Developed Countries

Highlights Investors who are betting on a quick resolution to the U.S./China trade war following the "new NAFTA" deal and the U.S. midterm elections have likely been taken in by false hope. Stay neutral China relative to global stocks, and overweight low-beta sectors within the investable equity universe. The relative performance of Chinese industry groups since mid-June has been almost entirely determined by their beta characteristic, with almost all low-beta industry groups outperforming. Energy stocks have been among the top outperformers within the Chinese equity universe, and several factors support our recommendation that investors initiate an outright long position. While it is likely paused rather than stalled, broad "reform" as an investment theme will be less relevant over the coming 6-12 months. Consequently, we are closing our long ESG leaders / short benchmark trade. Feature September's PMI releases, both official and private, confirm that China's export outlook is deteriorating rapidly. Chart 1 highlights that the Caixin PMI is about to fall below the boom/bust line, and the new export orders component of the official PMI has sunk to a 2 ½ year low. Somewhat oddly, investors do not seem to be responding negatively to the de-facto announcement of a 25% rate on the second round of U.S. import tariffs against China. Chart 2 shows that domestic infrastructure stocks have actually been rising relative to global stocks since mid-September, and our BCA China Play Index appears to have entered a (so far very modest) uptrend. Chart 1The Export Shock Is Coming... Chart 2...But Investors Have Been Incrementally Upbeat One possible explanation for this is that investors are doubling down on the idea that China will have to aggressively stimulate in response to the shock. We have leaned against this narrative, by arguing in past reports that China's policy response to the upcoming export shock is not likely to be heavily credit-based, and that increases in fiscal spending today will involve more "soft infrastructure" than in the past.1 Chart 3 certainly shows no evidence of a spike in broad money or total credit; adjusted total social financing growth barely accelerated in August, against the backdrop of promises to front-run planned fiscal spending over the coming year. Chart 3No Major Acceleration In Credit Growth Evident Yet Chart 4Americans Support A Tough Stance Against China But a second explanation of recent investor behavior, one that we have been hearing more loudly from some market participants, is that China is waiting until after the midterm elections in the U.S. to make a deal, in anticipation that Republican losses in Congress will weaken Trump and change the political reality in terms of trade policy towards China. There are three reasons why investors holding this view are likely mistaken, and have been taken in by false hope: In the U.S., the actual implementation of tariffs lies within the control of the Presidency. Congress has delegated substantial authority to the president that would take time to be clawed back. Moreover, the president controls the execution of tariffs, and has a general prerogative over national security issues, which certainly includes the trade war with China. Democratic control of the House or Senate may cause President Trump to act even more forcefully against China, as trade will be among the few relatively unfettered policy options left to him. Chart 4 highlights that a sizeable majority of the American public views Chinese trade policy towards the U.S. as unfair, unlike the U.S.' other major trade partners. Reflecting this point, Democrats themselves maintain a hawkish stance on trade with China. This suggests that Trump will have a strong mandate to continue to demand major concessions from China even after the elections. We agree that Chinese stocks have already priced in a sizeable earnings decline, but we would still characterize buying now as an ill-advised case of trying to catch a falling knife. We highlighted in our September 19 Weekly Report that during the 2014-2016 episode Chinese stocks bottomed several months after stimulus began to take effect,2 because of a delayed decline in forward earnings. A similar situation would appear to be developing this time around: the third round of tariffs against China will likely soon be announced, the shock to Chinese export growth will soon manifest itself in the data, and yet Chinese forward earnings have only fallen 5-6% from their June peak. Bottom Line:Investors who are betting on a resolution to the U.S./China trade war following the U.S. midterm elections have likely been taken in by false hope. Stay neutral China relative to global stocks, and overweight low-beta sectors within the investable equity universe. Recent Sector Performance: A Beta Story, And A New Trade Idea Chart 5Last Week We Closed One Of Our Most Successful Calls We recommended closing one of our most successful trades of the past year in a brief Special Report last week.3 The report outlined major changes to the global industry classification standard (GICS) that took effect this week, as well as the implications for China's stock market. One key change is that Alibaba, one of the "BATs", is now part of the consumer discretionary sector and makes up roughly 60% of its market capitalization. Given this fundamental shift in the risk/reward profile of the position, we recommended closing our long MSCI China Consumer Staples / short MSCI China Consumer Discretionary trade for a profit of 47% (Chart 5). With the goal of identifying new trade ideas that are likely to outperform within the context of a trade war, Chart 6 presents the alpha and beta characteristics of 23 industry groups in the MSCI China index (the investable benchmark) from mid-June to the end of September. The x-axis of the chart represents the group's beta versus the benchmark, whereas the y-axis shows standardized alpha over the period. The chart also distinguishes between out/underperforming sectors. Chart 6Since Mid-June, Sector Performance Has Largely Been Beta-Driven Several points are notable: Largely speaking, the relative performance of Chinese industry groups since mid-June has been determined by their beta characteristic (with almost all low-beta industry groups outperforming). This supports our existing position of favoring low-beta sectors within the MSCI China index, a trade that we initiated on June 27.4 Four industry groups that belong to traditionally cyclical sectors have outperformed since mid-June and have had a beta less than 1: energy, capital goods, banks, and consumer durables and apparel. Energy and capital goods have been particularly notable, having outperformed by 24% and 15%, respectively. Technology-related industry groups have underperformed, including the pharma, biotech, and life sciences industry group within health care. Consumer services and retailers have significantly underperformed, due to the heavy influence of travel-related businesses in both indexes. Among the top performing industry groups over the past three months, Chinese energy stocks look like the most compelling trade in absolute terms. While we are normally reluctant to chase performance, several factors support an outright long position: BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service is bullish on oil prices, and recently increased their 2019 Brent price forecast to $95/bbl based on both supply and demand factors.5 Despite the recent outperformance of Chinese energy companies within the investable universe, they remain cheap versus global energy companies based on cash flow-based valuation metrics (Chart 7). This is true even after accounting for the fact that they are typically discounted relative to their global peers due to heavy state ownership. Chinese energy companies look reasonably priced relative to the value of global oil production (Chart 8). Chinese energy companies largely receive their revenue in U.S. dollars, which is an attractive hedge in an environment where CNY-USD may decline further. Chart 7Chinese Energy Stocks Are Cheap Versus Their Global Peers... Chart 8...And Versus The Value Of Global Oil Production Given this, we are updating our trade book and recommend that investors initiate an outright long position in Chinese energy stocks as of today. Chart 9Despite Outperforming, Absolute Capital Goods Performance Has Been Lackluster What about Chinese