Developed Countries
Overweight The managed health sector was shaken up this week with the announcement of another mega-merger, this time with Cigna buying the last major independent prescription benefits manager (PBM), Express Scripts, for $67 billion. This transaction follows the pending blockbuster acquisition of Aetna by CVS in the trend of vertical integration among health insurance providers and PBMs in an effort to rein in prescription prices, which have already started to fall (second panel). Assuming drug prices maintain their trajectory, other falling input costs (third panel) imply margin resilience in managed health should prove sustainable. Tack on a tight labor market and small-business hiring plans hitting new highs (unemployment rate shown inverted, bottom panel), and the outlook for EPS growth looks rosier than ever; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH - UNH, AET, ANTM, CI, HUM, CNC.
Underweight As with other metals-consuming industries, stocks in both the S&P auto components and S&P autos indexes have traded sharply lower following the announcement of the proposed steel and aluminum tariffs (top panel). With roughly a quarter share of domestic steel consumption, autos are second only to the construction industry in terms of exposure to higher steel prices. Fears of higher prices are amplified as new vehicle sales growth appears to be petering out. We think fears are well-founded but not because of higher steel prices but rather from a contraction in credit growth (second panel). Tighter lending standards (third panel) have followed a glut of subprime lending with rising defaults (bottom panel) that are only now working their way through lenders' balance sheets. A backdrop of potentially higher prices only fuels the flames on this negative story; stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P auto components index are: BLBG: S5AUTC - APTV, BWA, GT.
Highlights Risk assets find themselves in a precarious equilibrium. Record high valuations are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or fall, but valuations become increasingly hard to justify if bond yields march much higher. If the average of the German 10-year bund yield and U.S. 10-year T-bond yield breaks through 2%, we would downgrade equities and upgrade bonds. Stay long Italian BTPs versus French OATs. The Italian election result is not an investment game changer... ...but stay underweight the Italian equity market (MIB) on a 6-9 month horizon. Our sector stance to underweight banks necessarily implies underweighting the bank-heavy MIB. Feature "Even yet we may draw back, but once cross yon little bridge, and the whole issue is with the sword." - Julius Caesar, contemplating whether to cross the Rubicon River in 49 BC World GDP amounts to $80 trillion. But the combined value of equities and correlated risk assets such as high yield and EM debt is worth double that, around $160 trillion. Real estate is worth $220 trillion. Hence, global risk assets are worth around five times world GDP. With the value of risk assets dwarfing the world economy by a factor of five, it perplexes us that many commentators insist that causality must always run from the economy to financial markets. In fact, in major downturns, the causality usually runs the other way. Rather than economic downturns causing financial instabilities, it is more common for financial instabilities to cause economic downturns. Specifically, the last three economic downturns had their geneses in the financial markets. The bursting of the dot com bubble triggered the downturn of 2001; the large-scale mispricing of U.S. mortgages caused the Great Recession of 2008; and the explosive widening of euro area sovereign credit spreads resulted in the euro area recession of 2011. This raises a crucial question: is there a major vulnerability in financial markets right now? Risk Assets Are As Expensive As In 2000... For at least five decades, the ratio of global equity market capitalization to world GDP (effectively, the price to sales ratio) has proved to be an excellent predictor of subsequent 10-year global equity returns (Chart I-2). Chart of the WeekWorld Equities As Highly-Valued As In 2000 On Price To Sales Chart I-2Price To Sales Has Been An Excellent Predictor Of World Equity Returns Today's extreme ratio of global equity market capitalization to world GDP has been seen only once before in modern history - at the peak of the dot com boom in 2000. In the subsequent decade global equities went on to return a paltry 2% a year. Using the particularly tight predictive relationship in recent decades, we can infer that global equities are now priced to generate 2% a year in the coming decade too (Chart of the Week). Still, equities are not as extremely valued relative to government bonds as they were in 2000. Today, the global 10-year bond yield stands near 2%, implying a broadly equal prospective 10-year return from equities and bonds. In 2000, the global 10-year bond yield stood at 5%, implying that equities would return 3% less than bonds, which they duly did (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Relative To Government Bonds, Equities Were More Expensive In 2000 On the other hand, high yield credit is more extremely valued relative to government bonds than it was in 2000. Today, the global high yield credit spread stands at a very tight 4%: in 2000, it stood at 8% (Chart I-4). So taking the combination of equities and high yield credit, we can say that risk assets are as highly valued today as they were in 2000. Chart I-4Relative To Government Bonds, High Yield Credit Was Less Expensive In 2000 ...But Risk Assets Should Be Very Expensive When Bond Yields Are Ultra-Low The record high valuation of risk assets is fully justified when government bond yields are ultra-low. This is because bond returns take on the same unattractive asymmetry - known as 'negative skew' - that equity and high yield credit returns possess. For a detailed explanation, please revisit our report Are Bonds A Greater Risk Than Equities? 1 But in a nutshell, as bond risk becomes 'equity-like' it diminishes the requirement for a superior return on equities and other risk-assets, lifting their valuations exponentially. Consider what happens to valuations when bond yields decline from 4% to 2%. At a 4% bond yield, equities possess significantly more negative skew than 10-year bonds. So investors will demand a comparatively higher return from equities, let's say 8% a year. Whereas, at a 2% bond yield, equities and 10-year bonds possess the same negative skew. So investors will demand the same return from equities as they can get from bonds, 2% a year (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Below A 2% Yield, 10-Year Bonds Are Riskier Than Equities At the lower bond yield, the bond must deliver 2% a year less for ten years, meaning its price must rise by 22%.2 But equities must deliver 6% a year less for ten years, so the equity market must surge by 80%.3 All well and good, except if bond yields go back up to 4%. In which case, bond and equity prices must fall again - in proportion to their preceding rise. Hence, risk assets find themselves in a precarious equilibrium. Record high valuations are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or fall, but valuations become increasingly hard to