & fifth panels, Chart 9). Chart 9Oversold And Unloved In sum, if our thesis pans out that China will continue to reflate, global capex will remain vibrant, the greenback will drift lower (U.S. dollar shown inverted, top panel, Chart 9) courtesy of a dovish Fed that will push the broad commodity complex higher, then a significant valuation rerating looms for the cyclicals/defensives tilt (second panel, Chart 9). Bottom Line: Continue to the prefer S&P cyclicals to S&P defensives. We also reiterate our recent long S&P materials/short S&P utilities pair trade.6 Semi Equipment: Buy Into Strength In mid-December we boosted the S&P semi equipment index to overweight from underweight and since then this niche chip subindex has outperformed the broad market by 17%.7 Semi equipment stocks are high beta (bottom panel, Chart 10) and, while we are recommending to buy into strength, from a portfolio risk management perspective, today we are also setting a trailing stop at the 10% return mark in order to protect profits in this tactical (three-to-six month time horizon) position. Chart 10Buy Into Strength... These high-octane highly-cyclical tech stocks move in lockstep with other volatile asset classes. Rebounding emerging market (EM) stocks and FX confirm the S&P semi equipment breakout, and signal additional gains in the coming months (Chart 11). Not only do they share the high-beta status, but also semi equipment stocks garner 90% of their sales outside U.S. shores and 21% of total revenues come from China (please refer to Table 3 in our December 17, 2018 Weekly Report). Thus, the tight inverse correlation with the greenback and positive correlation with the outperforming EM stocks comes as no surprise (Chart 11). Chart 11...But Expect Heightened Vol Importantly, Taiwan and Korea are chip manufacturing hubs and semi equipment stocks are levered plays on the macro backdrops of these two economies. Recent data suggests that a turn is in the making in two key indicators in these countries, respectively. Taiwanese tech capex has likely troughed at a depressed level (middle panel. Chart 12), and Korean electronic components manufacturing capacity is now contracting for the first time since late-1997 (bottom panel, Chart 12). The latter is significant as this abrupt and sizable reining in of productive capacity will soon help arrest the fall in chip prices, which serves as an excellent pricing power proxy for the semi equipment industry. Chart 12Green Shoots Historically, relative forward profit growth and DRAM price momentum are joined at the hip. Therefore, were DRAM prices to exit deflation on the back of constrained Korean capacity, that would be a boon for relative profit prospects (second panel, Chart 13). Chart 13Analysts Have Thrown In The Towel Despite these marginal positive developments, sell-side analysts’ pessimism reigns supreme. Industry revenue and profit growth expectations trail the broad market by a wide margin and net EPS revisions remain as bad as they get. The upshot is that these lowered profit and sales growth bars will be easy to surpass in 2019 (Chart 13). With regard to technicals and valuations, oversold conditions bounced, as we posited in mid-December using history as a guide, but still remain depressed (middle panel, Chart 14). Valuations are compelling with the S&P semi equipment forward P/E trading at a roughly 40% discount to the overall market (fourth panel, Chart 13). Chart 14Technicals Remain Depressed Finally, earnings season has revealed that the bifurcated semiconductor market has staying power with semi equipment stocks (we are overweight) outperforming their ailing semi producer brethren (we remain underweight). Netting it out, sustained EM stock outperformance, a soft U.S. dollar, improving industry operating metrics, along with compelling relative valuations and technicals, all suggest that there are high odds that the recent semi equipment run up has more upside. Bottom Line: Maintain the overweight stance in the S&P semi equipment index for a while longer, but set a trailing stop at the 10% relative return mark in order to protect profits in this tactical (three-to-six month time horizon) position. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SEEQ – AMAT, LRCX, KLAC.   Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting 2019 Earnings” dated January 22, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      Ibid. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Catharsis” dated January 14, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting 2019 Earnings” dated January 22, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5      Please see Bloomberg Article, “PBOC Sets Up Swap Tool to Aid Bank Capital via Perpetual Bonds” dated January 24, 2019, available at www.bloomberg.com. 6      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Trader’s Paradise” dated January 28, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 7      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Signal Vs. Noise” dated December 17, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights Our non-consensus inflation and Fed views just got even more non-consensus: Media and sell-side commentators were quick to speculate about an end to the tightening cycle following Wednesday’s FOMC meeting, but we don’t see any basis for changing our stance. December and January have been a wild couple of months, … : It’s not unusual for a swing in one direction to be following by a swing in the other, but the S&P 500 went from the 2nd percentile in December to the 96th percentile in January. … and we’re turning to our equity checklist to regain our bearings: Checklists help us maintain a healthy distance from day-to-day swings and focus on the key swing factors. For now, we don’t think anything much has changed, but the scope for a repricing of the entire Treasury curve has gotten bigger: The wider the disparity between our terminal fed funds rate expectation and the market’s, the greater the potential for yields to readjust. We continue to believe markets are being complacent about inflation pressures; their presence will force the Fed off the sidelines and ultimately spell the end of the expansion. Feature Brutal arctic cold swept the Midwest and the Northeast Corridor last week as the polar vortex clamped down on Canada and the upper U.S. The weather didn’t do anything to cool investors’ revived ardor for stocks, however. After finally taking a break from its nearly uninterrupted four-week sprint from 2,350 to 2,670 (that’s nearly 14% in just 17 sessions), the S&P 500 hung around the 2,640 level that supported it repeatedly during its October, November and early December travails (Chart 1). Then came Wednesday’s FOMC statement and press conference, and the S&P even poked its head above the 2,700 level that would seem to present a fairly stiff challenge (Chart 2). Chart 12,640 Lent Support Once Again …   Chart 2... Will The Next Round Number Offer A Little Resistance? What Goes On One minute born, one minute doomed/ One minute up, and one minute down/ What goes on in your mind?