Developed Countries

Special Report

Highlights Mutual Funds & ETFs: The liquidity mismatch between easily tradeable mutual fund shares and the less liquid underlying corporate bonds makes it possible for negative feedback loops to emerge between fund flows and corporate bond spreads. The growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond market should be seen as a risk that could exacerbate future periods of spread widening, leading to worse economic outcomes. BBB Securities: The large amount of outstanding BBB debt could lead to fire sales from corporate bond holders with investment grade-only mandates when the debt is downgraded to junk. However, in contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, the evidence shows that the negative price pressure from fallen angel fire sales is fleeting. Leveraged Loans: The rapid surge in leveraged loans has been partially offset by reduced high-yield issuance, helping mitigate a potentially destabilizing rise in all riskier corporate debt. At the same time, bank exposure is focused on the safest CLO tranches, limiting the potential systemic risks from bank losses. Feature In April, we published a Special Report that investigated whether corporate debt poses a risk to the U.S. economy.1 That report focused on what economic theory and empirical evidence say about the relationship between corporate debt and future economic growth. We arrived at the following conclusions: The empirical evidence decisively shows that private (household + business) debt helps predict future economic outcomes. Some evidence shows that household debt is more important than corporate debt in this regard. In contrast to mainstream economic theory, the level of private debt-to-GDP does not help predict future economic outcomes. Rather, it is rapid private debt growth that is linked to more severe economic downturns. Ebullient credit market sentiment is also shown to predict weak economic growth. Tight credit spreads should be viewed as a warning sign, similar to rapid private debt growth. In this follow-up Special Report, we consider three credit market developments that are unique to this cycle: The large ownership stake of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the U.S. corporate bond market. The elevated amount of BBB-rated debt outstanding relative to other credit tiers. The rapid issuance of leveraged loans. All three of these developments could mediate the relationship between corporate debt and economic growth, potentially increasing risks to the economy. We consider each factor in turn. 1. Fund Flows One unique feature of the current cycle is that open-ended mutual funds and ETFs own a much larger share of outstanding corporate bonds than in the past. Back in 1990, insurance companies and pension funds were the largest holders of corporate debt, controlling 54% of the market. Meanwhile, open-ended funds owned a paltry 3%. Since then, fund ownership has surged to 16%, mostly at the expense of financial institutions, insurance companies and pensions. Foreign holdings of U.S. corporate bonds have also increased during this period, from 13% of the market to 28% (Charts 1 & 2). Chart 2Mutual Funds Now An Important Market Player Why Does Fund Ownership Matter? We focus on fund ownership of corporate bonds because it has been theorized that flows into and out of open-ended mutual funds can have a similar impact on market prices as leverage, amplifying price moves in either direction. As described in a 2014 paper by Feroli, Kashyap, Shoenholtz, and Shin:2 [W]hen asset flows for certain fixed income securities are high, prices persistently rise and a feedback loop emerges. High flows lead to rising prices, which attract more flows, which further raises prices. Obviously, the proposed feedback loop also works in reverse: Outflows cause prices to decline, and lower prices lead to further outflows. This sort of feedback loop is unique to mutual funds. Insurance companies and pension funds, for example, do not experience investor capital flight in response to a near-term price drop. This makes the larger presence of mutual funds in the corporate bond market potentially destabilizing. Fund ownership has surged to 16%, from a paltry 3% back in 1990. Why Do Fund Flows Behave This Way? Mutual fund shares are much more liquid than the corporate debt securities they hold. As described in a 2017 paper by Goldstein, Jiang and Ng:3 When [mutual] fund investors redeem their shares, they get the net asset value as of the day of redemption. The fund then has to conduct costly liquidation that hurts the value of the shares for investors who keep their money in the fund. Hence, the expected redemption by some investors increases the incentives for others to redeem. In other words, during times of stress, mutual fund investors have an incentive to withdraw their money before other fund shareholders get the chance. Otherwise, they could be stuck holding a basket of illiquid corporate bonds. This bank-run like behavior is well documented for corporate and municipal bond funds, though it appears not to exist for funds that traffic in more liquid instruments, such as Treasuries and equities. In fact, when Goldstein et al looked at how flows into and out of individual corporate bond and equity funds respond to past fund performance, they found that the Flow-Performance curve for an individual corporate bond fund exhibits a pronounced concave shape. Meanwhile, the same curve for an individual equity fund is convex (Chart 3). This means that corporate bond mutual fund shareholders are quick to redeem their shares in response to poor fund performance, while equity fund shareholders are more inclined to stand pat. On the flipside, positive fund performance leads to large equity fund inflows, but doesn’t attract capital to corporate bond funds to the same extent. The above results apply to individual funds, but Goldstein et al also performed the same analysis for corporate bond funds in the aggregate. That is, rather than measuring whether investors sold a particular corporate bond mutual fund in response to its poor performance, they measured whether investors exited the corporate bond mutual fund space altogether in response to poor corporate bond performance. Interestingly, they found a very similar result (Chart 4). Investors are inclined to exit the corporate bond space entirely following periods of poor performance. Meanwhile, they found no relationship between aggregate equity fund flows and performance. Investors might switch between different equity funds in response to recent performance trends, but they don’t exit the asset class altogether.   