justify if bond yields march much higher. However, a setback to $380 trillion of global risk assets means that yields can't march much higher without at least a temporary reversal. Unfortunately, the exact point at which the precarious equilibrium becomes threatened is hard to define. Still, we might define crossing the Rubicon as follows. If the average of the German 10-year bund yield and U.S. 10-year T-bond yield - now standing at 1.8% - breaks through 2%, we would downgrade equities and upgrade bonds. Italy: Banks More Important Than Politics On Sunday, Italy's electorate punished the establishment centre-left and centre-right parties - the Democratic Party and Forza Italia - whose combined vote share collapsed to just 33%. Italians gravitated to parties offering populist, anti-establishment and anti-migration bromides. Sound familiar? This is just a continuation of the pattern seen in recent elections in France, Germany and Austria - as well as the victories for Brexit and President Trump. Begging the question, does the Italian election result change anything for investors? Political change disrupts markets if it dislocates the long-term expectations embedded in economic agents and financial prices. The vote for Brexit changed expectations about the U.K.'s long-term trading relationships; the election of Trump changed expectations about fiscal stimulus, the tax structure, and protectionism; and the election of Macron exorcised the potential chaos of a Le Pen presidency. On this basis, the Italian election result is not an investment game changer. The one exception would be if M5S and Lega joined forces to govern, as it could throw EU integration into reverse. But the likelihood of this unholy alliance seems very low. Many people - including some of the more populist Italian politicians - claim that Italy's long-standing economic underperformance is because it is shackled to the euro. But membership of the single currency cannot be the main cause of Italy's underperformance. After all, through 1999-2007, Italian real GDP per head performed more or less in line with the U.S., Canada and France, even without a private sector credit boom. Italy's underperformance really started after the 2008 financial crisis (Chart I-6). And the most plausible explanation is that its dysfunctional banking system has been left broken for close to a decade (Chart I-7). Italy procrastinated because its government is more indebted than other sovereigns and its banking problems did not cause an outright crisis. Chart I-6Italy Has Underperformed##br## Since The Great Recession... Chart I-7...Because The Banks ##br##Were Left Unfixed But now the banking system is finally recuperating. In the past year, banks have raised almost €50 billion in much needed equity capital, the share of non-performing loans (NPLs) is down sharply having peaked at the same level as in Spain in 2013 (Chart I-8), and bank solvency is much healthier (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Italy's NPLs Are Finally Declining... Chart I-9...And Bank Solvency Is Getting Better In effect, Italy is where Spain was in 2014. So could Italy in 2018-21 repeat Spain's turnaround in 2014-17? Italy has more work to do, but on balance we remain cautiously optimistic, and express this optimism through a relative trade in bonds: long Italian BTPs versus French OATs. The connection with the Italian equity market (MIB) is more tenuous. The market's outsize exposure to banks means that sustained outperformance of the MIB requires sustained outperformance of banks. On a 6-9 month horizon, our sector stance is to underweight banks. Necessarily, this means our country stance must be to underweight Italy. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Are Bonds A Greater Risk Than Equities?" published on January 25, 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 1.02^10 3 1.06^10 Fractal Trading Model* The rally in the Chilean peso appears technically extended. Hence, this week's trade recommendation is to short the Chilean peso versus the U.S. dollar setting a profit target of 2.7% with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart 10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Global trade data we track as indicators of current and expected commodity demand - particularly EM import volumes - will provide a lift to oil prices over the course of 1H18. We continue to expect global oil demand growth, led by EM growth, to rise by 1.7mm and 1.6mm b/d this year and next, respectively. Against this still-positive backdrop, heightened geopolitical tensions are ratcheting up volatility in our outlook. A global trade war - now a factor following the Trump administration's bellicose rhetoric - would reduce our oil demand forecasts. That said, our Geopolitical Strategy team notes past U.S. administrations have used the threat of trade wars to cheapen the USD, which would be bullish commodities.1 Energy: Overweight. Even though it is not a surprise, the anti-trade rhetoric coming out of Washington is a wake-up call for oil markets. Trade is deeply entwined with EM income growth, which drives commodity demand globally. A shock to global trade would be a shock to aggregate demand and oil demand, hence oil prices. Base Metals: Neutral. President Trump announced 25% and 10% tariffs on steel and aluminum last week. Markets are fretting over the possibility of a full-blown trade war if the U.S. zeroes in on China, as it apparently is doing, and Washington's allies impose retaliatory tariffs, should the Trump administration level tariffs on their exports.2 Precious Metals: Neutral. A global trade war would boost gold's appeal, and we continue to recommend it as a strategic portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. In a series of tweets earlier this week, President Trump suggested concessions on steel and aluminum tariffs to Canada and Mexico in exchange for concessions on NAFTA. Neither Mexico nor Canada supported this link. Feature Our short-term models of global trade volumes continue to indicate EM imports - a key variable in our analysis of industrial commodity demand - will continue to grow (Chart of The Week).3 This will be supportive of commodity prices generally, particularly oil, in 1H18. In 2H18 and beyond, the outlook is getting cloudier. And more volatile. A fundamental underpinning of our oil-demand expectation for this year and next is that a slowdown in China in 2H18 will be offset by a pickup in EM and DM aggregate demand - and trade volumes - ex-China, in line with the IMF's expectation for EM and DM growth this year and next (Chart 2).4 DM markets and India likely will take up the slack created by China's slight slowdown. In fact, India already is moving out ahead: Based on official data, India's economy grew at a 7.2% rate in December, topping China's 6.8% rate, according to a Reuters survey at the end of February.5 Chart 1EM Import Volumes Will Continue To Grow Chart 2EM Growth Ex-China Keeps Oil Demand Strong EM Import Volumes Are Important To Oil Prices EM demand drives global oil demand. Over the long haul, the relationship between oil prices and EM import volumes has been strong: A 1% increase in EM import volumes has translated into roughly a 1% increase in Brent and WTI prices since 2000 (Chart 3).6 These variables all are linked: EM economic growth