/ I think that I am falling down If the conditions were polar out of doors, they were bipolar on traders’ screens. As much as the clients we spoke with in January were initially skeptical about our inflation view (it’s not dead) and our corresponding Fed call (at least three or four more hikes in response to budding price pressures), several of them seemed to come around before the meeting was over. They had a lot harder time with the two-part investment conclusion that risk assets would rally while the Fed was on hold, and the economy and corporate profits were able to gain a footing, before rolling over once the data become strong enough to bring the Fed back off the sidelines. Why would investors buy into the temporary part one? We offered the view that the selloff had gone too far, and seemed to have been founded upon a premise that the Fed had either already tightened into a recession, or had gotten uncomfortably close to doing so. We expect that a Fed pause will reveal that the market’s neutral-rate estimate had been way too low. Once the economy shows signs of life, and consensus earnings estimates stop declining and begin to rise again, stocks will rise, spreads will compress, and investors will get back to chasing performance. The renewed fundamental vigor could even allow the Fed to hike rates another couple of times without inspiring a new bout of market indigestion. After this week, we are the ones scratching our heads. The committee’s post-meeting statement did change more than it has since the gradual, 25-bps-per-quarter pace of hikes took hold at the end of 2016, but early January’s procession of Fed speakers who repeated “patience” like a mantra already telegraphed an extended pause. We did not read all that much into the substitution of “will be patient as it determines … [appropriate] adjustments” for “some further gradual increases,” even if the media and the markets did. We will have more to say about the Fed’s balance sheet in subsequent research, but suffice it to say for now that we do not think it will be terribly impactful. Bottom Line: While we were surprised by the intensity of the reaction to last week’s FOMC meeting, it remains our view that the pause in the Fed’s monetary tightening campaign will give equities and corporate bonds an opportunity to rally near their late September levels. Checking And Re-Checking Our Views Among our favorite trading-desk maxims is the advice to plan your trade, and trade your plan. Checklists help us plan and help establish a repeatable process. Having a process to fall back on when rapid-fire decisions have to be made allows an investor to react to conditions as they arise without suffering from analysis paralysis, just like a seasoned trader. Checklists aren’t magic, but they can help an investor keep his/her bearings in the midst of market tides that seem to sweep all before them. Confronting the combination of December’s despondency and January’s euphoria, we return to the equity downgrade checklist we rolled out in mid-October, and last formally reviewed in mid-November. The checklist attempts to look out for threats on four fronts: a looming recession, which would bring the curtain down on the bull market; earnings pressure independent of a full-fledged recession; inflation pressures that could compel the Fed to tighten policy with a renewed sense of urgency; and unsustainably positive sentiment, which could set equities up for a fall. At the moment, only the recession category could arguably be said to be flashing yellow. Recession Watch All three factors in our simple recession indicator are moving in the wrong direction, but the yield curve is the only one at a potentially problematic level (Chart 3, top panel). It would not be a disaster for equities or the economy if the curve inverted – it is habitually early, inverting a year before a recession, on average, and six months before the S&P 500 peaks – but we don’t think it will until markets begin pricing in new rate hikes. Assuming the three-month rate won’t move until they do, the curve could only invert if the 10-year Treasury yield were to fall into the 2.40s (Chart 3, bottom panel), which would be incompatible with our constructive economic view. By the time the Fed resumes hiking, the curve should have gained some breathing room, as an economy strong enough to require further tightening merits a 10-year Treasury yield at or above 3%. Chart 3The Curve Isn’t Ready To Invert Just Yet Year-over-year growth in the leading economic indicator decelerated sharply over the last three months of 2018 (Chart 4). It is a ways away from contracting, however, and only a series of hefty month-over-month drops could make it do so this quarter. Our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate remains 50 bps above the 2.5% target rate and our model projects that equilibrium will rise throughout the rest of the year. If its 3.25-3.5% year-end estimate is on the money, the Fed would have to hike three or four more times by year end to provide the restrictive backdrop required for a recession. Chart 4Decelerating, But Not Contracting Checking the final item in the recession section of the checklist, a 33-basis-point rise in the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate, would require a sharp hiring slowdown and/or a significant pickup in labor force participation. The January employment report makes a drop-off in hiring appear improbable, and we are skeptical that the participation rate can keep rising in spite of the drag from retiring baby boomers. If the unemployment rate were to rise because of a rising part rate, however, it might well be more likely to extend the expansion than end it. Bottom Line: The elements of our recession indicator are deteriorating, albeit slowly. A recession may not be more than a year away, but we can’t see it occurring until the Fed turns more hawkish. Earnings Pressure We have repeatedly offered our view that the labor market is as tight as a drum in print, calls and meetings. That is good for the economy because it increases households’ ability to consume, but it will eventually squeeze profit margins and induce the Fed to remove monetary