These results provide a clear indication for why the large presence of corporate bond mutual funds might be destabilizing. Corporate bond fund investors are quick to flee the space during periods of poor performance. For more liquid securities, such as equities and Treasuries, a large mutual fund presence in the market is not a concern, since flows do not respond as aggressively to price shocks. Empirical Evidence For The Flow-Performance Feedback Loop The evidence presented above shows that fund flows respond to performance, but for the theorized feedback loop between fund flows and corporate bond prices to exist, we also need evidence that fund flows impact corporate bond performance. In that regard, a 2019 Banque de France working paper examines the impact of aggregate flows into French corporate bond funds on the yields of the underlying securities.4 It finds that not only do flows impact yields contemporaneously, but also that outflows have a larger influence on yields than inflows. Using a different methodology, a 2015 paper by Hoseinzade finds no material impact of fund flows on underlying corporate bond yields, but for an interesting reason.5 The paper confirms that corporate bond fund shareholders demonstrate bank-run like behavior in response to poor performance, but also argues that “bond fund managers hold a significant level of liquid assets, allowing them to manage redemptions without excessively liquidating corporate bonds.” Chart 5Funds Deploy Cash Before Selling Bonds It’s true that corporate bond mutual funds often hold significant allocations to cash and U.S. Treasuries, and Hoseinzade shows that fund managers tend to discharge their most liquid holdings first, before attempting to sell corporate bonds. This result lines up with our casual observation. Chart 5 shows the aggregate liquid asset (cash and Treasury) holdings of corporate bond mutual funds. It is apparent that they tend to fall during periods of spread widening. We also note that corporate bond mutual funds, in aggregate, currently hold about 6% of their assets in liquid securities. This buffer can probably withstand a sizeable shock, but liquid assets fell from similar levels into negative territory during each of the past two recessions. One other factor that could help break the feedback loop between fund flows and prices is the institutional ownership of corporate bond mutual funds. Goldstein et al find that mutual funds mostly owned by institutional investors exhibit less of a feedback loop between flows and performance. That is, large institutional investors are less likely to redeem their shares in response to a bout of poor performance. While we don’t have data on corporate bond mutual fund ownership specifically, Federal Reserve data reveal that insurance companies and pension funds own a significantly larger proportion of outstanding mutual fund shares than in the 1990s, though less than they did in the mid-2000s (Chart 6). Note that Chart 6 shows data for all mutual funds, including equity funds, Treasury funds, etc… Chart 6Institutional Ownership Of Mutual Funds We conclude that there is enough evidence of a feedback loop between fund flows and corporate bond prices that we should be wary of the growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond space. Cash holdings and institutional ownership can help mitigate negative flow/performance feedback loops to some extent, but probably shouldn’t be counted on in the event of a severe shock. What’s The Economic Impact? In our corporate debt Special Report from April, we postulated that changes in corporate bond spreads might, themselves, cause an economic downturn, rather than simply reflect one. The mechanism is summarized nicely by Lopez-Salido, Stein and Zakrajsek (2016):6 [a] sentiment-driven widening of credit spreads amounts to a reduction in the supply of credit, especially to lower credit-quality firms. It is this reduction in credit supply that exerts a negative influence on economic activity. With that in mind, in the current environment it seems very possible that an initially sentiment-driven credit spread widening could be exacerbated by outflows from corporate bond mutual funds. A larger shock to credit spreads leads to a larger reduction in credit supply and a more severe economic impact. Aggregate liquid asset holdings of corporate bond mutual funds tend to fall during periods of spread widening. Bottom Line: The liquidity mismatch between easily tradeable mutual fund shares and the less liquid underlying corporate bonds makes it possible for negative feedback loops to emerge between fund flows and corporate bond spreads. The growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond market should be seen as a risk that could exacerbate future periods of spread widening, leading to worse economic outcomes. 2: BBB Debt Outstanding Chart 7The Large Amount Of BBB Debt It has been widely reported that an unusually large amount of outstanding corporate bonds are rated BBB, the lowest credit rating that is still considered investment grade. In fact, the par value of BBB-rated securities now makes up 50% of the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade index, up from 21% in 1990 (Chart 7). The amount of outstanding BBB securities is more than double the par value of the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index, and BBBs represent 41% of the total combined par value of the investment grade and high-yield indexes. The reason to be wary about the large amount of outstanding BBB debt is that when the credit cycle turns and ratings downgrades start to occur, a larger than normal amount of debt will be downgraded from investment grade into high-yield. When that happens, any investors with an investment grade-only mandate will be forced to sell. The concern is that such forced selling could set off a negative feedback loop very similar to the one discussed in the first section. An added layer of risk comes from the fact that in addition to investment grade-only mutual funds, insurance companies and pension funds – who still control 35% of the corporate bond market (see Chart 2 on page 3) – are often burdened with larger capital costs for high-yield debt. This means that a very large pool of