correlates with higher incomes, higher commodity demand and higher import volumes. All else equal (i.e., assuming supply is unchanged), this increases oil prices (via higher demand). The biggest weight in the EM import volume variable is China's imports, so the sustainability of the current Chinese growth is important, as is how smoothly policymakers there slow the economy in 2H18 as we expect. Chinese imports are sensitive to industrial output, which is captured by the Li Keqiang index, global PMIs, and FX markets (Chart 4). Provided policymakers can maintain income growth as the country pivots - once again - away from heavy industrial-export-led growth to consumer- and services-led growth, oil demand will not be materially affected, and should continue growing. At present, China's import volume growth has leveled off as Chart 4 shows, indicating income growth is holding up. China recently guided toward a GDP growth target of 6.5% for this year. Given they have a solid track record of achieving such targets, this indicates that they do not expect a severe slowdown. However, a hard economic landing - always a risk in transforming such a huge economy - would force us to reconsider our growth estimates. Chart 3EM Imports Supportive Of Prices Chart 4Growth In China's Import Volumes Levels Off In our analysis, we do not yet have enough information to determine whether the Trump administration will launch a trade war with China. The impact of President Trump's proposed steel and aluminum tariffs on China is de minimis: Chinese exports of these commodities to the U.S. amount to less than 0.2% of China's total exports, as our colleagues at BCA Research's China Investment Strategy note in this week's analysis.7 The big risk from these tariffs lies in what happens next. If they are the first step in additional tariffs directed at industries far more important to China, they could invite retaliation.8 If the recently announced tariffs expand to a global trade war - already the EU, Canada and Mexico have indicated they will not sit idly by while tariffs are imposed on exporters in their countries - the threat to world trade, and EM imports in particular, rises considerably. This would threaten crude oil prices. Trade Wars And Oil Flows Other than exports from the U.S., which could be targeted by states retaliating against tariffs, it is difficult to imagine the flow of oil being affected by a trade war in the short term: Oil is an internationally traded commodity, and traders adapt quickly to disruptions - e.g., re-routing crude flows in response to events affecting production, consumption, inventories or shipping.9 However, it does not require much of an intellectual leap to see EM trade volumes being significantly impacted by a trade war via the slowing in income growth globally. Such a turn of events would reduce aggregate demand in that part of the market - EM - that is responsible for the bulk of commodity demand growth. Falling EM trade volumes would be the natural result of falling incomes. This would be disinflationary, as well, which is not unexpected (Chart 5). We have found a long-term relationship with strong co-movement properties between EM import volumes and U.S. CPI and PCE inflation indexes. Our modelling indicates a 1% decrease (increase) in EM import volumes translates into a decrease (increase) in these U.S. inflation indexes of 15 to 20bp with a 6- to 12-month lag. These are non-trivial quantities: For instance, a decline in EM import volumes of 10% or more could shave as much as 2 points from U.S. inflation (Chart 6). Such a disinflation impulse once again coming from the real economy would, in all likelihood, force the Fed to throttle back on its interest-rate normalization policy or reverse course. Chart 5Lower EM Import Volumes##BR##Would Take U.S. Inflation Lower Chart 6EM Trade Volumes##BR##Over Time Volatility Likely To Pick Up As we noted above, our Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) colleagues point out the threat of tariffs and quotas has been used by U.S. administrations in the past to get systemically important central banks to support a weaker USD.10 The end game always is to spur exports to boost economic growth. The downside risk from trade wars discussed above is fairly obvious. Not so obvious is the upside commodity-price risk arising from a depreciation in the USD, which falls out of a strategy of using the threat of tariffs to ultimately weaken the USD. Our GPS colleagues quote Paul Volcker's summary of a similar gambit by Richard Nixon, who also ran a mercantilist presidential campaign in the late 1960s, to ultimately weaken the USD: The conclusion reached by some that the United States shrugged off responsibilities for the dollar and for leadership in preserving an open world order does seem to me a misinterpretation of the facts ... The devaluation itself was the strongest argument we had to repel protectionism. The operating premise throughout was that a necessary realignment of exchange rates and other measures consistent with more open trade and open capital markets could accomplish the necessary balance-of-payments adjustment. It is impossible to say whether such a depreciation is the Trump administration's end-game. However, if it is, this would be bullish commodities generally, gold and base metals in particular. For oil, a weaker USD would be bullish, but, as we have shown recently, fundamentals now drive oil price formation.11 Bottom Line: Current and expected EM import volumes indicate oil prices will continue to be supported by rising demand over the course of 1H18. We continue to expect global oil demand growth, led by EM growth, to rise by 1.7mm and 1.6mm b/d this year and next, respectively. Still, heightened geopolitical tensions brought on by bellicose trade signaling from the U.S. are ratcheting up volatility in our outlook. A global trade war would force us to lower our forecast for Brent and WTI crude oil from our current $74 and $70/bbl expectations for this year. However, as our Geopolitical Strategy team notes, past U.S. administrations have used the threat of trade wars to cheapen the USD. Should this turn out to be the Trump administration's strategy, the weaker USD would be bullish for commodity prices. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," published March 6, 2018. It is available at gps.bceresearch.com. Our colleagues note, "Import tariffs ought to be bullish for the greenback, given that they lead to higher domestic policy rates as inflationary pressures rise (and not just passing ones). However, as the previous two examples of U.S. protectionism teach us, the U.S. uses threats of tariffs so that it can get a cheaper USD. From Washington's perspective, both accomplish the same thing. Intriguingly, the U.S. dollar has sold off on the most recent news of protectionism." (Emphasis added.) 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease," published March 1, 2018, particularly the discussion beginning on p. 7. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Our 3-month ahead projections are based on two components: (1) the first principal component of a basket of currencies exposed to global growth; and (2) lagged U.S. monetary variables. Our modeling shows that exchange rates are forward-looking variables containing information of future fundamentals. Therefore, by selecting currencies exposed to global and EM growth, this allows us to run short-term forecasts of EM import volumes. The analysis is also confirmed using Granger-causality tests. 