accommodation. Compensation costs shouldn’t hurt margins if they grow at or below the sum of the rate of price-level and productivity gains. If inflation grows at the Fed’s 2% target, and productivity maintains its rough 1.25% growth pace, compensation growth of 3.25% shouldn’t pose a problem, but gains exceeding 3.5% might become problematic. The total compensation series of the employment cost index ticked up to 2.9% in the fourth quarter, but an assault on 3.25-3.5% does not appear to be at hand (Chart 5). Chart 5Wages Aren’t Pressuring Margins Yet Dollar strength is a margin headwind for any company competing with multinationals, at home or abroad. After peaking in mid-November and mid-December, the DXY index has rolled over and is back to its early October level (Chart 6). The fourth-quarter blowout in spreads had us poised to check the “rising corporate yields” box, but there’s no need following last month’s reversal (Chart 7). The savings rate has recovered enough to support spending, and there’s currently no sign that consumers are about to pull back (Chart 8). We are monitoring conditions in emerging markets for spillover into the U.S., but the dollar’s decline and the broad recovery in risk assets worldwide have taken pressure off of EM corporate and sovereign borrowers. Chart 6The Dollar's Backed Off …   Chart 7... And Bond Yields Have, Too   Chart 8Ready, Willing And Able Bottom Line: None of our proxy indicators suggests that corporate earnings face meaningful near-term pressure, either from tighter margins or lower revenues. Inflation Pressures Inflation poses a threat to equities if it makes the Fed uncomfortable enough to pull the plug on the expansion to keep the economy from overheating, or if it makes investors uncomfortable enough to apply a significant haircut to earnings multiples. Given the Fed’s “symmetric” target, we don’t think it will get anxious about core PCE inflation unless it threatens to exceed 2.5% (Chart 9). The 10-year and 5-year-on-5-year TIPS inflation breakevens have slid in lockstep with oil prices, and are nowhere near the 2.3-2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed’s 2% core PCE target (Chart 10); they offer no hint that longer-run inflation expectations might become unanchored. CPI is the go-to inflation series for investors and the media, and with both headline and core hanging around 2%, it is well short of levels that would promote anxiety among the public (Chart 11). Chart 9Realized Inflation Remains Contained …   Chart 10... And Expectations Have Only Fallen   Chart 11Nothing To See Here Bottom Line: We expect that unnecessary fiscal stimulus and an extremely tight labor market will eventually produce inflation, but they’re not testing investors’ complacency yet. Overexuberance Runaway sentiment could spark a nasty correction if it sets the bar for expectations so high that stocks inevitably disappoint. BCA’s composite sentiment indicator, which aggregates the results from surveys of individual investors, professional investors and advisors, is at the lower end of its range, though not yet at levels that have often marked equity bottoms (Chart 12, bottom panel). Before falling with the S&P 500 last January, the share of consumers expecting stock prices to rise over the next twelve months had reached a level consistent with past peaks (Chart 13, bottom panel). It has since fallen to the lower end of its range, and would seem to suggest that investors had nearly given up on stocks when the January survey was taken. Chart 12Investor Sentiment Is Muted …   Chart 13... And So Is The General Public’s Bottom Line: The fourth-quarter decline pushed investor sentiment from around the higher reaches of its historical range to a position well below the mean. From a contrarian perspective, washed-out sentiment could help extend the rally. Investment Implications Our equity downgrade checklist gives U.S. equities a clean bill of health. Although potential gains are lower now with the S&P 500 trading above 2,700 than they were when it was trading below 2,500 at the beginning of the year, we do not see a fundamental reason to downgrade equities from overweight. The multiple expansion required to produce a new closing high might be a stretch, but we believe the S&P 500 can advance well into the 2,800s. We upgraded corporate credit last week, and expect that spreads will narrow as the Fed stays on the sidelines. One should not expect new tights in spreads, but there is potential for investors to augment their coupon spreads with some modest capital appreciation. We dislike Treasuries, especially at longer maturities, even more than we did before last week’s bull flattening of the yield curve. With rate hikes fully priced out, the only way the 10-year Treasury yield could fall even further would be if the Fed cut rates, and that scenario is flatly incompatible with our assessment of the economy’s strength.   Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Highlights After rising for thousands of years, human intelligence has begun to decline in developed economies. This can be seen in falling IQ scores and a decline in math and science test scores. Environmental factors appear to account for the bulk of this decline, but no one knows what these factors are. If left unchecked, falling intelligence will severely undermine productivity growth. This could lead to lower equity multiples, larger budget deficits, and ultimately, much higher government bond yields. Technological advances, particularly in the genetic realm, promise to radically raise IQs. In a complete abandonment of its one-child policy, China will combine these controversial technologies with pro-natal measures in order to boost sagging birth rates. The coming Eugenic Wars will be one of the most important economic and geopolitical developments of the 21st century. Feature Part 1: What The Tame Fox Says In 1959, a Soviet scientist named Dmitry Belyaev embarked on an ambitious experiment: to domesticate the silver fox. A geneticist by training, Belyaev wanted to replicate the process by which animals such as cats and dogs came to live side-by-side with humans. It was a risky endeavor. The Soviets had essentially banned the study of Mendelian genetics in favor of the blank slate ideology that is popular in progressive circles today. Belyaev persevered. Working under the guise of studying vulpine physiology, he selected foxes based on only one trait – tamability. Less than 10% of foxes made it to the subsequent generation, with the other 90% being sent off to fur farms. By the fourth generation, the changes were undeniable. Rather than fleeing humans, the foxes sought out their attention with no prompting whatsoever. They even wagged their tails and whined and whimpered like dogs do. The tame foxes also displayed physical changes. Their ears flopped over. Their snouts became shorter and their tails stood upright. “By intense selective breeding, we have compressed into a few decades an ancient process that originally unfolded over thousands of years,” wrote Lyudmila Trut, who began as Belyaev’s assistant and took over the project when her boss died in 1985.  