investors could be impacted by a spate of BBB downgrades. In terms of the potential market impact, a 2010 paper by Ellul, Jotikasthira and Lundblad investigated fire sales of downgraded corporate bonds induced by regulatory constraints.7 The authors found that insurance companies often engage in the forced selling of bonds that have been recently downgraded into high-yield. Further, the downgraded bonds experience negative near-term price pressure from the fire sale, but that pressure tends to reverse after a few months. The finding that the negative price pressure is fleeting is important. In contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, BBB securities can only be downgraded to high-yield once. In other words, once the initial fire sale of fallen angel debt takes place, there is no mechanism to force the downward price pressure to continue.8 Bottom Line: The large amount of outstanding BBB debt could lead to fire sales from corporate bond holders with investment grade-only mandates when the debt is downgraded to junk. However, in contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, the evidence shows that the negative price pressure from fallen angel fire sales is fleeting. 3. Leveraged Loans The rapid growth of leveraged loans – lending made to below investment-grade borrowers - over the past couple of years has caught the attention of global central banks and financial regulators. That concern is understandable, as it would be a dereliction of duty for any policymaker or regulator who lived through the 2008 financial crisis to not consider the potential risks to financial stability and future economic growth from a surge in lower quality lending. This is especially true given the increase in the number of securitized instruments linked to leveraged loans – collateralized loan obligations, or CLOs – which evokes memories of the toxic subprime mortgage products that helped trigger the 2008 crisis. Although as the Fed’s Vice Chair for Supervision, Randal Quarles, recently noted, the financial media has been overplaying the leveraged loan story in such a way that it felt like “the Earth must be getting hit by an asteroid.” The BoE estimates that the CLOs would have to suffer a loss more than twice as severe as seen during the 2008 financial crisis for the AAA-rated piece of CLOs issued in 2018 to incur losses. The leveraged loan and CLO markets can be opaque. However, based on the information we do have from credible sources like central banks, the IMF and the BIS, some conclusions can be made about the potential economic risks from the rapid build-up of U.S. leveraged loans: Leveraged loan expansion has been partially offset by high-yield contraction. Chart 8More Leveraged Loans, Less Junk Bonds Based on estimates from the BIS and IMF, there are around $1.4 trillion in U.S. leveraged loans outstanding, which is greater than the $1.2 trillion U.S. high-yield bond market (Chart 8). That is an all-time high in the dollar amount of leveraged loans, as well as for the share of all lower-rated corporate debt accounted for by loans. The annual growth rate of U.S. leveraged loans is now a whopping 29% - the fastest pace seen since 2007. Yet the growth of the total amount of leveraged loans plus high-yield bonds is a much lower 12%. While that is still a large number, it is below the peak growth rates seen during the past fifteen years. This is because the amount of high-yield bonds outstanding has been modestly contracting since 2015. Much of that run-up in leveraged loan growth has been to satiate the demand for loans created by private equity funds and, more importantly, CLOs. The strong risk appetite from investors resulted in a notable deterioration in lending standards, with loans coming out at higher leverage multiples (debt/EBITDA) and with reduced investor covenant protection. Yet since lower-rated companies were not ramping up high-yield bond issuance at the same time, the economic stability risks from a rapid run-up in total riskier borrowing are lower, on the margin. The ownership structure of leveraged loans (and CLOs) is diverse enough to not create systemic problems. To date, the Bank of England (BoE) has compiled the most detailed estimates of the ownership breakdown of both leveraged loans and CLOs.9 In Chart 9, we have recreated a chart from the BoE’s July 2019 Financial Stability Report, which colorfully shows the ownership of global leveraged loans and CLOs. The way to read the chart is that each square represents a 1% share of the estimated $3.2 trillion of global leveraged loans and CLOs. The split in the chart is 75% loans and 25% CLOs (CLO ownership is shown on the right side of the thick dotted line). The biggest category of leveraged loan investor is what the BoE titled “U.S. and other global banks”, a group that represents 38% of total loans and CLOs. European banks own 12%, U.K. banks own 3% and Japanese banks own 3% (entirely through CLOs), thus bringing the global bank exposure to 56% of all leveraged loan instruments. While that sounds like a large number, the majority of that is in the form of revolving credit facilities – effectively, overdraft facilities to lower-rated borrowers. Revolving credit facilities are typically less risky than leveraged loans, because credit facilities have greater covenant protection and even more seniority in terms of creditor claims on borrower assets. The BoE estimates that 40% of all global leveraged loans and CLOs are owned by non-bank investors. This includes pension funds, insurance companies and investment funds (mutual funds and ETFs). Chart 9 shows how much more diverse the investor base is for CLOs than for other leveraged loans. It suggests that any future potential losses from CLOs will be distributed more evenly within the financial system, rather than being concentrated in the banks. Chart 10Leveraged Loan Losses Are Typically Lowered Compared To Junk Even within the bank holdings of CLOs, the systemic risks are lessened. The BoE noted that the increased amount of subordination (i.e. lower-rated tranches) of more recent CLO deals helps protect the senior tranches from losses. According to the BoE, the AAA-rated piece of a representative sample of CLOs issued in 2018 was 63%; this compares to 70% for CLOs issued in 2006.10 Furthermore, the central bank estimates that the CLOs would have to suffer a loss more than twice as severe as seen during the 2008 financial crisis for the AAA-rated piece