4 Please see "Brighter Prospects, Optimistic Markets, Challenges Ahead," in the IMF's January 22, 2018, World Economic Outlook Update, which notes its revised forecast calling for stronger global growth reflects improved DM growth expectations. 5 Please see "India regains status as fastest growing major economy," published by reuters.com on February 28, 2018. 6 These results fall out of co-integration regressions. 7 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China And The Risk Of Escalation," published March 7, 2018. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. See also footnote 2 above. 8 President Trump reportedly is considering broadening the tariffs on a range of Chinese imports and limiting Chinese investment in the U.S., to punish the country for "its alleged theft of intellectual property," according to Bloomberg. Please see "U.S. Considers Broad Curbs on Chinese Imports, Takeovers," published by Bloomberg.com, March 6, 2018. 9 The U.S. is exporting a little over 1.5mm b/d of crude oil and 4.6mm b/d of refined products at present, according to EIA data. A drawn-out trade war resulting in U.S. oil exports being hit with retaliatory tariffs or quotas could derail the expansion of crude exports brought on by the growth in shale-oil output in America. The IEA expects the U.S. to account for the largest increase in crude exports in the world between now and 2040, "propelling the region above Russia, Africa and South America in the global rankings." This has the effect of reducing net U.S. crude imports to 3mm b/d by 2040 from 7mm b/d at present. An increase in product exports - from 2mm b/d to 4mm b/d - makes the U.S. a net exporter of crude and product, based on the IEA's analysis. The largest demand for crude imports comes from Asia over this period, which grows 9mm b/d to 30mm b/d in total. Please see "WEO Analysis: A sea change in the global oil trade," published by the IEA February 23, 2018, on its website at iea.org. 10 We urge our readers to pick up BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report cited in footnote 1 above, which lays out our GPS team's analytical framework regarding trade wars. They note, "If constraints to trade protectionism were considerable, Trump would not have the ability to surprise the markets with bellicose rhetoric on a whim. BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy cannot predict individual triggers for events. But our framework allows us to elucidate the constraint context in which policymakers operate. On protectionism, Trump operates in a poorly constrained context. This is why we have been alarmist on trade since day one." 11 We found that the more backwardated oil forward curves are the less impact the USD has on the evolution of prices. Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices," published on February 22, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017
Underweight Stocks in the S&P soft drinks index have been reeling in the last few trading sessions as fears the Trump administration’s proposed aluminum tariff will raise costs in an already-beleaguered industry. Despite Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ comments that the cost increases would be “no big deal”, such costs will have to find a way through the P&L, either through price increases or lower margins. With respect to the former, the timing for price increases is inopportune; sales have been contracting for the past year and most of the past three (second panel). Meanwhile, the steep decline in shipments since early last year has proven persistent (bottom panel), suggesting that receding sales are far from turning. These were the reasons behind our mid-summer 2017 downgrade to underweight; that thesis is certainly reinforced with higher input costs. Overall, the proposed tariffs remain uncertain but even the specter of margin pressure should keep share prices bottled up; we reiterate our underweight recommendation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFD - PEP, KO, DPS, MNST.
The S&P banks index has been the best performer on our 2018 high-conviction call list and begs the question whether or not there is any "gas left in the tank". In this week's Special Report, we give our top 10 reasons why we still like banks, despite the recent run-up in relative share prices. The return of volatility helps bank profits, via rising trading revenues. Vol has also historically been an excellent leading indicator of rising relative bank valuations. The accelerating price of credit too bodes well for bank profits and is a harbinger of further stock outperformance. Pristine credit quality resulting from record low unemployment. Upbeat credit growth prospects from the capex upcycle, a general revival of animal spirits and residential real estate price inflation. Our U.S. banks profit growth model is humming, reflecting the aforementioned improving credit growth backdrop. Vastly improved stress test results have caused the Fed to allow banks to bump dividend payouts. Similar to rising dividend payouts, pent up buyback demand is getting unleashed. The U.S. banking system remains the best capitalized in the world and foreign flows will likely continue to chase U.S. banks in global equity portfolios. Dodd-Frank regulatory relief seems to be in the offing in the current administration. Both on a relative price-to-book and relative forward P/E basis, banks look appealing. Bottom Line: We reiterate the high-conviction overweight in the S&P banks index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT. Please see yesterday's Special Report for more details.
Highlights Policymakers & Volatility: The major developed market central banks (Fed, ECB, BoJ), facing low unemployment rates and slowly rising inflation, are less able to respond to volatility spikes with more dovish monetary policies compared to past years. Investors should get used to a structurally higher level of volatility, likely for the remainder of the current business cycle upturn. Higher Volatilty & Spread Product: The relative risk-adjusted attractiveness of global spread product looks different when using a higher level of yield volatility, particularly when hedged into U.S. dollars. Continue to favor U.S. investment grade and high yield corporate debt over euro area and emerging market equivalents, even with the more elevated volatility backdrop. Feature If there is one lesson to be learned from recent events, it is that global policymakers can no longer be trusted to always make the most market-friendly decisions. Central bankers in most countries have shifted from solely supporting growth to fighting inflation pressures. The White House is now willing to risk a disruptive trade war to try and "correct" the large U.S. trade deficit, rather than focusing on stimulating growth solely through fiscal policy. Even geopolitical headlines have become more worrisome for investors, with Russia announcing new nuclear capabilities, China appointing a "president for life", the U.K. government remaining vague on the details of its Brexit negotiating stance and Italy's elections producing a hung parliament with anti-establishment