capital goods companies? For now, we are content with relative rather than absolute exposure, which (surprisingly) exists in our low-beta sectors trade. Capital goods companies account for almost 70% of the Chinese industrial sector, and industrial stocks have been less volatile than the broad market over the past year, in large part because they underperformed so significantly in 2017. Given this, they have been included in our low-beta sectors portfolio, despite being typically pro-cyclical. In absolute terms, though, it is far from clear that Chinese capital goods stocks will trend higher (Chart 9). Some investors are hopeful that capital goods producers will benefit from a significant acceleration in infrastructure spending but, as we noted above, the bar is high for the type of stimulus that investors have come to expect. In addition, potential weakness in property construction could be a drag, and could offset gains from a pickup in infrastructure investment.6 We recommend that investors stick with a relative position, until compelling signs of a stimulus overshoot emerge. Bottom Line: The relative performance of Chinese industry groups since mid-June has been almost entirely determined by their beta characteristic, with almost all low-beta industry groups outperforming. Energy stocks have been among the top outperformers within the Chinese equity universe, and several factors support our recommendation that investors initiate an outright long position. A Pause In Broad "Reform" As An Investment Theme Following last November's Communist Party Congress, we noted that China was likely to step up its reform efforts in 2018, and would take meaningful steps to: Pare back heavy-polluting industry Hasten the transition of China's economy to "consumer-led" growth Slow or halt leveraging in the corporate/financial sector Eliminate corruption and graft We argued that Chinese policymakers would have to set the pace of reforms to avoid a significant slowdown in the economy, but we noted that a policy mistake (moving too aggressively) could not be ruled out. We introduced the BCA China Reform Monitor as a way of tracking the intensity of the reforms, which was calculated as an equally-weighted average of the four "winner" sectors that emerged in the month following the Party Congress (energy, consumer staples, health care, and technology) relative to an equally-weighted average of the remaining seven sectors (Chart 10). In particular, we argued that a rise in the monitor that was driven by the underperformance of the denominator would be a warning sign that reforms had become too aggressive for the economy to withstand. Chart 10Reform, As A Broad Theme, Will Be Less Relevant In The Year Ahead Chart 10 highlights that the reform monitor rose for the first half of the year, driven by the gains of the numerator rather than losses in the denominator. The message of a sustainable pace of reforms, even against the backdrop of brewing trade tension, was consistent with the relative performance of Chinese stocks and was part of the reason we recommended staying overweight versus the global benchmark in Q1 and the majority of Q2.7 Since mid-June, however, the reform theme has been thrown into reverse: our reform monitor has declined, alongside absolute declines in both "winner" and "loser" sectors. The timing of this inflection point is clearly aligned with President Trump's announcement of the second round of tariffs. Given this, and our view that the U.S./China trade war is likely to get worse over the coming 6-12 months, it is likely that broad "reform" as an investment theme will be less relevant for the foreseeable future, at least relative to policymaker efforts to stabilize the economy. However, for several reasons, we view this as a pause in the theme, rather than an end: On the environmental front, Chart 11 highlights that China continues to pursue a clean air policy, at least in large population centers. Anti-pollution efforts are a signature policy of President Xi Jinping. They affect quality of life and ultimately the legitimacy of the regime, so they cannot be postponed entirely or indefinitely. Chart 11China Continues To Clamp Down On Air Quality Shifting China's growth model away from primary and secondary industry remains a long-term goal of policymakers. Chart 12 highlights that tertiary industry has already risen non-trivially as a share of GDP. This trend is also clearly visible in the electricity consumption data, which shows that residential and tertiary industry consumption has risen quite materially over the past several years. Chinese policymakers will clearly ease up on the brake over the coming year in terms of deleveraging, but it is far from clear that they will aim for another wave of aggressive private sector debt growth. We highlighted one key reason for this in a recent Special Report: comparing adjusted state-owned enterprise (SOE) return on assets to borrowing costs suggests that the marginal operating gain from debt has become negative for these firms (Chart 13). This implies that further aggressive leveraging of SOEs could push them into a debt trap. In fact, if policymakers do refrain from promoting a major private sector credit expansion over the coming year, that restraint will directly reflect the reform agenda. Chart 12Policymakers Continue To Emphasize A Transition Towards Services Chart 13SOEs Now Appear To Have A Negative Financial Gain From Debt Chart 14 highlights that while anti-corruption cases involving gifts and the improper use of public funds are off of their high from early this year, they remain elevated and are not trending lower. As a final point, Chart 15 shows that our long MSCI China environmental, social, and governance (ESG) leaders / short MSCI China trade has been negatively impacted by the pause in reform as an investment theme. While MSCI's ESG indexes aim to generate low tracking error relative to the underlying equity market of each country, technology companies are typically overrepresented in ESG indexes because of the low emissions nature of their business model. In China's case, we noted above that technology industry groups have fared poorly since mid-June, and panel 2 of Chart 15 shows that the underperformance of Chinese investable technology companies since mid-June lines up with the latest leg of ESG underperformance. Chart 14China's Anti-Corruption Drive Is Still In Effect Chart 15Favor ESG Leaders Again When The Reform Theme Reasserts Itself It remains unclear how much of tech's underperformance has been due to rich multiples versus concerns that the U.S. crackdown on Chinese technology transfer and intellectual property theft will negatively impact the market share of China's tech companies (via an opening of the market and a rise in the market share of foreign competitors). But we believe that the latter is a factor, and we recommend closing our long ESG leaders / short benchmark trade until "reform", both environmental and otherwise, reasserts itself as a driving factor for the Chinese equity market. Bottom Line: While it is likely paused rather than stalled, broad "reform" as an investment theme will be less relevant over the coming 6-12 months relative to policymaker efforts to stabilize the economy. We are closing our long ESG leaders / short benchmark trade at a loss of 5.5%. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?" dated August 8, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Investing In The Middle Of A Trade War", dated September 19, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "GICS Sector Changes: The Implications For China", dated September 26, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Now What?", dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Pease see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl", dated September 20, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?", dated September 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 The rapidly escalating trade war between China and the U.S. caused us to recommended putting Chinese stocks on downgrade watch at the end of March, and we recommended that investors cut their exposure to neutral on June 20. Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight", dated March 28, 2018, and China Investment Strategy Special Report "Downgrade Chinese Stocks To Neutral", dated June 20, 2018, both available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Neutral As part of this week's Special Report analyzing the rebadging of the S&P communication services index, we initiated coverage on the new S&P interactive media & services sector. Not doing so would leave a significant gap as the new index (comprised almost entirely of Alphabet & Facebook) makes up half of the market cap weight of the renamed GICS1 sector. We have not overcomplicated our thesis on interactive media & services: we expect that as long as everyone who wants a job has a job, consumer confidence will remain at record highs. This should ensure the flow of advertising dollars that dominate the revenues of the constituent firms, meaning profit growth, and hence stock performance, outpaces the broad market. Still, three risks keep us on the fence: a renewed regulatory focus, rapid unpredictable changes in tastes & technology and the threat of an appreciating U.S. dollar that threatens to sap growth in the key foreign segments. Bottom Line: We are initiating coverage with a neutral rating; please see Monday's Special Report for more details. The tickers in this index are BLBG: S5INMS - GOOG, GOOGL, FB, TWTR, TRIP.