of CLOs issued in 2018 to incur losses. That would be an extraordinary outcome, given how 2008 generated losses on leveraged loans that were over twice as bad as the previous worst year in 2002 (Chart 10). Potential losses from AAA tranches are important from a financial stability perspective. The BoE estimates that 40% of all CLOs are owned by global banks (including a large 13% share from yield-chasing Japanese banks). These banks tend to focus on safer AAA-rated CLO tranches. The demand for leveraged loan products is volatile, but that might actually be a good thing for economic stability. The surge in leveraged loans over the past two years has not only been related to demand from private equity funds and CLOs. U.S. retail investors have also been big buyers of mutual funds and ETFs linked to the leveraged loan market, as a way to seek out higher credit returns against a backdrop of Fed rate hikes. Chart 11Fed Rate Expectations Drive The Demand For Loans Vs Bonds Leveraged loans are floating rate instruments. Thus, they are more desirable than fixed-rate high-yield corporate debt when short-term interest rates are rising. This is seen in Chart 11, where we show net flows into the largest U.S. junk bond and leveraged loan ETFs. These flows are plotted with the JP Morgan survey of bond investor duration positioning (top panel) and our Fed Funds Discounter that measures the market-implied expected change in the fed funds rate over the next year (bottom panel). The conclusion is obvious – there was very strong retail demand for floating-rate leveraged loans over fixed-rate junk bonds during 2016-18 when expected rate hikes justified defensive duration positioning. In 2019, the tables have turned. The Fed is more dovish, rate cuts are now expected, investors have been adding duration exposure, and demand for leveraged loan funds has plunged while high-yield bond funds have been seeing inflows. The exodus from all leveraged loan funds has been historically large, with Lipper reporting that there were 33 straight weeks of outflows to July 3, 2019, for a total of $32 billion.11 Already, that reduced demand for leveraged loans has translated into sharply reduced issuance of new U.S. CLOs, which was 73% lower in the first half of 2019 versus the same period in 2018 (Chart 12). At the same time, high-yield bond issuance was up 20% in the first six months of 2019 versus 2018. The reduced demand for leveraged loans has also shifted the balance of power back to lenders, as the share of U.S. leveraged loans that have been issued with limited covenant protection (“cov-lite”) has plunged from 72% in 2018 to around 40% (Chart 13). Chart 12Lower-Rated Issuance Is "Self-Regulating" Chart 13Reduced Covenant-Lite Issuance So Far In 2019     This is a critical point on the potential stability risks from leveraged loans – the market for those loans is “self-regulating”, based on final demand from investors who “toggle” between floating rate and fixed rate credit instruments. This helps limit the growth in overall corporate indebtedness, helping to put off the date when credit booms turn into future credit busts. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Risk From U.S. Corporate Debt: Theory And Evidence”, dated April 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2     https://www.nowpublishers.com/article/DownloadEBook/9781680834864?format=pdf 3     http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~itayg/Files/bondfunds-published.pdf 4     https://ideas.repec.org/p/bfr/banfra/706.html 5     https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5a60feab84a7d10de084abfce414b5888d5586e2.pdf 6     https://www.nber.org/papers/w21879 7     https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/55a4/8602b17bc7e7f8428695ab6a3ef2c87756ab.pdf 8      Corporate bonds that are downgraded from investment grade to high-yield are called fallen angels. 9      The Financial Stability Board, the international body that monitors and makes recommendations on the global financial system, is due to publish a comprehensive analysis of the ownership structure of the leveraged loan market in the autumn of 2019. 10     For a more detailed description of this analysis, see pages 28 & 29 of the Bank of England’s July 2019 Financial Stability report, which can be found here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/financial-stability-report/2019/july-20… 11     https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/leveraged-loan-news/leveraged-loan-fund-withdrawal-streak-hits-record-33-weeks-totaling-32b  

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Recession odds continue to tick higher, according to the NY Fed’s probability of recession model, at a time when global growth is waning, U.S. profit growth is contracting and the non-financial ex-tech corporate balance sheet is degrading rapidly. On a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon we remain cautious on the broad equity market. This is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view, which stands in contrast to the more sanguine equity BCA House View. The souring macro backdrop coupled with a firming industry demand outlook signal that more gains are in store for hypermarket stocks. The global growth slowdown, declining real bond yields, missing inflation, rising policy uncertainty and a favorable relative demand backdrop suggest that there is an exploitable tactical trading opportunity in a long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P pair trade. Recent Changes Upgrade the S&P hypermarkets index to overweight, today. Initiate a long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas exploration & production (E&P) pair trade, today Table 1 Feature Obsession with the Fed easing continues to trump all else, with the SPX piercing through the 3,000 mark to fresh all-time highs last week. However, it is unrealistic for the Fed to do all the heavy lifting for the equity market as we have argued recently (see Chart 3 from June 24),1 at a time when profit cracks are spreading rapidly. This should be cause for some trepidation. Since the Christmas Eve lows essentially all of the 26% return in equities is explained by valuation expansion. The forward P/E has recovered from 13.5 to nearly 17.2 (Chart 1). There is limited scope for further expansion as four interest rate cuts in the coming 12 months are already priced in lofty valuations. Now profits will have to do the heavy