parties outperforming expectations. The idea that central bankers have been explicitly putting a floor under risk assets, by focusing so much on financial conditions as a critical input into their economic and inflation forecasts, has become very entrenched among investors. The implication is that if risky assets sell off, central banks will shift to a more dovish stance, thus causing interest rate expectations to shift lower which eventually causes risk assets to rebound and financial conditions to ease. This has been most evident in the U.S., where a belief in the "Fed Put" - the idea that the Fed has implicitly sold investors a put option on equities by responding dovishly to market selloffs - goes all the way back to the Greenspan era. In the U.S., however, there is now greater uncertainty that a "Powell Put" even exists - or at least one as valuable as the "Yellen Put" and "Bernanke Put" before it. In other words, it may now take a much larger decline in risk assets to cause the Fed to question its economic forecasts enough to change them. New Fed Chairman Jay Powell said as much in his first appearance before the U.S. Congress last week, where he noted that the recent equity market turbulence was not "weighing heavily" on the Fed's outlook. In fact, Powell talked up a very bullish view on the U.S. economy, which markets took as a sign that the Fed could hike rates four times in 2018 - more than the three hikes currently embedded in the Fed's projections. A similar dynamic is playing out in Europe and Japan, where the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) have been more vocal about the potential end of their respective asset purchase programs given the underlying strength of the euro area and Japanese economies. The belief in a "Draghi Put" or "Kuroda Put" is also strong, but is starting to wane. Central Bankers As Options Traders Chart 1A Smaller Response To Higher Volatility One way to see this changing backdrop is to look at the response of monetary policy expectations to increases in market volatility. During 2017, there were a few small flare-ups of equity market volatility in the U.S., euro area and Japan. In each of those episodes, interest rate markets were quick to price in easier monetary policy through a lower projected level of the funds rate in the U.S. or by pushing out the timing of the eventual first rate hike in Europe and Japan (Chart 1). The story is much different in 2018, where volatility has soared higher but there has been little change to the expected path of interest rates. Markets now understand that inflation-fighting central banks, who strongly believe in the Phillips Curve, now have to focus more on inflation than asset prices with unemployment rates at or below full employment levels. Using the language of options markets, the "strike price" on the put options allegedly sold by central bankers is now much lower. The implication is that bouts of market turbulence cannot generate lasting decreases in government bond yields that can eventually restore calm to financial assets. In other words, policymakers are now implicitly, but not intentionally, putting a floor under volatility rather than asset prices. This has made the investment backdrop much more challenging in 2018, as both absolute market returns and, especially, risk-adjusted returns will be far lower than investors have enjoyed over the past couple of years. This is one of the key themes that we outlined in our 2018 Outlook.1 It will take signs that more volatile markets are damaging economic growth and inflation expectations for this new dynamic to change. Yet there is little sign of that happening, at least among the "Big 3" central banks. The Federal Reserve In the U.S., economic data continues to print strongly. The February ISM manufacturing Index hit a 13-year high (Chart 2, top panel), with the export index hitting the highest level since 1988! The Conference Board index of consumer confidence hit the highest level since 2000 (2nd panel), while the Board's index of leading indicators continues to accelerate (3rd panel). The ISM new orders index remains at elevated levels that suggest that the latest upturn in capital spending should continue (bottom panel). Meanwhile, U.S. inflation gauges continue to grind slowly higher. The 3-month annualized growth rate of the core PCE deflator rose to 2.1% in January - above the Fed's 2% target - while the ISM Manufacturing Prices Paid index is now at a 6-year high (Chart 3). Inflation expectations from the TIPS market have recently stalled below levels that we deem consistent with the Fed's inflation objective (between 2.3% and 2.5% on both the 10-year TIPS breakeven and the 5-year TIPS breakeven, 5-years forward), but they continue to trend in the direction of the Fed's target. If the wage numbers in this Friday's February Payrolls report build on the breakout seen in the January data, then breakevens should begin to climb higher once again and would all but ensure that another Fed rate hike will occur later this month. Chart 2Fed Chair Powell Is Right##BR##To Be Optimistic On U.S. Growth Chart 3U.S. Inflation Now Moving##BR##Towards The Fed Target The ECB Chart 4Will The ECB Pull Forward Its Projections? Turning to the euro area, economic data has begun to dip lower in recent readings for cyclical indicators like the manufacturing PMI, which complicates the story for the ECB heading into this Thursday's policy meeting. We continue to expect any decision on a tapering of the ECB's asset purchase program to not take place until the summer. However, some minor changes to its forward guidance, like removing language suggesting that asset purchases could be increased if necessary, could happen this week. The more meaningful signal will come from the new set of ECB economic forecasts. Core euro area HICP inflation is not projected to return close to the ECB's 2% target until 2020, and if that timetable is pulled forward in the new forecasts, that would give the ECB a credible reason to begin signaling a taper later this year. With full euro area unemployment hitting an 8-year low of 8.6% in January - dipping below the OECD full employment NAIRU estimate of 8.7% - the ECB could raise its projections for both wage growth and core inflation (Chart 4). With our own core HICP diffusion index showing a sharp increase in January, the risk of future upside surprises in euro area realized inflation has increased. Yet core inflation is still only 1.0% - a long way from the ECB's 2% target. This is already reflected in measures of inflation expectations like CPI swap forwards, which remain between 50-75bps below the levels that prevailed the last time euro area core inflation was around 2% (bottom two panels). This suggest further upside for euro area bond yields if core inflation does start to print higher later this year. For now, the ECB is unlikely to make any earth-shattering changes to its monetary policy this week, but should signal another small incremental step towards a full-blown taper later in 2018. The BoJ BoJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda threw a bit of a surprise at the markets last week in his testimony before the Japanese parliament following his reappointment as the head of the central bank. In response to a question on when the BoJ could consider beginning to