Genetically Capitalist? Evolution can broadly proceed in two ways. The first way is through random mutations. This form of evolution, which scientists sometimes refer to as genetic drift, can take thousands of years to yield any discernable changes. The second way is through natural selection, a process that exploits existing variations in genetic traits. As the Russian fox experiment illustrates, evolution driven by selective pressures (either natural or artificial) can occur fairly quickly. Did selective pressures manifest themselves in human evolution in the lead up to the Industrial Revolution? Did humans, in some sense, domesticate themselves? In his book, A Farewell To Alms, economic historian Gregory Clark argued in the affirmative. Clark documented that members of skilled professions in Medieval England had twice as many surviving children as unskilled workers (Chart 1). Indeed, the fledgling middle class of the time had even more surviving children than the aristocracy, who were often out fighting wars. As a result, the wages of craftsmen declined by a third relative to laborers between 1200 and 1800, implying that the supply of skilled labor was growing more quickly than the demand for skilled workers over this period. In subsequent work, Clark and Cummins argued that the spread of bourgeois values across pre-industrial England was more consistent with a model of genetic transmission than a cultural one (see Box 1 for details). Similar developments occurred in other parts of the world. For example, in China, the gateway into the bureaucracy for a thousand years was the highly competitive imperial exam. Xi Song, Cameron Campbell, and James Lee showed that high-status men had more surviving children during the eighteenth- and nineteenth-centuries (Chart 2).1 The 10,000 Year Explosion Stephen Jay Gould famously said that “There’s been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain.” Gould was wrong. Data from the International HapMap Project show that human evolution accelerated by 100-fold starting around 10,000 years ago (Chart 3). In their book The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran and the late Henry Harpending explained why evolution sped up so rapidly.2 The advent of agriculture led to a surge in population levels. This, in turn, increased the absolute number of potentially beneficial genetic mutations that could be subject to selection effects. Farming and the rise of city states also completely reshaped the environment in which people lived. Basic biology teaches us that environmental dislocations of this kind tend to generate selective pressures that cause evolution to accelerate. John Hawks, professor of anthropology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, put it best: “We are more different genetically from people living 5,000 years ago than they were different from Neanderthals.” Many of the changes to our genomes relate to diet and diseases. The various genetic resistances that people have built up to malaria are all less than 10,000 years old. Mutations to the LCT gene, which confers lactose tolerance into adulthood, occurred independently in three different geographical locations: one in East Asia, one in the Middle East, and one in Africa. The Middle Eastern variant was probably responsible for the rapid enlargement of the Indo-European language group, which now stretches from India to Ireland. The African variant likely facilitated the Bantu expansion, which started near the present-day border of Nigeria and Cameroon, and then spread out across almost all of sub-Saharan Africa. Evolution Of The Human Brain About half of the genes in the human genome regulate some aspect of brain function. Given the rapid acceleration in evolution, it would be rather surprising if our own brains had not been affected. And indeed, there is plenty of evidence that they were. The frontal lobe of the brain has increased in size over the past 10,000 years. This is the part of the brain that regulates such things as language, memory, and long-term planning. Testosterone levels have also declined. That may explain the steady reduction in violent crime rates (Chart 4). We know that certain genes that are associated with higher intelligence have been under recent selective pressure. For example, the gene that leads to torsion dystonia – a debilitating movement disorder – appears to have increased in frequency. Why would a gene that causes a known disease become more widespread? The answer is that individuals who have this particular mutation tend to have IQs that are around 10-to 20-points above the population average. Why IQ Matters IQ has a long and contentious history. Yet, despite numerous efforts to jettison the concept, it has endured for one simple reason: It has more predictive power than virtually anything else in the psychological realm. A simple 30-minute IQ test can help predict future educational attainment, job performance, income, health, criminality, and fertility choices (Table 1 and Chart 5). IQ even predicts trader performance!3 Table 1What IQ Predicts (Results From Meta-Analyses)   Like most physiological traits, IQ is highly heritable.4 The genetic contribution to IQ increases from 20% in early childhood to as high as 80% by one’s late teens and remains at that level well into adulthood.5 This makes IQ almost as heritable as height (Chart 6). Although there is a great deal of variation among individuals, on average, more intelligent people earn higher incomes (Chart 7). If the same relationship existed in the pre-industrial era, as seems likely, then human intelligence probably increased in a way that facilitated the economic explosion that we associate with the Industrial Revolution. The stunning implication is that the emergence of the modern era was a question of “when, not if.” Part 2: The Flynn Effect By the late-19th century, it had become clear that the rich were no longer having as many children as the poor. This realization, together with the growing popularity of Darwin’s theories, helped galvanize the eugenics movement. Contrary to popular belief, this movement