Special Report

Highlights So What? Go long Brent / short S&P 500. The risk of a recession in 2019 is underappreciated. Why? The likelihood is increasing of a geopolitically-induced supply-side shock that pushes crude prices above $100 per barrel in the coming 6-12 months. Oil supply disruptions in Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela represent the primary source of risk. Historically, the combination of Fed rates hike and an oil price spike has preceded 8 out of the last 9 recessions. Also... A recession in 2019, ahead of the 2020 election, would set the stage for a confrontation between Trump and the Fed, adding fuel to market volatility. Feature Geopolitical tensions are brewing from the Strait of Hormuz to the Strait of Malacca. As we go to press, news is breaking that a Chinese naval vessel almost collided with the USS Decatur as the latter conducted "freedom of navigation" operations within 12 nautical miles of Gaven and Johnson reefs in the Spratly Islands. Given the trade tensions between China and the U.S., this alleged maneuver by the Chinese vessel suggests that Beijing is not backing off from a confrontation. Our view remains that Sino-American trade tensions can get a lot worse before they get better. The latest incident, which builds on a series of negative gestures recently in the South China Sea, suggests that both sides are combining longstanding geopolitical tensions with the trade war. This will likely encourage brinkmanship and further degrade U.S.-China relations. Yet China-U.S. tensions are not the only concern for investors in 2019. Another crisis is brewing in the Middle East, with the potential to significantly increase oil prices over the next 12 months. U.S. households may have to deal with a double-whammy next year: higher costs of imported goods as the U.S.-China trade war rages on and a significant increase in gasoline prices. In this report, we discuss this dire outlook. The Folly Of Recession Forecasting In mid-2017, BCA Research published two reports, one titled "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession" and another titled "The Timing Of The Next Recession."1 Both argued that if the Federal Reserve kept raising rates in line with the FOMC dots, then monetary policy would move into restrictive territory by early 2019 and increase the likelihood of recession thereafter. We subsequently adjusted the timing of our recession forecast to 2020 or beyond, based on a more positive assessment of the U.S. economy. In this report, we explore a risk to the BCA House View on the timing of the next recession. As BCA's long-time Chief Economist Martin Barnes has said, predicting recessions is a mug's game. There have been eight recessions in the past 60 years (excluding the brief 1980-81 downturn) and the Fed failed to forecast all of them (Table 1). Table 1Fed Economic Forecasts Versus Outcomes The Atlanta Fed produces a recession indicator index which is designed to highlight the odds of recession based on trends in recent GDP data. At the moment, the indicator is at a historically sanguine 2.4%. Unfortunately, low readings are not a reliable cause for optimism. The 1974-75, 1981-82, and 2007-09 recessions were all severe and the Atlanta Fed's recession indicator had a low reading of 10%, 1.6%, and 7.7%, respectively - just as the recession was about to begin (Chart 1). Chart 1The Market Is Not Expecting A Recession The 1974-75 recession is instructive, given the numerous parallels with the current environment: Energy Geopolitics: The 1973 oil crisis caused a massive spike in crude prices. This point is especially pertinent since the 1973 oil embargo is widely viewed as an important contributor to the 1974-75 recession. Real short rates had risen and the yield curve had inverted long before oil prices spiked, so recession was almost inevitable even without the oil price move. But the oil spike made the recession much deeper than otherwise. Protectionism: President Nixon imposed a 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports into the U.S. in 1971 to try to force trade partners to devalue the U.S. dollar. Dislocation: Competition from newly industrialized countries - Japan and the East Asian tigers in particular - laid waste to the steel industry in the developed world. Polarization: President Nixon polarized the nation with both his policies and behavior, leading to his resignation in 1974. Given the exogenous and geopolitical nature of oil supply shocks, today's recession indicators are missing a critical potential headwind to the economy. A geopolitically induced oil-price shock could create more pain than the economy is able to handle. Why An Oil Price Shock? America's renewed foray into the politics of the Middle East will unravel the tenuous equilibrium that was just recently established between Iran and its regional rivals. The U.S.-Iran détente that produced the signing of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) created conditions for a precarious balance of power between Israel and Saudi Arabia on one side, and Iran and its allies on the other side. This equilibrium led to a meaningful change in Tehran's behavior, particularly on the following fronts: The Strait of Hormuz: Tehran ceased to rhetorically threaten the Strait as soon as negotiations began with the U.S. (Chart 2). Since then, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities remain unchanged.2 Iraq: Iran directly participated in the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq. Tehran changed tack after 2013 and cooperated closely with the U.S. in the fight against the Islamic State. In 2014, Iran acquiesced to the removal of the deeply sectarian, and pro-Iranian, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Bahrain and the Saudi Eastern Province: Iran's material and rhetorical support was instrumental in the Shia uprisings in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011 (Map 1). Saudi Arabia had to resort to military force to quell both. Since the détente with the U.S. in 2015, Iranian support for Shia uprisings in these critical areas of the Persian Gulf has stopped. Chart 2Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Put simply, the 2015 nuclear deal traded American acquiescence toward Iranian nuclear development in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. By unraveling that détente, President Trump is upending the balance of power in the Middle East and increasing the probability that Iran retaliates. Since penning our latest net assessment of the U.S.