exit its current Yield Curve Control (YCC) program, Kuroda stated that it could happen in fiscal year 2019 if the BoJ's inflation projections are realized. The media headlines took that as a sign that the BoJ was starting to change its forward guidance about its monetary policy, but that is an overreaction, in our view. Chart 5The Yen Leads The BoJ, Not Vice Versa Realized inflation remains well below the BoJ's target, with headline CPI inflation hitting 1.3% and 0.4%, respectively, in January (Chart 5). Even given the continued strength of the Japanese economy, with the unemployment rate now sitting at a 29-year low of 2.4%, inflation will have no realistic shot of reaching the BoJ 2% target without a weaker Japanese yen. The markets understand that dynamic, as our Japan months-to-hike measure - measuring the time until the first 25bps rate hike is priced into the Overnight Index Swap curve - has recently drifted up from 38 months to 47 months alongside the current appreciation of the yen (bottom panel). The BoJ remains the one major central bank that can still talk dovishly because inflation remains so low. Yet investors are aware that the BoJ is having greater difficulty operationally executing its asset purchase program, given its huge ownership share of Japanese government bonds and equity ETFs. So, like the Fed and the ECB, the BoJ's ability to credible respond in a dovish fashion to rising market turbulence - manifested through a rising yen - is severely hamstrung. Bottom Line: The major developed market central banks (Fed, ECB, BoJ), facing low unemployment rates and slowly rising inflation, are less able to respond to volatility spikes with more dovish monetary policies compared to past years. Investors should get used to a structurally higher level of volatility, likely for the remainder of the current business cycle upturn. What A Higher Volatility Regime Means For Global Spread Product If policymakers are now unable to take actions that can restore the low volatility regime seen last year, then this has implications for the relative attractiveness of global fixed income spread product. One way to see is this is to look at the ranking of volatility-adjusted yields for various global spread sectors. We present that in Table 1, where we take the currency-hedged yields for spread sectors and rank them according to two metrics: a) the outright hedged yield and b) the hedged yield relative to its trailing yield volatility.2 The sector yields are then re-ranked using the average ranking of those two metrics. We present the table with yields hedged into the four major developed market currencies (U.S. dollar, euro, yen and British pound). The level of those yields, shown against credit ratings, are graphically presented in the Appendix on pages 11 and 12. Table 1Ranking Currency-Hedged Global Spread Product Yields We also show two versions of the yield rankings - one using trailing volatility over the past year in the denominator of the risk-adjusted yield, and the other using trailing volatility over three years in the denominator. This is important, as bond volatility over the past year has been historically depressed and is much lower than the three-year volatility measure for almost every spread sector. The conclusion is that many sectors that look most attractive using the more recent low volatility look less appealing with a more "normal" volatility level. For example, U.S. high-yield corporates are the top ranked sector in USD terms using a trailing one-year volatility, but that ranking falls to #10 using a higher three year volatility. Euro area high yield falls from #6 to #11 when applying the different volatility measures, while emerging market USD-denominated sovereign debt falls from #3 to #6. While the differences in the yield rankings are not as meaningful for higher-quality sectors, and for other base currencies besides the U.S. dollar, the main takeaway is that a higher volatility environment can alter the relative attractiveness of spread sectors given the current low level of yields. Thus, if central banks now have reduced ability to respond to volatility shocks by signaling a more dovish stance - given strong growth, tight labor markets and slowly rising inflation - then investors should judge spread product, and risk assets in general, using a higher level of volatility than seen last year. The conclusion is that we should be using the upper left column of Table 1, using the more "normal" level of yield volatility, when assessing the attractiveness of spread sectors within our recommended investment universe that uses the U.S. dollar as the base currency. With regards to corporate bonds in our model bond portfolio, that means favoring U.S. investment grade over euro area and emerging market equivalents and favoring U.S. high yield over euro area high yield. We are happy to report that we already have those recommendations implemented in our portfolio. While the absolute valuations of U.S. investment grade corporates, from a perspective of breakeven spreads, do look historically tight (Chart 6, middle panel), the same can be said for euro area investment grade corporates (Chart 7, middle panel). We are willing to take that trans-Atlantic spread risk favoring the U.S., however, given that currency hedging costs continue to favor U.S. dollar investments over euro-denominated equivalents. Chart 6Favor U.S. Corporate Bonds... Chart 7...Especially Versus Euro Area Corporates The story is cleaner for U.S. high yield over euro are high yield, as the default-adjusted spreads in the former (Chart 6, bottom panel) look far more attractive than in the latter (Chart 7, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The relative risk-adjusted attractiveness of global spread product looks different when using a higher level of yield volatility, particularly when hedged into U.S. dollars. Continue to favor U.S. investment grade and high yield corporate debt over euro area and emerging market equivalents, even with the more elevated volatility backdrop. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Appendix Appendix Chart 1Global Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into U.S. Dollars Appendix Chart 2Global Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into Euros Appendix Chart 3Global Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into British Pounds Appendix Chart 4Global Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into Japanese Yen 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2018 Key Views: BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets", dated December 5th 2017, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 2 Using rolling averages of 60-day realized hedged yield volatility. 