was not a product of the far-right. In fact, the most vocal proponents of eugenics were among the progressive left. John Maynard Keynes, for example, served as the Director of the British Eugenics Society between 1937 and 1944. Yet, a funny thing happened on the road to idiocracy: The concerns of eugenicists did not come to pass. Rather than becoming dimmer, people became smarter. This phenomenon is now known as the Flynn Effect, named after James Flynn, a psychologist who was among the first to document it. Chart 8 shows the evolution of IQ scores in a sample of countries between 1940 and 1990. The average country recorded IQ gains of three points per decade over this period, a remarkably large increase over such a relatively short period of time. Explaining The Flynn Effect The Flynn Effect must have been entirely driven by environmental factors since genetic factors – namely the tendency of less-educated people to have more children, and to have them at an earlier age – would have reduced average IQs over the past two hundred years. But how could environmental factors have played the dominant role in light of the strong role of genes discussed above? The answer was proposed by geneticist Richard Lewontin in the 1970s. Lewontin suggested imagining a genetically-diverse sack of seed corn randomly distributed between two large identical fields. One field had fertilizer added to it while the other did not. Genetic variation would explain all of the differences in the height of corn stalks within each field, while environmental factors (the addition of fertilizer) would explain all of the difference in the average height of corn stalks between the two fields. This logic explains why genes can account for the bulk of the variation in IQs within any demographic group, while environmental effects may explain most of the variation across groups, as well as why average scores have changed over time. And what environmental effects are these? The truth is that no one really knows. Plenty of theories have been advanced, but so far there is still little consensus on the matter. Bigger, Healthier Brains It has long been known that learning increases the amount of grey matter in the brain. For example, a recent study showed that the hippocampi of London taxi drivers tend to be larger due to the need for drivers to memorize and navigate complex routes.6 The emergence of modern societies likely kicked off a virtuous circle where the need to solve increasingly complex tasks forced people to hone their learning skills, leading to higher IQs and further technological progress. The introduction of universal primary education amplified this virtuous circle. Better health undoubtedly helped as well. Early childhood diseases reduce IQ by diverting the body’s resources away from mental development towards fighting off infections. There is a strong correlation between measured IQ and disease burden across countries (Chart 9). A number of studies have documented a strong relationship between the timing of malaria eradication in the U.S. and other parts of the world and subsequent observed gains in childhood IQs.7 Brain size and IQ are positively correlated. Forensic evidence from the U.S. suggests that the average volume of adult human skulls has increased by 7% since the late 1800s, or roughly the size of a tennis ball.8 Part 3: The End Of A 10,000 Year Trend The problem with environmental effects is that they eventually run into diminishing returns. This appears to have happened with the Flynn Effect. In fact, not only does the recent evidence suggest that the Flynn Effect has ended, but the data suggest that IQs are starting to decline. Chart 10 shows that average math and science test scores fell in the OECD’s Program For International Scholastic Achievement (PISA) between 2009 and 2015, the latest year of the examination. The drop in math and science test scores has been mirrored in falling IQ scores. Flynn observed a decade ago that IQs of British teenagers were slipping.9 Similar results have been documented in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, and most recently, Norway. The Norwegian results, published last year, are particularly noteworthy.10 Bernt Bratsberg and Ole Rogeberg examined three-decades worth of data on IQ tests of Norwegian military conscripts. Military duty has been mandatory for almost all men in Norway since 1814, which means that the study’s authors were able to collect comprehensive data on most Norwegian men and their fathers.  Their paper clearly shows that IQ peaked with the generation born in the mid-1970s and declined by about five points, or one-third of a standard deviation, for the one born in 1990 (Chart 11). For the first time in recorded history, Norwegian kids today are not scoring as well as their parents. A Mystery What caused the sudden reversal of the Flynn Effect in Norway and most other developed economies? Nobody knows. We can, however, offer three possible theories: New Technologies For much of human history, rising intelligence and technological innovation were complementary processes, meaning that the smartest people were the ones who could best exploit the new technologies that were coming their way. Moreover, as noted above, even those who were less gifted benefited from the mental stimulation that a technologically advanced society provided. It remains to be seen how future technological advances such as generalized AI will affect human intelligence, but recent technological advances seem to have had a dumbing down effect.11 For example, the GPS has obviated the need for people to navigate unfamiliar locations, thus blunting the development of their visuospatial skills. Modern word processors have made spelling skills less important. Having all the information in the world just a click away is a wonderful thing, but it has reduced the need for our brains to retain and codify what we learn. Meanwhile, the constant bombardment of information to which we are subject has made it difficult to concentrate on anything for long. How many youth today can read a report of this length without checking their Facebook feed multiple times? My guess is not many. Diminishing Returns To Education The ability to take young bright minds, who would have otherwise spent their lives doing menial labor, and provide them with an education was probably the greatest tailwind to growth that the 20th century enjoyed. There is undoubtedly still scope to continue this process, but the low-hanging fruit have been picked. Educational attainment has slowed dramatically in most of the world (Chart 12). Economist James Heckman estimates that