lifting. But on the eve of earnings season, more than half of the S&P 500 GICS1 sectors are forecast to have contracted profits last quarter, and three sectors could not lift revenue versus year ago comps, according to I/B/E/S data. Looking further out, there is a plethora of indicators that we highlighted last week that suggest that a profit recession is looming.2 Our sense is that once the euphoria around the looming Fed easing cycle settles, there will be a massive clash between perception and reality (Chart 2) that will likely propagate as a surge in volatility. Chart 1Multiple Expansion Explains All Of The SPX’s Return Chart 2Unsustainable Divergence This addiction to low rates has come at a great cost to the non-financial corporate sector. As a reminder, this segment of the economy is where the excesses are in the current cycle as we have been highlighting in recent research.3 Using stock market related data for the non-financial ex-tech universe, net debt has increased by 70% to $4.2tn over the past five years, but cash flow has only grown 18% to $1.7tn. As a result, net debt-to-EBITDA has spiked from 1.7 to 2.5, an all-time high (Chart 3). While stocks are at all-time highs (top panel, Chart 3), the debt-saddled non-financials ex-tech universe will likely exert substantial downward pressure to these equities in the coming months (Chart 4). Chart 3Balance Sheet Degrading Chart 4Something’s Got To Give Moving on to the labor market, we recently noticed an interesting behavior between the unemployment rate and wage inflation since the early-1990s recession: a repulsive magnet-type property exists where like magnetic poles repel each other (middle panel, Chart 5). In other words, every time the falling unemployment rate has kissed off accelerating wage growth, a steep reversal ensued at the onset of recession during the previous three cycles. A repeat may be already taking place, as average hourly earnings (AHE) growth has been stuck in the mud since peaking in December 2018. Importantly, the AHE impulse is quickly losing steam and every time the Fed embarks on an aggressive easing cycle it typically marks the end of wage inflation (bottom panel, Chart 5). Chart 5Beware Of Repulsion Chart 6Waiting For Growth Meanwhile, BCA’s global manufacturing PMI diffusion index has cratered to below 40% (middle panel, Chart 6). Neither the G7 nor the EM aggregate PMIs are above the boom/bust line (top panel, Chart 6). Our breakdown of the Leading Economic Indicators into G7 and EM14 also signals that global growth is hard to come by, albeit EMs are showing some early signs of a trough (bottom panel, Chart 6). As the early-May announced increase in Chinese tariffs begin to take a toll, we doubt global growth can have a sustainable recovery for the rest of 2019, despite Chinese credit growth picking up. Now, even Japan and Korea are fighting it out and are erecting barriers to trade, dealing a further blow to these economically hyper-sensitive export-oriented economies. Netting it all out, the odds of recession by mid-2020 continue to tick higher according to the NY Fed’s model (NY Fed’s probability of recession shown inverted, top panel, Chart 5) at a time when global growth is waning, U.S. profit growth is contracting and the non-financial ex-tech corporate balance sheet is degrading rapidly. On a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon we remain cautious on the broad equity market. This is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view, which stands in contrast to the more sanguine equity BCA House View. This week we are upgrading a consumer staples subgroup to overweight and initiating an intra-commodity market neutral trade. Time To Buy The Hype The tide is shifting and we are upgrading the S&P hypermarkets index to an above benchmark allocation. While valuations are stretched, trading at a 50% premium to the overall market on a 12-month forward P/E basis (not shown), our thesis is that these Big Box retailers will grow into their pricey valuations in the coming months.  The macro landscape is aligned perfectly with these defensive retailers. Consumer confidence has been falling all year long and now cracks are spreading to the labor market (confidence shown inverted, top panel, Chart 7). ADP small business payrolls declined for the second month in a row. Similarly, the NFIB survey shows that small business hiring plans are cooling (hiring plans shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 7). As a reminder, 2/3 of all new hiring typically occurs in the small and medium enterprise space. In the residential real estate market, the drop in interest rates that is now in its eighth month has yet to be felt, and house price inflation has ground to a halt. Historically, Costco membership growth has been inversely correlated with house prices (house price inflation shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Deteriorating Macro Backdrop … Chart 8…Is A Boon To Hypermarkets… Chart 8 shows three additional macro variables that signal brighter times ahead for the relative share price ratio. The drubbing in the 10-year U.S. treasury yield reflects a souring macro backdrop, melting inflation and a steep fall in U.S. economic data surprises. The ISM manufacturing index that continues to decelerate and is now closing in on the boom/bust line corroborates the bond market’s grim message. Tack on the Fed’s expected four cuts in the coming 12 months, and factors are falling into place for a durable rally in relative share prices. This disinflationary backdrop along with the Fed’s looming easing interest rate cycle have put a solid bid under gold prices. Hypermarket equities and bullion traditionally move in lockstep, and the current message is to expect more gains in the former (top panel, Chart 9). On the trade front specifically, these Big Box retailers do source consumer goods from China, but up to now these imports have been nearly immune to the U.S./China trade dispute as prices have been deflating (import prices shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 9). However, this does pose a risk going forward and we will be closely monitoring it for two reasons: First, because downward pressures may intensify on the greenback and second, President Trump may impose additional tariffs, both of which are negative for industry pricing power. Chart 9Profit Margins… Chart 10…Will Likely Expand Meanwhile, industry demand is on the rise and will likely offset the potential trade and U.S. dollar induced margin pressures. Hypermarket retail sales are climbing at a healthy clip outpacing overall retail sales (bottom panel, Chart 10). Already non-discretionary retail sales are outshining discretionary ones, which is a precursor to recession at a time when overall consumer outlays have sunk below 1% (real PCE growth shown inverted, top panel, Chart 10). The implication is that hypermarkets will continue to garner a larger slice of consumer outlays as the going gets tough. In sum, the souring macro backdrop coupled with a firming industry demand outlook signal that more gains are in store for hypermarket stocks. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P hypermarkets index to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5HYPC – WMT, COST. Initiate A Long Global Gold Miners/Short S&P Oil & Gas E&P Pair Trade One way to benefit from the global growth soft-patch and looming global liquidity injection is to go long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P stocks on a tactical three-to-six month basis. While this market neutral and intra-commodity pair trade has already enjoyed an impressive run, there is more upside owing to a favorable macro backdrop. The key determinant of this share price ratio is the relative move in the underlying commodities that serve as pricing power proxies (top panel, Chart 11). Given the massive currency debasement potential that has gripped Central Banks the world over, such a flush liquidity backdrop will boost the allure of the shiny metal more so than crude oil. Global manufacturing PMIs are foreshadowing recession and our diffusion index has plummeted to the lowest level since 2011 (diffusion shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 11). In the U.S. specifically there is a growth-to-liquidity handoff and the ISM manufacturing survey’s new order versus prices paid subcomponents confirms that global gold miners have the upper hand compared with E&P equities (bottom panel, Chart 11). Chart 11Global Soft-Patch… Chart 12…Disinflation… As a result of this growth scare that can easily morph into recession especially if the U.S./China trade war continues into next year, inflation is nowhere to be found. Unit labor costs are slumping (top panel, Chart 12), the NY Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge has rolled over decisively (not shown),4 and the GDP deflator is slipping (middle panel, Chart 12).      Parts of the yield curve first inverted in early-December and the 10-year/fed funds rate slope is still inverted, signaling that gold miners will continue to outperform oil producers (yield curve shown on inverted scale, bottom panel, Chart 13). The near 100bps dive in real interest rates since late-December ties everything together and is a boon to bullion (and gold producers) that yields nothing (TIPS yield shown inverted, top panel, Chart 13). Meanwhile, bond volatility has spiked of late and the bottom panel of Chart 14 shows that historically the MOVE index has been joined at the hip with relative share prices. Chart 13…Melting Real Yields And… Chart 14…The Spike In Bond Vol, All Favor Gold Miners Over Oil Producers On the relative demand front, we peer over to China to take a pulse of the marginal moves in these commodity markets. China (and Russia) has been aggressively shifting their currency reserves into gold, and bullion holdings are rising both in volume terms and as a percentage of total FX reserves. In marked contrast, oil demand is feeble and Chinese apparent diesel consumption that is closely correlated with infrastructure and manufacturing activity has tumbled. Taken together, the message is to expect additional gain in relative share prices (middle & bottom panels, Chart 15). Adding it all up, the global growth slowdown, declining real bond yields, missing inflation, rising policy uncertainty and a favorable relative demand backdrop suggest that there is an exploitable tactical trading opportunity in a long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P pair trade. Bottom Line: Initiate a tactical long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P pair trade on a three-to-six month time horizon with a stop at the -10% mark. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: GDX:US and BLBG – S5OILP – COP, EOG, APC, PXD, CXO, FANG, HES, DVN, MRO, NBL, COG, APA, XEC, respectively. Chart 15Upbeat Relative Demand Backdrop   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Cracks Forming” dated June 24, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Beware Profit Recession” dated July 8, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “A Recession Thought Experiment” dated June 10, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/underlying-inflation-gauge   Current Recommendations Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights A lower fed funds rate will not necessarily boost equities, … : A chorus of Wall Street strategists has recently advised investors to curb their enthusiasm about looming rate cuts. … because stocks are more sensitive to the relative level of the fed funds rate than they are to its direction: The Street strategists’ advice is sound, even if they haven’t homed in on its true rationale. Monetary policy’s influence on equity returns is primarily a function of the fed funds rate’s relationship to the equilibrium rate, not the direction in which it’s moving. Monetary policy settings remain accommodative, in our view, … : We estimate that the equilibrium fed funds rate remains well above the target fed funds rate. One or two rate cuts will push monetary policy even further into accommodative territory. ... and investors should therefore remain at least equal weight equities: Over the last 60 years, investors would have done exceptionally well if they had simply owned stocks when monetary policy settings were easy, and avoided them when they were tight. Feature Dear Client, We are in the midst of collaborating with several of our colleagues on a roundtable Special Report outlining the view differences between BCA’s most bullish and bearish strategists, scheduled to be published on Friday, July 19th. In the absence of a major event between now and then, the July 19th roundtable report will replace the July 22nd U.S. Investment Strategy. We will return to our usual format on Monday, July 29th. Best regards, Doug Peta U.S. equities have rallied smartly since Fed officials