-Iran tensions in May, Iran has already retaliated.3 Our checklist for "kinetic" conflict has now risen from zero to at least 15%, if not higher (Table 2). We expect the probability to rise once the U.S. starts implementing the oil embargo in November. This will dovetail our Iran-U.S. decision tree, which sets the subjective probability of kinetic action by the U.S. against Iran at a baseline of 20% (Diagram 1). Table 2Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Bottom Line: The premier geopolitical risk to investors in 2019 is that President Trump's maximum pressure tactic on Iran spills over into Iraq, causing a loss of supply from the world's fifth-largest crude producer.4 We expect the U.S. oil embargo against Iran to remove between 1 million and 1.5 million barrels per day from the market. In addition, the loss of Iraqi production due to sabotage could be anywhere between 500,000 and 3.5 million barrels per day. Added to this total is the potential loss of Venezuelan exports due to the deteriorating situation there. When our commodity team combines all of these factors, they generate a worst-case scenario where the price of crude rises to $110 per barrel in 2019 or higher (Chart 3). And this scenario assumes that EMs do not reinstitute energy subsidies (and therefore their consumption falls faster than if they do reinstitute them). Chart 3Worst-Case Scenario Propels Oil Price Toward 0/Barrel The Ayatollah Recession We believe that the midterm election is a dud from an investment perspective, no matter the outcome. However, the election does matter as a hurdle that, once cleared, will allow President Trump to renew his "maximum pressure" tactic against China, Iran, and perhaps domestic tech corporations.5 Iran is a critical risk in this strategy. If President Trump applies maximum pressure on Iran, then a reduction in crude exports from Iran, Iranian retaliation in Iraq, and the simultaneous loss of Venezuelan supplies could combine to increase the likelihood of U.S. recession in 2019. Readers might recall that no sitting president has gotten re-elected during a recession. Why would Trump pursue a policy that risks his re-election chances in 2020? Surely he would deviate from his maximum pressure tactic if faced with the prospect of a recession. However, it is folly to assume that policymakers are perfectly rational, or fully informed. American presidents are some of the most unconstrained policymakers in the world, given both the hard power of the United States and the constitutional lack of constraints on the president when it comes to national security. Trump may believe, for instance, that the 660 million barrels of crude in America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve can offset the impact of sanctions against Iran.6 Or he may believe that he can force OPEC to supply enough oil to offset the Iranian losses. The problem for President Trump is that Iran is not led by idiots. Iranian policymakers understand that the best way to reduce American pressure is to induce an oil price spike in the summer of 2019 that hurts President Trump's re-election chances, forcing him to back off. As such, sabotaging Iraqi oil exports, which mainly transit through the port of Basra - a city highly vulnerable to Shia-on-Shia violence that is already a risk to the country's stability - would be an obvious target. An oil price spike would serve as a negotiating tool against the U.S., and the additional revenue would help replace what Iran loses due to the embargo. Tehran and Washington will therefore play a game of chicken throughout 2019, and there is a fair probability that neither side will swerve. President Trump may be making the same mistake as many predecessors have made, assuming that the Iranian regime is teetering at a precipice and that a mere nudge will force the leadership to negotiate. Oil price shocks and recessions have a historical connection. In a recent report, our commodity strategists highlighted that a spike in oil prices preceded 10 out of the past 11 recessions in the U.S. since 1945 (Table 3). Admittedly, not all spikes were followed by recession. The combination of an oil price spike and Fed rate hikes has produced a recession 8 out of 9 times.7 If oil prices rose to $100 per barrel in the coming 6-12 months, there will be several negative macro consequences. In particular, gasoline prices will rise back toward $4 per gallon (Chart 4). Retail gasoline prices have already increased by more than 50% since they bottomed in February 2016. So how much more upside can the U.S. private sector take? Table 3History Of Oil Supply Shocks Chart 4A Source Of Pressure For Consumers The Household Sector Consumer confidence is currently near all-time highs, which tends to signal that the path of least resistance is flat or down (Chart 5). Household gasoline consumption has already declined in response to higher oil prices since the middle of 2017. Given that gasoline demand is relatively inelastic, consumers may already be near their minimum consumption level. Chart 5Nearing All-Time Highs Instead, households will experience a decline in their disposable income. This will come on the back of both higher gasoline prices and an increase in the prices of other goods and services, as the oil spike spills across sectors. U.S. households - and most likely those in other markets - are stretched to the limit already. A recent Fed survey found that 40% of U.S. households do not have the funds needed to meet an unexpected $400 cost in any given month.8 Such an unexpected expense would require them to either sell possessions, borrow, or cut back on other purchases. Chart 6Most Americans Cannot Cut Saving To Spend Left with few other options, households would react to their lower disposable income by reducing demand for other goods and services. This dent in consumer spending would bring down aggregate demand, leading to slower employment growth and even less income and spending. Households could save less to maintain their current purchasing levels, given the recent rise in the savings rate (Chart 6). But this is unlikely. Although the household savings rate has increased in recent years, we have previously argued that a material part of the increase was driven by small business-owner profits. These owners have much higher levels of income than the median consumer. For Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, it would be difficult to reduce a savings rate that is already close to, or below, zero. Higher oil prices will also hurt growth in Europe and Japan, economies that are already struggling to gain economic momentum after grappling with a weaker growth impulse from China. In addition, EM economies that took the opportunity to reform their oil subsidies amid lower oil prices post-2014 will have to grapple with a much larger shock to consumers than usual. The Corporate Sector In theory, what consumers lose from rising oil prices, producers of crude can gain in stronger revenue. This is especially important in the U.S. as domestic energy production has increased significantly over the past 10 years. Nonetheless, the oil and gas extraction sector accounts for just 1.1% of GDP and 0.1% of total employment. The marginal propensity to spend out of every dollar of income is lower for producers than consumers. Moreover, if consumer confidence fell and consumer spending weakened, non-energy capex would decline as businesses reassessed household demand and held off from making investment decisions. Small business confidence is at record highs, and as with consumer confidence, vulnerable to downward revisions (Chart 7). Chart 7Dizzying Heights Chart 8Only One Way To Go (Down) Profit margins remain at a highly elevated level and also have only one way to go (Chart 8). If high oil prices should combine with rising borrowing costs and upward pressure on wages (which could develop in this macro environment) the result would be a triple hit to margins (Chart 9). Of course, rising wages would give consumers some offset to higher oil prices, so the question will be the net effect of all variables. And if the dollar bull market continues, as our FX team believes it will, the combination of higher oil prices and a strong USD would hurt U.S. companies with international exposure. The debt load held by the U.S. corporate sector would turn this bad dream into a nightmare. Many American companies have spent the past 10 years increasing leverage to buy back equity (Chart 10). Companies with high debt would need to revise down their profit expectations, with potentially devastating consequences. Elevated debt levels also increase the likelihood of financial market stress if bond investors get worried and spreads begin to widen significantly. Chart 9Rising Pressures On Earnings? Chart 10Large Corporate Debts According to all measures, U.S. stocks are at or near their all-time valuation peaks. Investors have also priced in a significant amount of optimism for profit growth (Chart 11). These expectations would be subject to quick revision if our oil shock scenario plays out. In other words, investor expectations for profit margins are not sufficiently factoring the triple hit of higher oil