U.S. high-school graduation rates, properly measured, peaked over 40 years ago.12 Despite billions of dollars spent, efforts to improve school performance have generally fallen flat. A recent high-level report by the U.S. Department of Education concluded that “The panel did not find any empirical studies that reached the rigor necessary to determine that specific turnaround practices produce significantly better academic outcomes.”13 This gets to a point that most parents already know, which is that when people talk about “bad schools,” they are really talking about “bad students.” Deteriorating Health Better health probably contributed to the Flynn Effect. But is it possible to have too much of a good thing? More calories are welcome when people are starving, but today’s calorie-rich, nutrient-poor diets have led to a surge in obesity rates. A clean environment reduces the spread of germs, but it also makes children hypersensitive to foreign substances. Following German reunification, researchers observed that allergies were much more common among West German children than their Eastern peers, presumably because of the West’s more salubrious environment.14 All sorts of weird and concerning physiological changes are occurring. Sperm counts have fallen by nearly 60% since the early 1970s.15 Testosterone levels in young men are dropping. Among girls, the age of first menarche has declined by two years over the past century.16 Are chemical agents in the environment responsible? If they are, what impact are they having on cognitive development? Nobody knows. Reported mental illness is also on the rise. The share of U.S. teenagers with a reported major depressive episode over the prior year surged by over 60% between 2010 and 2017 (Chart 13). The fraction of young adults that made suicide plans nearly doubled.17 More than 20% of U.S. women over the age of 40 are on antidepressants.18 Five percent of U.S. children are receiving ADHD medication.19 Implications For Economic Growth And Asset Markets So far, the reversal of the Flynn Effect has been largely confined to the developed economies. Test scores are still rising in the developing world, albeit from fairly low levels. For example, two recent studies have documented significant IQ gains in Kenya and Brazil.20 In the poorest countries, opportunities for improving health abound. Even small steps such as fortifying salt with iodine (which costs about five cents per person per year) have been shown to boost IQ by nearly one standard deviation.21 Measures to reduce inbreeding are also likely to boost IQ scores.22 Yet, we should not underestimate the importance of falling cognitive skills in developed economies. Chart 14 shows that there is a clear positive correlation between student score on math and science and per capita incomes. Most technological innovation still takes place in developed economies. There is an extremely tight relationship between visuospatial IQ and the likelihood of becoming an inventor (Chart 15). Since IQ is distributed along a bell curve, a 0.1 standard deviation drop in IQs across the entire distribution will result in an 8% decline in the share of people with IQs over 100, a 14% decline in those with IQs over 115, and a 21% decline in those with an IQ over 130 (by convention, each standard deviation on an IQ test is worth 15 points). Falling IQs could result in slower productivity growth, which could further strain fiscal balances. Lower IQs are also associated with decreased future orientation.23 People who live for the moment tend to save less. A decline in savings would push up real rates, leading to less capital accumulation. History suggests that a deceleration in productivity growth and higher real rates will put downward pressure on equity multiples (Chart 16). Chart 16Equity Multiples Tend To Fall When Real Rates Rise And Productivity Growth Declines Part 4: Generation E For 200 years, the environmentally-driven Flynn Effect disguised the underlying genetically-driven decline in IQs that began not long after the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Flynn has acknowledged this himself, noting at the 2017 International Society For Intelligence Research Conference that “I have no doubt that there has been some deterioration of genetic quality for intelligence since the late Victorian times.”24 Now that the Flynn Effect has reversed, both genes and the environment are working together to reduce cognitive abilities in developed economies. This means that the most important trend in the world – a trend that allowed the human population to increase during the Malthusian era and later allowed output-per-worker to soar following the Industrial Revolution – has broken down. Yet, there may be another twist in the story – one that began just a few months ago: the first members of Generation E were born. E Is For Edited ... Or Eugenics Lulu and Nana will be like most other children, but with one key difference: They will be the first humans ever to have their genomes edited through a procedure know as CRISPR-Cas9. Rogue Chinese scientist He Jiankui deactivated their CCR5 gene, which the HIV virus uses as a gateway into the body. His actions were rightfully condemned around the world for endangering the twins’ health by using a procedure that has not yet been fully vetted in animal studies, let alone in human trials (Lulu and Nana’s father is HIV+ but it is debatable whether the children were at an elevated risk of infection). He Jiankui remains under house arrest at the university where he worked. But whatever his fate, the dam has been broken. For better or for worse, the era of personal eugenics has arrived. The Return Of The Silver Fox It is easier to delete a gene than to add one. It is even more difficult to swap out a large number of genes in a way that achieves a predictable outcome. Thus, the successful manipulation of highly polygenic traits such as intelligence – traits that are linked to hundreds of different genes – may still be decades away.25 Predicting a trait is much simpler than modifying it, however. The cost of sequencing a human genome has fallen by more than 99% since 2001 (Chart 17). Start-up company Genomic Prediction has already developed a test for fertilized embryos for IVF users that predicts height within a few centimetres and IQ with a correlation of 0.3-to-0.4, roughly as accurate as standardized tests such as the SAT or ACT.26 Other companies are following suit.27 Some will recoil in horror at the prospect of selecting prospective children in this manner. They will argue that such technologies, beyond being simply immoral, will widen social