began hinting at rate cuts in early June. The S&P 500 advanced nearly 7% last month on rate cut hopes, and tacked on close to another 2% by making new highs in each of July’s first three sessions. As the gains grew, however, so too did the admonitions from equity strategists at leading broker-dealers that they were getting out of hand. Over the last month, no less than four shops wrote reports warning that rate cuts will not necessarily boost equities. From the financial media’s summaries of the reports, the curb-your-enthusiasm conclusion stems from a straightforward analysis of rate-cut impacts over the last 35 years. According to Goldman Sachs by way of Barron’s, the S&P 500 posted double-digit returns in the year following the start of all five of the rate-cutting cycles that occurred from the mid-eighties to the end of the nineties, before performing terribly following the cuts that began in 2001 and 2007.1 The Street-wide takeaway was that rate cuts worked wonders for stocks when the Greenspan put was still a fresh concept, but the inverse relationship between interest rates and equity multiples that initially prevailed has since been supplanted by a direct relationship. It is surely true that rate cuts are not a magic bullet for equities, but we find the flipped-correlation hypothesis wanting. There is more to the question of how monetary policy impacts equities than just the direction of rates. The state of monetary policy – accommodative or restrictive – matters, too. Even though assessments of the state of policy are necessarily uncertain, they allow for a much more sophisticated analysis of policy impacts. Without estimating the equilibrium fed funds rate, an investor cannot go beyond simple observations of the correlation between policy rates and equity returns to the causal interactions that drive the observed correlations. Numerators And Denominators When an investor buys a stock, s/he is buying a pro rata claim on the future earnings of the company that issued it. The value of that claim is a function of the company’s estimated future earnings and the interest rate used to discount them. Expressed as an equation, the fundamental value of a share of stock is as follows, where r is the reference interest rate: Year 1 Earnings + Year 2 Earnings + Year 3 Earnings + … + Year n Earnings          (1+r)                    (1+r)2                              (1+r)3                                 (1+r)n That equation can be simplified and rewritten as: Fundamental Value = ∑nt=1(Year t Earnings)                                               (1+r)t It’s a stretch to think that equities’ reaction to rate cuts reversed after the year 2000. The final form of the equation shows that the underlying value of a share of stock is directly related to its future earnings and inversely related to interest rates. When the broker-dealer analyses conclude that the ‘80s-‘90s inverse relationship between stock prices and rate cuts has flipped since the turn of the millennium, they’re asserting that the relative sensitivities of stock prices to changes in the numerator (earnings) and the denominator (interest rates) have changed. That’s a mouthful, but the effect can be seen clearly by holding the numerator constant: if earnings don’t change, stock prices are inversely related to changes in interest rates. Relaxing the constant earnings assumption, the inverse relationship between rate cuts and stock prices in the ‘80s and ‘90s could only have occurred if earnings rose when the Fed cut, or if earnings fell when the Fed cut rates, but not so much that they offset the beneficial impact of the reduction in the discount rate. An Empirical Curveball When investors think about the impact of changes in interest rates on stock prices, they tend to assume that earnings remain constant. They therefore conclude that lower rates are good for stocks and higher rates are bad for them. The underlying assumption is flawed, however, because it ignores the fact that earnings are themselves a function of the macro backdrop that influences interest rates. Rising real interest rates are most often a sign of gathering economic momentum; since the end of World War II, U.S. equities have performed markedly better when real long-term Treasury yields were rising than they have when they were falling (Chart 1). Chart 1Stocks Do Better When Real Rates Rise Investors’ appetite for equities reinforces the direct relationship between earnings and rates, as long as rates are not at extremes. Trailing P/E multiples have risen with real interest rates except when rates are negative or above 4% (Chart 2). When real rates are negative, deflation is a real possibility and fearful investors value future earnings streams conservatively. When they’re above zero, investors have been willing to let multiples rise with real rates, until rates get high enough to squeeze profitability. The key, then, is what is going to happen with real yields if the Fed does indeed cut rates. Will 50 basis points (“bps”) of incremental accommodation (we expect 25-bps cuts in July and September) help to extend the expansion, or will it be too little, too late to impede the course of a recession that’s already begun? In the former case, economic growth will get a boost, and real yields and corporate earnings will go along for the ride. In the latter, the economy will contract, drawing real yields and corporate earnings into its vortex. We believe monetary policy is still squarely accommodative, and therefore have both feet planted firmly in the bullish camp. The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Our fed funds rate cycle framework helps us to assess the line of demarcation between accommodative and restrictive policy settings and thereby project the direction of corporate earnings following rate cuts. To refresh, we decompose the fed funds rate cycle into four phases based on the interaction between the level of rates and their direction (Diagram 1), as follows: Diagram 1The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Phase I represents the early stage of the withdrawal of monetary stimulus. This phase begins with the first rate hike of a new tightening cycle and ends when the fed funds rate crosses above our estimate of the equilibrium rate. Phase II represents the latter stages of the tightening cycle, when the Fed hikes its target rate above equilibrium in a deliberate effort to cool an overheating economy. Phase III