prices, higher interest rates, and higher wages. Chart 11The Market Has High Hopes An additional geopolitical risk on the horizon for 2019 is the creeping "stroke of pen" risk from potential regulation of technology enterprises. This is unrelated to an oil price spike (other than that it would be an effect of U.S. policy) but could nonetheless combine with rising energy prices to sour investors' mood.9 Bottom Line: An oil price spike above $100 would produce negative consequences for the U.S. household and corporate sectors. Given the supply-side nature of the price shock, it would not be accompanied by the usual decline in USD, and could therefore hurt the foreign profits of U.S. corporations as well. If investors must also deal with mounting regulatory pressures on FAANG stocks, they could face a perfect storm. Given the high probability of such an oil price shock, why isn't a 2019 recession BCA's House View, rather than merely a risk to it? Because it is difficult to say how high oil prices need to rise to cause a recession. For example, 1973 both marked a permanent move up in oil prices and saw oil prices triple. In 2019 terms, that would mean an oil price above $200, a far less probable scenario than $100-$110. Nevertheless, the combination of elevated oil prices and the price impact on consumer goods of the U.S.-China trade war could combine to create a nightmare scenario for consumers. But it is impossible to gauge the level of both required to push the U.S. into a recession. Second, there are many ways in which today's macro environment is different from that in 1974. In the 1970s the inventory cycle was a key factor in the business cycle, with excesses building up ahead of recessions, forcing output cutbacks as demand weakened. That is no longer the case in today's world of just-in-time inventory management. Also, inflation was a much bigger problem back then, requiring tougher Fed action. On the other hand, debt burdens were much lower. Investment Implications To be clear, none of the usual recession indicators that BCA Research uses are flashing red at this time. The point of this analysis is to illustrate a credible, exogenous scenario that cannot be revealed through the usual data-driven recession forecasting methods. What happens if a recession does occur ahead of the 2020 election? How would President Trump react to a recession induced by his foreign policy adventurism in the Middle East? By doing what every other president would do: finding someone else to blame. In this case, we would put high odds on the Federal Reserve becoming the target of President Trump's fury. Ahead of 2020, the Fed and its independence may very well become an election issue.10 This could spell serious trouble for the Fed, which is at a massive disadvantage when it comes to explaining to voters why central bank independence is so important. The Fed had great difficulty managing public opinion regarding its extraordinary measures to combat the Great Recession - its attempts at public outreach largely failed. Compare the number of Trump's Twitter followers to that of the Fed's (Chart 12). Chart 12The Fed's PR Abilities Are Limited Though most of our clients and colleagues will probably disagree, we do not see central bank independence as a static quality. It was bestowed upon central banks by politicians following widespread inflation fears throughout the 1970s and 1980s, although in the U.S. the current tradition goes back to the 1951 Treasury Accord that restored the independence of the Fed. Our colleague Martin Barnes penned a report on the politicization of monetary policy in 2013.11 His conclusion is that political meddling in monetary affairs is less pernicious than economic performance. The Fed will incur Trump's ire, in other words, but it will be its failure to generate economic growth that causes a break in independence. We are not so sure. The next recession is likely to be a mild one for Main Street given the lack of real economic bubbles. But given the slow recovery in real wages over the past decade and the general angst of the populace towards governing elites, even a mild recession that merely reminds voters of 2008-2009 could produce deep anxiety and significant public reactions. Further, the idea of "independent," non-politically accountable institutions is going out of style. President Trump - and other policymakers in the developed world - have specifically targeted the "so-called experts" and "institutions." President Trump has attacked America's foreign policy architecture, NATO, the WTO, and a slew of supposedly outdated norms and practices for being "out of touch" with the electorate. This policy has served him well thus far. If our nightmare scenario of an oil price-induced recession plays out, the immediate implication for investors will be a sharp downturn in risk assets. As such, we are recommending that investors hedge their portfolios with a long Brent / short S&P 500 trade. Alternatively we would recommend going long U.S. energy / short technology stocks. A longer-term, and perhaps even more pernicious implication, would be the end of the era of central bank independence and a full politicization of the economy. Laissez-faire capitalist system would give way to dirigisme. In the process, the U.S. dollar and Treasuries would be doomed. Jim Mylonas, Global Strategist Daily Insights & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, and Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," dated June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated July 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit," dated September 12, 2018 and "Iraq: The Fulcrum Of Middle East Geopolitics And Global Oil Supply," dated September 5, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "A Story Told Through Charts: The U.S. Midterm Election," dated September 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 The Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently covers 100 days of net crude imports, or 200 days of net petroleum imports, and can be tapped for reasons of political timing as well as international emergencies. 7 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil-Supply Shock, Rising U.S. Rates Favor Gold As A Portfolio Hedge," dated September 13, 2018, available at bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see the U.S. Federal Reserve, "Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017," May 2018, available at federalreserve.gov. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?" dated August 1, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Daily Insights, "Politics And Monetary Policy," dated August 22, 2018, and "The Battle Of The Press Conferences: Trump Versus Powell," dated September 27, 2018, available at dailyinsights.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Special Report, "The Politicization Of Monetary Policy: Should We Care?" dated April 15, 2013, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Highlights Value is the most storied of all the factors discovered by academicians, and some of the most revered investors of all time have been those most closely associated with value investing. Over the nearly 92 years covered by Fama and French's data set, stocks with the highest book-to-price multiples have outperformed the overall market by three percentage points annually, but they have underperformed by two percentage points a year since their pre-financial-crisis peak. Fama and French's top value cohort has spent much of the post-crisis period mired at relative levels it first surpassed in early 2001, leading to whispers that value might be finished. It may take another year or two, but nothing ails value that a good bear market couldn't cure. The most popular value indexes are poor proxies for the value factor identified by Fama and French. We turn to our proprietary Equity Trading Strategy service's model for better insight into the metrics that separate value stocks from the rest of the field. Feature Macro students and investors are captivated by "factors," independent variables that are widely recognized as persistent drivers of equity returns, and BCA researchers are no exception. Although we have little time for the new factor "discoveries" that are accumulating at a rate that might make a bitcoin miner jealous, the established factors - Value, Size, and Momentum - have earned their stripes. We are card-carrying members of Professor