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 1Inflation Perks Up The Fed has struck a decidedly more upbeat tone in 2018. We noted last week that the Fed staff made upward revisions to its growth forecasts, and then Chairman Jerome Powell testified to Congress that "some of the headwinds the U.S. economy faced in previous years have shifted to tailwinds." So far this more optimistic outlook is borne out in the data. Core PCE inflation rose sharply in January. The annualized 6-month rate of change is back above the Fed's target (Chart 1), and the 12-month rate of change should follow once base effects kick-in in March. For our investment strategy the message is to stay the course. The re-anchoring of inflation expectations will impart another 18 bps to 38 bps of upside to the 10-year Treasury yield. How much higher yields rise beyond that will depend on how well credit markets and equities digest the less accommodative monetary environment. Stay at below-benchmark duration and be prepared to scale back on credit risk once our target range of 2.3% to 2.5% is reached by both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 62 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +10 bps. Although last month's sell-off did return some value to the investment grade corporate space, the sector is still expensive compared to both its own history and other comparable sectors. The 12-month breakeven spread for a Baa-rated corporate bond has only been tighter 11% of the time since 1989 (Chart 2). Further, in last week's report we compared breakeven spreads across the investment grade bond universe, split by credit tier.1 Our results showed that municipal bonds offer greater breakeven spreads than investment grade corporates, after adjusting for the tax advantage. We also found that Foreign Agency debt is more attractive than investment grade corporate debt in both the Aa and Baa credit tiers. Local Authority debt is more attractive in the Baa credit tier. With a less than compelling valuation case for investment grade corporates, we will start to pare exposure once our TIPS breakeven inflation targets (mentioned on page 1) are met. This week we take a preliminary step toward de-risking by adjusting our recommended sector allocation (Table 3). The adjustments were made to both increase exposure to sectors that look cheap after adjusting for credit rating and duration, and also to lower the average duration-times-spread (DTS) of the portfolio. Specifically, we downgrade Cable/Satellite, Paper, Media/Entertainment, Brokerage/Asset Managers/Exchanges and Lodging. We upgrade Supermarkets, Tobacco, Life Insurance and P&C Insurance. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 52 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +97 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 17 bps on the month, and currently sits at 348 bps. The 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate edged down to 3.2% in January, and Moody's projects it will fall to 2% in one year's time. The projected decline is mostly driven by the continued waning of credit stress in the oil & gas sector. Using the Moody's projection as an input, we forecast High-Yield default losses of 1.3% for the next 12 months. This means that if junk spreads are unchanged from current levels we would expect High-Yield to return 251 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries (Chart 3). One hundred basis points of spread tightening would translate roughly to excess returns of 661 bps, and 100 bps of spread widening would translate to excess returns of -159 bps. Though High-Yield valuation is more attractive than for investment grade corporates - the 12-month breakeven spread for a B-rated security has been tighter than it is today 28% of the time since 1995, the same measure has been tighter only 13% of the time for a Baa-rated security - we still view the potential for spread tightening in high-yield as limited. First, 130 bps of spread tightening would lead to all-time expensive valuations in the High-Yield index - using the 12-month breakeven spread as our valuation measure. Second, the higher levels of implied equity volatility that are likely to prevail in an environment with a less-accommodative Fed will also limit how far spreads can fall (top panel). MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -25 bps. February's underperformance was concentrated in GNMA and Conventional 15-year issues, and also in 3.5% and 4% coupons. Excess returns for Conventional 30-year MBS were roughly flat, and securities with coupons above 5% delivered strong positive performance. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread narrowed 4 bps on the month, split between a 3 bps reduction in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) and a 1 bp tightening in the option-adjusted spread. In last week's report we showed that the value proposition in Agency MBS is comparable to a Aaa-rated corporate bond, but is much less attractive than other Aaa-rated securitizations (consumer ABS and CMBS).2 However, MBS are also likely to offer investors more protection in a risk-off environment. Refinancing risk will remain muted as interest rates rise (Chart 4), and in past reports we showed that extension risk will likely be immaterial.3 Valuation in MBS versus investment grade corporates is less attractive than it was a month ago, owing to the recent widening in corporate spreads, but the relative spread is still elevated compared to recent years (panel 3). MBS will start to look more attractive on a relative basis as corporate spreads recoup some of their February losses. After that, we stand ready to shift some exposure from corporate bonds to MBS once our end-of-cycle inflation targets are met. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +22 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 108 bps on the month, Foreign Agencies underperformed by 20 bps and Supranationals underperformed by 2 bps. Local Authorities delivered excess returns of +11 bps, and Domestic Agencies performed in-line with the benchmark. The Sovereign index has returned only 9 bps in excess of Treasuries so far this year, compared to 40 bps from the Baa-rated corporate bond index (Chart 5).4 We expect this poor relative performance to continue in the months ahead as the composition of global growth shifts back to the U.S., putting upward pressure on the dollar. In last week's report we looked at 12-month breakeven spreads in each segment of the investment grade U.S. fixed income market.5 Our results showed that Sovereign debt looks expensive across every credit tier. In contrast, Foreign Agency debt and Local Authority debt offer elevated breakeven spreads. Foreign state-owned energy companies account for a large portion of the Foreign Agency index, and this sector's relative performance closely tracks the price of oil. With our commodity strategists now calling for average 2018 crude oil prices of $74/bbl and $70/bbl for Brent and WTI respectively, the Foreign Agency sector should stay well supported.6 Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 32 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +86 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal/Treasury yield ratio declined a modest 1% on the month, concentrated at the long-end of the curve. January's abrupt increase in flows into municipal bond mutual funds reversed course last month (Chart 6). Interestingly, the sudden surge and subsequent reversal in flows was mirrored by the behavior of municipal bond issuance for new capital (panel 2). This suggests that both trends were driven by changes to the federal tax code. While we remain underweight municipal bonds for now, we stand ready to shift exposure out of corporate bonds and into municipal bonds once our end-of-cycle inflation targets are met. But in the meantime, we note that municipal bonds are already quite attractive compared to corporates. In last week's report we showed that tax-adjusted municipal bond breakeven spreads are much higher than for comparable-quality corporate bonds.7 We also note that the yield differential between a tax-adjusted Aaa-rated municipal bond and an equivalent-duration A3/Baa1 corporate bond is only -19 bps (bottom panel). Historically, this yield differential turns positive near the end of the credit cycle and investors get an even better opportunity to shift out of corporates and into Munis. We expect to get that opportunity this year. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve rose sharply and steepened in February. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 4 basis points and the 5/30 slope steepened 5 bps. As a result, our recommendation to favor the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell returned +5 bps on the month, though it is still underwater 35 bps since the trade was initiated in December 2016. As we explained in a Special Report last year, bullet over barbell trades are designed to profit from curve steepening.8 But they also depend on what is initially priced into the yield curve. Our model of the 2/5/10 butterfly spread relative to the 2/10 Treasury slope shows that the 5-year note is currently 5 bps cheap on the curve (Chart 7). Or alternatively, it shows that the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is priced for roughly 26 bps of 2/10 curve flattening during the next six months (panel 4). In other words, if the 2/10 slope steepens during the next six months, or flattens by less than 26 bps, we would expect the 5-year bullet to outperform the 2/10 barbell. The window for curve steepening is clearly closing, given that the Fed has adopted a more aggressive tightening bias. However, with inflation on the rise and long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates still below levels consistent with the Fed's target, we think 2/10 flattening in excess of 26 bps during the next six months is unlikely. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 9 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +84 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 2.12%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 4 bps and currently sits at 2.21%. As we explained in a recent report, we view the first stage of the cyclical bond bear market as being driven by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations.9 We will consider inflation expectations well anchored when both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, where they were the last time that inflation was well anchored around the Fed's target. If the recent trend in realized inflation continues, then this re-anchoring could occur relatively soon. January data show that the annualized 6-month rate of change in trimmed mean PCE jumped to 1.99% (Chart 8), and while the 12-month rate of change rose only slightly to 1.69%, it will start to move higher in March when the strong inflation prints from January and February 2017 are removed from the sample. Our Pipeline Inflation Indicator also suggests that inflation will move higher, as do leading indicators for both shelter and medical care inflation, as we showed in last week's report.10 ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -16 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 10 bps on the month and now sits at 45 bps, 12 bps above its pre-crisis low (Chart 9). The 12-month breakeven spread differential between Aaa-rated ABS and Aaa-rated corporate bonds currently sits at +13 bps, solidly above its post-2010 average (panel 3).11 Further, we noted in last week's report that consumer ABS exhibit relatively low excess return volatility.12 Although valuation is quite attractive, the evidence suggests that collateral credit quality is starting to weaken. Delinquency rates have bottomed for both auto loans and credit cards, and a rising household debt service ratio suggests they will continue to trend higher (panel 4). Banks have also noticed the deterioration in credit quality and have responded by tightening lending standards (bottom panel). Historically, tighter lending standards tend to coincide with periods of spread widening. Remain neutral ABS for now, based on still-attractive valuation relative to investment alternatives, but monitor credit trends for a signal on when to downgrade further. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +47 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 4 bps on the month and currently sits at 62 bps, close to one standard deviation below its pre-crisis mean (Chart 10). In last week's report we observed that the 12-month breakeven spread of Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS is elevated compared to other Aaa-rated sectors (consumer ABS being the exception), but that it also exhibits high excess return volatility.13 While there is no doubt that relative value is attractive, we are concerned about the gap that has emerged between CMBS spreads and the rate of appreciation in commercial real estate (CRE) prices (panel 4). It is possible that tight spreads are simply foreshadowing an imminent re-acceleration in prices, and in fact bank lending standards have become less of a headwind, tightening less aggressively than in recent years (bottom panel). But for now, we think non-Agency CMBS are still not worth the risk. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +8 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 41 bps. In last week's report we noted that the 12-month breakeven spread for Agency CMBS is higher than for all other Aaa-rated sectors, except for non-Agency CMBS and consumer ABS. We also noted that the sector has historically exhibited low excess return volatility. Remain overweight. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.96% (Chart 11). The fair value was revised down by 5 bps compared to last month due to a combination of more bullish dollar sentiment (bottom panel) and a tick lower in the Global PMI (panel 3). Of the four major economic blocs, PMIs declined in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan. Only the Chinese PMI managed a slight increase (panel 4). We see the risk of a significant relapse in the U.S. PMI as quite low, but recently highlighted that weakening leading indicators in China could soon bleed into lower Chinese PMI prints.14 This is a significant near-term risk to our below-benchmark duration recommendation. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 1, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.86%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Assistant jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The MOVE", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 The Baa-rated corporate index is the Sovereign sector's closest comparable in terms of average credit rating. 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices", dated February 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies" dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 The breakeven spread measures the option-adjusted spread on offer per unit of duration. 12 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 13 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 14 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 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)