represents the early stage of the easing cycle. It begins with the first rate cut from the peak and lasts until the Fed cuts its target rate below equilibrium. Phase IV represents the late stage of the easing cycle. It encompasses both the period when the fed funds rate falls from below its equilibrium level to its cycle trough and the subsequent adjustment period when the Fed remains on hold in an effort to kick start an economic recovery. Plotting the course of the fed funds rate is a simple matter; the challenge in Diagram 1 comes in deciding where to draw the dashed line. That decision requires estimating the policy rate that neither encourages nor discourages economic activity. Our equilibrium estimate, which uses potential GDP growth to adjust a smoothed and filtered long-run series of the actual fed funds rate, can be viewed as a line in the sand separating the point where monetary policy goes from encouraging activity to discouraging it. When the funds rate is above our estimate of equilibrium, we consider policy to be tight; when it’s below our estimate of equilibrium, we consider policy to be easy. Since equilibrium is a concept, rather than an observable objective data point, we have to look at the broad sweep of economic activity to infer whether or not our equilibrium estimate is accurate. As we’ve repeatedly written, we interpret the economic data received so far this year as indicating that the U.S. economy is decelerating from its stimulus-fueled 2018 surge, but is on track to meet or exceed its long-term potential growth pace of 2 - 2.25%. We therefore do not believe that policy is tight, and that a recession has already begun, or is in the offing. Recession? What About Stock Prices? We didn’t forget about stock prices. Markets are always our primary focus, and we study the economy for insight into how it might impact their direction. The business cycle is a robust link connecting the state of monetary policy with equity performance. In the 60 years covered by our equilibrium fed funds rate estimate, recessions have only occurred when the funds rate has exceeded our estimate of equilibrium (Chart 3). Equity bear markets typically coincide with recessions – Black Monday in October 1987 is the only instance of a bear market occurring independently of a recession in the last half-century. Chart 3Recessions Only Occur When Policy Is Tight For 60 years, stocks have thrived when monetary policy is easy and staggered when it is tight. S&P 500 performance across the four phases of the fed funds rate cycle reveals that it has been the level of rates vis-à-vis the equilibrium rate that has mattered for equity returns, not the direction. Annualized nominal S&P 500 price returns have been nine percentage points higher when policy is easy than when it is tight (Table 1), and the disparity widens to ten-and-a-half percentage points after adjusting for inflation (Table 2). The disparity is even more pronounced when the Fed is cutting rates – annualized Phase IV price returns beat Phase III by eleven percentage points on a nominal basis, and by thirteen-and-a-half percentage points on a real basis. Table 1Stocks Love Easy Policy, ... Table 2… Especially After Adjusting For Inflation Our base case is that the FOMC will cut the fed funds rate by 25 bps at its July and September meetings. The investment strategy question arising from our base-case scenario is what will that mean for equities? With reference to the dot-com bust and the financial crisis, the broker-dealers say, “nothing much.” We posit that a more sophisticated answer would consider the monetary-policy climate in which the cuts occur. Reduce equity exposure if you believe the Fed went too far hiking rates last year, but maintain/increase it if you think monetary policy has always remained accommodative. 60 years of history say that incremental accommodation will boost equities if it occurs against a backdrop of already easy policy. The S&P 500 will decline, on the other hand, if the monetary policy starting point is restrictive.2 In terms of our fed funds rate cycle framework, the equity market outcome turns on whether the cuts occur in Phase III or Phase IV. We estimate that the equilibrium rate is currently in the neighborhood of 3¼%, so we have a high level of conviction that equities will spend the rest of the year in Phase IV, the rate cycle phase that has been most conducive to equity outperformance. Investment Implications From the perspective of our monetary policy cycle framework, positioning a balanced portfolio for impending rate cuts boils down to one’s take on current monetary policy settings. If one thinks the Fed’s already tightened policy enough to squeeze the economy, s/he should sell stocks. (Some of our BCA colleagues advocate that course, and we will share the stage with them in next week’s roundtable Special Report). If one thinks, like we and the overall BCA consensus do, that the Fed hasn’t yet crossed the easy/tight Rubicon and is on a course to push the date when it will out to 2021 or beyond, one should maintain his/her equity positions and consider adding to them.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Hough, Jack, “The ‘Fed Put’ Is Kaput and Interest Rate Cuts Might Hurt Stocks,” Barron’s, July 1, 2019. 2 Remember that monetary policy impacts the economy with a lag. Cuts ameliorating too-tight policy don’t have an effect until after the initial overtightening makes its way through the system.

Internal equity dynamics are sending a powerful signal for the broad equity market. Not only are defensives outshining cyclicals and mega caps trouncing small and micro caps, but also transports are warning that the broad equity market is skating on thin ice (top panel). Importantly, drilling deeper into the highly cyclical trucking industry is instructive. Heavy-duty trucks new orders have plunged (middle panel). While this is likely a consequence of the U.S./China trade war that commenced in the spring of 2018, there are also elements of domestic demand ills that have pushed “class 8 trucks” orders to the lowest point since the late-2015/early-2016 manufacturing recession. In addition, the American Trucking Association’s trucking tonnage index has fallen recently and is contracting at an accelerating pace on a six-month rate of change basis (third panel). Bottom Line: We heed the signal from the highly sensitive transportation sector and remain cautious on the broad equity market.