Fama and French's fan club, and well-thought-out strategies attempting to harness their insights merit serious consideration. This Special Report updates a Special Report published jointly by our Global ETF Strategy and Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) services in May with insights from a custom value index just created by The Bank Credit Analyst and ETS teams.1 It compares today's popular conceptions of value to the principles of Benjamin Graham, the "father of value investing," and finds that off-the-shelf value indexes fall far short of the value ideal. We seek to answer two questions with far-reaching investment implications: Is value dead? If not, how will investors know when it's about to reclaim its former glory? In our view, value is not dead, it's only sleeping, even if its hibernation is starting to feel like Rip van Winkle's. Although it is not yet time to tilt a portfolio in its direction, the Value factor is alive and well, and simply biding its time until the next bear market and recession. Decomposing value investing's performance across market and policy cycles shows that it edges out the equity universe when policy is easy and bull markets are in force, but crushes it when policy is tight and stocks are in a bear market. The investment strategy conclusion is one with the empirical record: non-dedicated investors should look to value stocks when the weather turns rough. What Is Value? As our ETF and ETS teams lamented in their initial smart-beta ETF selection Special Report,2 the principles established by Benjamin Graham and Fama and French have faded with the passage of time. The essential notion that value is a by-product of temporary dislocations has slipped from popular understanding, making room for a simplistic, one-size-fits-all index-construction method that grants bank stocks lifetime membership. Those who bothered to read Fama and French's paper quickly forgot step one of its methodology, which stated, "We exclude financial firms." Financials' higher debt loads depress their price-to-book multiples relative to their nonfinancial counterparts', making direct comparisons dubious. The result has been to tether off-the-shelf value indexes' relative performance to the relative performance of the Financials sector (Chart 1). Since Tech stocks account for a similarly outsized proportion of the market cap of most growth indexes, value vs. growth boils down to a binary choice between Financials and Tech (Chart 2). Style investing is presumably meant to be something larger than a head-to-head battle between Financials' and Tech's prospective returns. It is certainly a long way away from the margin-of-safety concept that Graham applied to every investment. Chart 1Value Indexes' Permanent Residents Chart 2In A Standard Index, Value Is To Growth ##br##As Financials Are To Tech What's The Big Deal? Shorn of the margin-of-safety concept, value investing ceases to provide investors with downside protection. Regardless of the metric(s) used to measure an investor's margin of safety (Graham preferred a multiple of future earnings, conservatively estimated; Fama and French found that trailing book-to-price in isolation best explained subsequent returns), securities bought with a large one provide investors with a cushion against untoward future developments. That cushion is readily apparent in Fama and French's high book-to-price portfolios' performance relative to low book-to-price portfolios', and to the overall equity market (Chart 3): they outperform in bull markets, albeit at a modest pace, but they blast ahead during bear markets and recessions (Table 1). Long bull markets, like the one that was mainly in force from 1982 to 2000, and the current one, which just established a postwar record of over nine-and-a-half years, are a drag on rolling (Chart 3, middle panel) and cumulative returns (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3Making Hay While The Rain Falls Table 1Value Portfolio Returns, July 1967 - July 2018 By contrast, the S&P 500 Value Index offers very little protection in times of stress, nosing out the broad S&P 500 in the one-seventh of the time a bear market has been in force since its 1975 launch, while lagging the broad index over the other six-sevenths (Table 2). The result is steady underperformance that adds up over time (Chart 4), and mirrors the relative performance of the S&P 500 Financials (Chart 4, bottom panel). Since value investors are conceding performance to growth investors in boom times, they really need to make hay during slumps, which the S&P 500 Value Index has failed to do, outside of the bursting of the dot-com bubble. The empirical record suggests that the main off-the-shelf value index's construction methodology leaves a lot to be desired (Chart 5). Table 2S&P 500 Value Index Returns, ##br##February 1975 - July 2018 Chart 4A Simplistic Proxy ... Chart 5... That Can't Hold A Candle To The Real Factor Building A Better Value Index The standard value indexes have several shortcomings. They are backward-looking, overly reliant on earnings as a cash-flow metric, blind to serial acquirers' accumulation of book-to-market-flattering intangible assets, and oblivious to sector-neutrality's charms. The value metrics in our Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) model correct for all but sector biases. They incorporate forward P/E multiples alongside trailing multiples; they consider cash-flow multiples; and their use of price-to-tangible-book, in place of simple price-to-book, partially corrects for acquirers' cosmetic advantage. Our Bank Credit Analyst colleagues turned to the ETS software to screen for candidates that more fully live up to Graham's value ideal. To combat sector biases, they grouped large- and mid-cap U.S. stocks3 by sector and evaluated their value characteristics only against each other, identifying the top three (value) and bottom three (growth) deciles within individual sector silos. Then and only then did they bring the value and growth pools together into market-wide baskets. Every sector is equally represented in its value and growth indexes, which bring together the best- and worst-value stocks from every sector. The ETS approach, which may do a better job of screening out value traps than simple book-to-price multiples alone, shows promise. The ETS value: growth index has outperformed Fama and French's high-minus-low index by an annualized 4 percentage points over its 22-year life (Chart 6). The ETS index rebalances monthly, making it more costly to track than Fama and French's high-minus-low (HML) index, but does not ride the same Size factor tailwind.4 We estimate that the Size factor contributes more to Fama and French's HML than ignoring commissions contributes to the ETS index. Chart 6Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants When Will Value Regain Its Footing? The Value factor has underperformed the broad market before, but its rolling 10-year returns have never been underwater for so long. Relative to the bottom three deciles of stocks on a book-to-price basis, the top three deciles have spent much of the post-crisis period bumping along a level they first reached in February 2001, when the stock market was in the midst of furiously unwinding the excesses of the dot-com era (Chart 7). Seventeen years of sideways action have emboldened skeptics to suggest that Value might have met its end at the hands of overexposure and increased short-term pressure on professional investors. Chart 7A Historically Long Value Slump Count us among those who believe Value's demise has been greatly exaggerated. We've seen this movie before - the Value factor posts its strongest relative gains during bear markets and/or recessions - and the last 17 years have been market-friendly away from the crisis, when high book-to-price stocks uncharacteristically underperformed. Consistent with its comfort in adverse conditions, Value has performed best when monetary policy settings are restrictive (Table 3). Policy has now been accommodative for a record 10 consecutive years and counting (Chart 8), subjecting the high book-to-price stocks to a persistent relative headwind. Table 3High-Minus-Low* Annualized Returns By Fed Funds Cycle Phase, August 1961-July 2018 Chart 8Easier For Lo-o-o-onger The policy backdrop may provide the surest route back to Value outperformance. Based on the tight-as-a-drum labor market and budding inflation