inequality between those who can afford them and those who cannot. Others will counter that screening embryos for certain traits is not that dissimilar to what people already do with prospective romantic partners. They will also point out that mass usage of these technologies will drive down prices to the point that even poor people will be able to access them, thus giving low IQ parents the chance to have high IQ kids. They might also note that such technologies may be the only way to reverse the ongoing accumulation of deleterious mutations within the human germline that has been the unintended by-product of the proliferation of life-saving medicines.28 We will not wade into this thorny debate, other than to note that there will be huge incentives for people to avail themselves of these technologies. The Coming Eugenic Wars And not just individuals either – governments too. While the initial impact of eugenic technologies will be small, the effects will compound over time. Carl Shulman and Nick Bostrom estimate that genetic screening could boost average IQs by up to 65 points in five generations (Table 2). Table 2A Poisoned Chalice? Genetic Screening Can Raise IQ China has been investing heavily in genetic technologies. As Geoffrey Miller has argued, China’s infatuation with eugenics spans into the modern day.29 Like most other countries, fertility in China is negatively correlated with IQ. Mingrui Wang, John Fuerst, and Jianjun Ren estimate that China is currently losing nearly one-third of a point in generalized intelligence per decade, with the loss having accelerated rapidly between the 1960s and mid-1980s.30 The decline in the genetic component of Chinese IQs is coming at a time when the population itself is about to shrink. According to the UN’s baseline forecast, China will lose 450 million working-age people by the end of the century (Chart 18). Meanwhile, the country is saddled with debt, the result of an economic model that has, for decades, recycled copious household savings into debt-financed fixed-investment spending in an effort to shore up domestic demand. The authorities may be tempted to tackle all three problems simultaneously by adopting generous pro-natal measures – call it the “at least one-child policy”– which increasingly harnesses emerging eugenic technologies. The resulting baby boom would strengthen domestic demand, thus making the economy less dependent on exports, while ensuring China’s long-term geopolitical viability. The Eugenic Wars are coming, and they will be unlike anything the world has seen before.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy  peterb@bcaresearch.com     Box 1  The Diffusion Of Bourgeois Values: Culture Or Genes? Higher-income people had more surviving children in the centuries leading up to the Industrial Revolution. Real per capita income was broadly stable during this period. This implies that there must have been downward social mobility, with sons, on average, being less wealthy than their fathers. This downward mobility, in turn, spread the characteristics of higher-income people across the broad swathe of society. What were these characteristics? Cultural values that emphasized thrift, diligence, and literacy were undoubtedly part of what was passed on to future generations. But surprisingly, it also appears that genetic transmission played an important, and perhaps pivotal, role.  Models of genetic transmission make very concrete predictions about the correlations in economic status that one would expect to see among relatives. Biological brothers share 50% of their genes, as do fathers and sons. Likewise, first cousins share 25% of their genes, the same as grandfathers and sons. These facts yield two testable predictions: The first is that the correlation coefficient on status measures such as wealth, occupation, and education should be the same for relatives that share the same fraction of genes such as sibling pairs and father-son pairs. Box Chart 1 shows that this is borne out by the data. The second prediction is that the correlation between status and genetic distance should follow a linear trend so that, for example, the correlation in wealth among brothers is twice that of first cousins and four times that of second cousins. Box Chart 2 shows that this is also borne out by the data. Other evidence supports the importance of genes in the transmission of status across generations. The correlation in measures such as wealth, education, and occupation is much higher among identical twins than fraternal twins. Adopted children turn out to be more similar to their biological parents on these measures when they reach adulthood than their adopted parents, even when the children have never met their biological parents. The parent-child correlation also remains the same regardless of family size, suggesting that spreading the same resources over more children may not harm life outcomes to any discernible degree, at least on the measures listed above.   Source: Gregory Clark and Neil Cummins, "Nature Versus Nurture in Social Outcomes. A Lineage Study of 263,000 English Individuals, 1750-2017," Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research.   Footnotes 1      Xi Song, Cameron Campbell, and James Lee, "Descent Line Growth and Extinction From A Multigenerational Perspective, Extended Abstract," American Sociological Review 80:3, (April 21, 2015): 574-602. 2      Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, "The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution," Basic Books, (2009). 3      Mark Grinblatt, Matti Keloharju, and Juhani T. Linnainmaa, “IQ, Trading Behavior, and Performance,” Journal of Financial Economics, 104:2, (May 2012): 339-362. 4      Thomas Bouchard, “Genetic Influence On Human Psychological Traits - A Survey,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 13:4, (August 2004): 148-151. 5      The tendency for the genetic contribution to IQ to increase until early adulthood and then to remain at high levels until old age is known as the Wilson Effect. There is no consensus on what causes it, but it probably reflects a number of factors: 1) It may take some children longer than normal to reach full intellectual maturity. Testing their IQs at a young age will result in scores that are lower than those expected based on their parents’ IQs. The opposite is true for children whose IQs increase relatively quickly in young age, but possibly top out earlier; 2) Environmental effects are probably more important in young age when a child’s brain is still quite malleable; 3) Self-reinforcing gene-environment interactions tend to increase with age. Children do not have much control over their environment, but as they get older, they will seek out activities that are more in keeping with their genetic predispositions. For example, a studious child may pursue a career that reinforces their love of learning. 