pressures, we expect the FOMC to maintain its 25-basis-points-a-quarter pace throughout 2019, putting the target fed funds rate on a path to cross our estimate of equilibrium sometime around the middle of next year. Tight policy would be conducive for Value outperformance and potentially plant the seeds for a recession and equity bear market at some point in 2020. As our ETF and ETS teams showed in their review of equity factors and the fed funds rate cycle, countercyclical Value naturally diversifies a portfolio with pro-cyclical Size and Momentum exposures,5 suggesting that Value exposure could be a welcome input to a recession portfolio. Investment Implications Prime time for the Value factor still appears to be a year off, but the time for considering new, or increasing existing, exposures is approaching, and another year of Fed hikes will bring it squarely into view. Value investing will never die as long as significant segments of the investing public pursue instant gratification, or are drawn in by the siren song of potentially supercharged growth opportunities.6 The current cycle is simply extended, and just as it remains appropriate to stick with equities overall, it remains appropriate from a factor perspective to de-emphasize Value in the near term. We remain on the style-investing sidelines, waiting for the next policy-cycle phase. Once it arrives, investors would be well-advised to apply the ETS approach to uncovering the best value candidates for an equity portfolio. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the May 16, 2018 Global ETF Strategy/Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Smart-Beta ETF Selection Update - Is Value Still Worth It?" available at etf.bcaresearch.com, and the October 2018 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Is It Time To Buy Value Stocks?," available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the February 15, 2017 Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part I - Value Funds," available at etf.bcaresearch.com. 3 The ETS model draws its index members from the top three deciles of U.S. stocks by market cap. 4 Fama and French's HML index is equally composed of the top three book-to-price (B/P) deciles less the bottom three B/P deciles of the stocks above the median market cap and the top three B/P deciles less the bottom three B/P deciles of stocks below the median market cap. The ETS index is drawn from the largest three deciles of all stocks by market cap. The net effect is for the HML index to include stocks with much smaller market caps than the ETS index, allowing it to derive an added benefit from the Size factor (smaller stocks outperform larger stocks over time). 5 Please see the May 17, 2017 Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Equity Factors And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," available at etf.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see the June 20, 2018 Global ETF Strategy/Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Why Anomalies Persist," available at etf.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Chart 1Second Half Rebound The leveling-off of bullish sentiment toward the dollar and the perception of fading political risk have caused spread product to rally hard since the end of June. Indeed, corporate bonds are almost back into the black versus Treasuries for the year (Chart 1). We caution against buying into either of these trends. We have demonstrated that divergences between the U.S. and the rest of the world usually end with weaker U.S. growth,1 and our geopolitical strategists warn that American tensions with both Iran and China are poised to ramp up after the November midterms.2 Add in persistent monetary tightening and corporate profit growth that is barely keeping pace with debt growth, and it becomes clear that the corporate spread environment is turning more negative. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. Evidence of deteriorating profit growth is required before turning more negative on spread product. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 78 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -16 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 8 bps on the month, and currently sits at 114 bps. Corporate bonds remain expensive with 12-month breakeven spreads for both A and Baa-rated credit tiers below their 25th percentiles since 1989 (Chart 2). Further, with inflation now at the Fed's target, monetary policy will provide less and less support for corporate bond returns going forward. These are the two main reasons we downgraded our cyclical corporate bond exposure to neutral in June.3 Gross leverage for the nonfinancial corporate sector declined in Q2, for the third consecutive quarter (panel 4), though the declines have been quite modest. Dollar strength and accelerating wage growth will weigh on corporate profits in the second half of the year, and with corporate profit growth just barely keeping pace with debt growth (bottom panel), odds are that leverage will start to rise. Midstream and Independent Energy companies remain attractively valued after adjusting for duration and credit rating (Table 3). These two sectors stand to benefit from rising oil prices into next year, as is expected by our commodity strategists.4 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 104 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +326 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 22 bps on the month, and currently sits at 316 bps. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for default losses is currently 209 bps, below the long-run mean of 247 bps (Chart 3). This tells us that if default losses are in line with our expectations during the next 12 months, we should expect high-yield returns of 209 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries, assuming also no capital gains/losses from spread tightening/widening. But the default loss expectations embedded in our calculation are also extremely low relative to history (panel 4). Our assumption, derived from the Moody's baseline default rate forecast and our own forecast of the recovery rate, calls for default losses of 1.07% during the next 12 months. Default losses have rarely come in below that level. While most indicators suggest that default losses will remain low for the next 12 months, historical context clearly demonstrates that the risks are to the upside. Meanwhile, with gross corporate leverage likely to rise in the second half of the year,5 and job cut announcements already trending higher (bottom panel), current default loss forecasts appear overly optimistic. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -7 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread tightened 5 bps on the month, driven by a 4 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) and a 1 bp tightening in the option-adjusted spread. The excess return Bond Map on page 15 shows that MBS offer a relatively poor risk/reward trade-off, particularly compared to Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS, High-Yield and Sovereigns. However, our Bond Map does not account for the macro environment, which remains favorable for the sector. Refi activity is tepid, and continued Fed rate hikes will ensure that it stays that way (Chart 4). Meanwhile, lending standards have been slowly easing since 2014 (bottom panel). Despite the steady easing, the Fed's most recent Senior Loan Officer Survey reports that mortgage lending standards remain at the tighter end of the range since 2005. This suggests that further easing is likely going forward. In a recent report we noted that residential investment has decelerated in recent months, with the weakness mostly stemming from multi-family construction.6 Demand for single-family housing remains robust, and we see no potential negative impact on MBS spreads during the next 6-12 months. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 48 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +38 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 151 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +67 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed by 70 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +34 bps. Local Authorities outperformed by 50 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +91 bps. Supranationals outperformed Treasuries by 4 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +16 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 6 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +10 bps. After adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration, the average spread available from the USD-denominated Sovereign index is unattractive compared to the U.S. corporate bond space (Chart 5). Dollar strength should also cause Sovereign debt to underperform U.S. corporates in the coming months (panel 3). But the outlook could be worse for the Sovereign index. Mexico, Colombia and the Philippines make up approximately 50% of the index's market cap, and our Emerging Markets Strategy team has found that none of those countries are particularly vulnerable to a slowdown in Chinese aggregate demand.7 Mexico and Columbia are particularly insulated. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 36 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +153 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio rose 2% in September, and currently sits at 87% (Chart 6). This is about one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and only slightly above the average of 81% that was observed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. In a recent report we demonstrated that while M/T yield ratios are low, municipal bonds offer attractive yields compared to corporate bonds.8 For example, we observe that a 5-year Aa-rated municipal bond carries a yield of 2.40% versus a yield of 3.42% for a comparable corporate bond index. This implies that an investor with an effective tax rate of 30% should be indifferent between the two bonds. Moving further out the curve, the breakeven tax rate falls to 23% at the 10-year maturity point and is even lower at the 20-year maturity point. The greater attractiveness of long-maturity munis is consistent across credit tiers, and investors should favor long-dated over short-dated municipal debt (bottom panel). Treasury Curve: Favor The 7-Year Bullet Over The 1/20 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve underwent a roughly parallel upward shift in September. While the 10-year Treasury yield rose 19 bps, the 2/10 slope was unchanged at 24 bps and the 5/30 slope flattened 3 bps to reach 25 bps. The yield curve is already quite flat, and our models suggest that a lot more flattening is discounted. For example, our 1/7/20 butterfly spread model shows that 32 bps of 1/20 flattening is priced into the 1/7/20 butterfly spread for the next six months (Chart 7).9 With the U.S. economy growing strongly and the Fed moving at a gradual +25 bps per quarter pace, the curve is likely to flatten by less than is currently discounted on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. This argues for positioning in curve steepeners. In a recent report we also made the case for owning steepeners as a hedge against the risk that weak foreign growth infiltrates the U.S. via a stronger dollar.10 We found that the yield pick-up is similar for the different steepener trades we considered, and also that the 7-year yield has the most downside in the event of a pause in the Fed's tightening cycle. This argues for maintaining our position long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell, a position that has earned +37 bps since it was initiated in May. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 16 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +138 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 6 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.14%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 7 bps and currently sits at 2.25%. Both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below the 2.3% to 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. TIPS breakeven rates have held firm in recent months, despite the sharp drop in commodity prices (Chart 8). This suggests that investors' inflation expectations are increasingly being swayed by U.S. core inflation, which is now more or less consistent with the Fed's target (bottom panel). In recent reports we showed that year-over-year core inflation (both CPI and PCE) is likely to flatten-off during the next six months.11 But continued inflation prints near the Fed's target should be sufficient to drive long-dated breakevens higher, into our target range. This will occur as persistent prints near target cause investors' fears of deflation to gradually ebb. ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +29 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS narrowed 4 bps on the month and now stands at 33 bps, just below its pre-crisis minimum. The excess return Bond Map on page 15 shows that consumer ABS offer attractive return potential compared to other high-rated spread products - such as Agency CMBS and Domestic Agencies - but also carry a greater risk of losses. The Bond Map also reveals that Aaa-rated credit card ABS offer a more attractive risk/reward trade-off than Aaa-rated auto loan ABS. We continue to recommend favoring the former over the latter. Credit quality trends have been slowly moving against the ABS sector and we think caution is warranted. The consumer credit delinquency rate bottomed in 2015, albeit from a very low level, and it should continue to head higher based on the trend in household interest coverage (Chart 9). Average consumer credit bank lending standards have also been tightening for nine consecutive quarters (bottom panel). Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 41 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +167 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 6 bps on the month and currently sits at 83 bps (Chart 10). In a recent report we showed that the macro picture for CMBS is decidedly mixed.12 A typical negative environment for CMBS is characterized by tightening bank lending standards for commercial real estate loans and falling demand. At present, both lending standards and demand for nonresidential real estate loans are close to unchanged (bottom two panels). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +54 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 44 bps. The Bond Maps on page 15 show 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. The BCA Bond Maps The following page presents excess return and total return Bond Maps that we use to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Maps employ volatility-adjusted breakeven spread/yield analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Maps do not impose any macroeconomic view. The Excess Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the excess return Bond 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 in excess of Treasuries. The Total Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the total return Bond Map shows the number of days of average yield increase required for each sector to lose 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of yield increases and are therefore less likely to lose 5%. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average yield decline required for each sector to earn 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of yield decline and are therefore more likely to earn 5%. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of September 28, 2018) Chart 12Total Return Bond Map (As Of September 28, 2018) Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of September 28, 2018) Table 5Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "An Oasis Of Prosperity?", dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "A Story Told Through Charts: The U.S. Midterm Election", dated September 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Go To Neutral On Spread Product", dated June 26, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl", dated September 20, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners", dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners", dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Deciphering Global Trade Linkages", dated September 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "An Oasis Of Prosperity?", dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For further details on our yield curve models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners", dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "No Excuses", dated September 18, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem", dated July 17, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)