6       "Cache Cab: Taxi Drivers' Brains Grow to Navigate London's Streets," Scientific American, (December 2011). 7       Atheendar Venkataramani, “Early Life Exposure to Malaria and Cognition in Adulthood: Evidence from Mexico,” Journal of Health Economics 31:5, (July 2012): 767-780; Hoyt Bleakley, “Health, Human Capital and Development,” Annual Review of Economics 2, (March 2010): 283-310; Hoyt Bleakley, “Malaria Eradication in the Americas: A Retrospective Analysis of Childhood Exposure,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2, (April 2010): 1-45. 8       “Anthropologists Find American Heads Are Getting Larger,” ScienceDaily, (May 2012). 9       “British Teenagers Have Lower IQs Than Their Counterparts Did 30 Years Ago,” The Telegraph, (February 2009). 10     Bernt Bratsberg and Ole Rogeberg, “Flynn Effect And Its Reversal Are Both Environmentally Caused,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115:26, (June 2018): 6674-6678. 11     On the face of it, artificial intelligence would appear to be a substitute for human intelligence. Many applications of AI would undoubtedly have this feature, especially those that allow computers to perform complex mental tasks that humans now must do. However, there are several ways that AI may eventually come to complement human intelligence. First, and most obviously, AI could be used to augment human capabilities either directly by hardwiring it into our brains, or indirectly through the development of drugs or genetic techniques which improve cognition. Second, looking further out, the benefits of highly intelligent AI systems would be limited if humans did not possess the requisite intelligence to understand certain concepts that are currently beyond our mental reach. No matter how well intentioned, trying to explain string theory to a mouse is not going to succeed. There are probably a multitude of ideas that AI could reveal that we simply cannot comprehend at current levels of human intelligence. 12     James Heckman and Paul La Fontaine, “The American High School Graduation Rate: Trends and Levels,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 92:2, (May 2010): 244–262. 13     “Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools,” The Institute of Education Sciences (IES), (May 2008). 14     E. von Mutius, F.D. Martinez, C. Fritzsch, T. Nicolai, G. Roell, and H. H. Thiemann, "Prevalence Of Asthma And Atopy In Two Areas Of West Germany And East Germany," American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 149:2, (February 1994): 358-64. 15     "Sperm Counts In The West Plunge By 60% In 40 Years As ‘Modern Life’ Damages Men’s Health," Independent, (July 2017). 16     Kaspar Sørensen, Annette Mouritsen, Lise Aksglaede, Casper P. Hagen, Signe Sloth Mogensen, and Anders Juul, "Recent Secular Trends in Pubertal Timing: Implications for Evaluation and Diagnosis of Precocious Puberty," Hormone Research in Paediatrics 77:3, (May 2012): 137-145. 17     “Results from the 2017 National Survey On Drug Use And Health: Detailed Tables,” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Rockville (Maryland), (September, 2018). 18     Laura A. Pratt, Debra J. Brody, and Qiuping Gu, “Antidepressant Use Among Persons Aged 12 and Over: United States, 2011–2014,” NCHS Data Brief No. 283, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (August 2017). 19     Some, but not all, of the increase in reported rates of mental illness may be due to more aggressive diagnosis by health practitioners. For example, a recent study revealed that children born in August were 30% more likely to receive an ADHD diagnosis than those born in September, simply because they were less mature compared to other kids in the first few years of elementary school. See: Timothy J. Layton, Michael L. Barnett, Tanner R. Hicks, and Anupam B. Jena, “Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder and Month of School Enrollment,” New England Journal of Medicine 379:22, (November 2018): 2122-2130. 20     Tamara C. Daley, Shannon E. Whaley, Marian D. Sigman, Michael P. Espinosa, and Charlotte Neumann, “IQ On The Rise: The Flynn Effect In Rural Kenyan Children,” Psychological Science 14:3, (June 2003): 215-9; Jakob Pietschnig and Martin Voracek, “One Century of Global IQ Gains: A Formal Meta-Analysis of the Flynn Effect (1909-2013),” Perspectives on Psychological Science 10:3, (May 2015): 282-306. 21     N. Bleichrodt and M. P. Born, “Meta-Analysis of Research on Iodine and Its Relationship to Cognitive Development,” In: ed. J. B. Stanbury, “The Damaged Brain of Iodine Deficiency,” Cognizant Communication Corporation, New York, (1994): 195-200; “Iodine status worldwide: WHO Global Database on Iodine Deficiency,” World Health Organization, Geneva, (2004). 22     Mohd Fareed and Mohammad Afzal, “Estimating the Inbreeding Depression on Cognitive Behavior: A Population Based Study of Child Cohort,” PLOS ONE 9:12, (October 2015): e109585. 23     H. de Wit, J. D. Flory, A. Acheson, M. McCloskey, and S. B. Manuck, “IQ And Nonplanning Impulsivity Are Independently Associated With Delay Discounting In Middle-Aged Adults,” Personality and Individual Differences 42:1, (January 2007): 111-121; W. Mischel and R. Metzner, “Preference For Delayed Reward As A Function Of Age, Intelligence, And Length Of Delay Interval,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 64:6, (July 1962): 425-31. 24     James Flynn, “IQ decline and Piaget: Does the rot start at the top?” Lifetime Achievement Award Address, 18th Annual meeting of ISIR, (July 2017). 25     For a good discussion of these issues, please see Richard J. Haier, “The Neuroscience of Intelligence,” Cambridge Fundamentals of Neuroscience in Psychology, (December 2016). 26     “The Future of In-Vitro Fertilization and Gene Editing,” Psychology Today, (December 2018). 27     “DNA Tests For IQ Are Coming, But It Might Not Be Smart To Take One,” MIT Technology Review, (April 2018). 28     Michael Lynch, “Rate, Molecular Spectrum, And Consequences Of Human Mutation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:3, (January 2010): 961-968. 29     Geoffrey Miller, “What *Should* We Be Worried About?” Edge, (2013). 30     Mingrui Wang, John Fuerst, and Jianjun Ren, “Evidence Of Dysgenic Fertility In China,” Intelligence 57, (April 2016): 15-24. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades