Europe

Highlights For financials and energy to produce a sustained rally, there must be no relapse in global growth during the autumn and winter of 2020/21. However, with the coronavirus still in play and the usual flu and virus season yet to come, a key hurdle to overcome will be the physical reopening of schools and childcare facilities this September. Hence, for the time being, remain overweight healthcare and technology versus financials and energy. This implies underweight European stocks versus US stocks, and overweight Germany, France, Netherlands and Switzerland within Europe. Play good news in Europe by remaining long EUR, CHF, and SEK versus USD, and long US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos versus German Bunds and French OATs. Fractal trade: Short silver. Feature Chart Of The WeekDenmark's OMX Is At An All-Time High, While The FTSE 100 Is Languishing. Why? Once upon a time, the stock market existed as a barometer of the economy. Or at least, a good representation of the size and composition of profits in the host economy. But that time is long gone. Today, a tiny handful of companies are driving the performance of supposedly broad indexes such as the FTSE 100 and the S&P 500. Indeed, we should more accurately call the FTSE 100 the FTSE ‘10’ ignoring the other 90. And we should call the S&P 500 the S&P ‘5’ ignoring the other 495. Meaning that stock markets are no longer stock ‘markets’. Yet many analysts still try and explain the stock market’s performance through traditional top-down macro drivers such as GDP growth, profit margins across the host economy, and so on. The trouble is that when the stock market is dominated by a tiny handful of companies, this 20th century approach is doomed to fail. Today, we must take a more granular approach based on the type of companies that are dominating each stock market. Sector Concentration Is Driving Stock Markets The handful of companies that dominate each stock market tend to be the leaders in their global sector. This means that each stock market is defined by a sector concentration, which has often evolved by chance, based on where companies chose to start up and list. This sector concentration usually has little or no connection with the host economy. For example, Denmark’s OMX index is dominated by Novo Nordisk, a global biotech company. The FTSE 100 is heavily weighted to the oil majors Royal Dutch and BP as well as global bank HSBC, which have only a limited exposure to the UK economy. On the other side of the Atlantic, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Facebook are massively over-represented in the S&P 500 compared with their contribution to the US economy. A crucial defining feature of a stock market turns out to be its exposure to healthcare and technology – whose profits are in major structural uptrends – versus the exposure to financials and energy – whose profits are in major structural downtrends (Charts 2 - 5). Chart I-2Healthcare Profits Are In A Structural Uptrend Chart I-3Technology Profits Are In A Structural Uptrend Chart I-4Financial Profits Are In A Structural Downtrend Chart I-5Energy Profits Are In A Structural Downtrend The stock market capitalisation in healthcare and technology stands at 52 percent for Denmark and 40 percent for the US, compared with just 20 percent for Europe and 12 percent for the UK. The flip side is that the stock market capitalisation in financials and energy stands at just 8 percent for Denmark and 11 percent for the US, compared with 21 percent for Europe and 30 percent for the UK. This explains, for example, why Denmark’s OMX is hitting all-time highs while the FTSE 100 is languishing (Chart of the Week). That said, the price of the growing stream of healthcare and technology profits can still fall if it is at an unjustifiably high level. And the price of the shrinking stream of financial and energy profits can still rise if it is at an unjustifiably low level. Hence, the key question is: what determines the prices of these two groups of sectors, one whose profits are in a major uptrend, the other whose profits are in a major downtrend? Healthcare And Tech Performance Hinges On The Bond Yield The price of a rapidly growing profit stream is weighted to the values of the large distant cashflows, making it highly sensitive to the discount rate applied to those distant cashflows. Whereas the price of a rapidly shrinking profit stream is weighted to the values of the large immediate cashflows, making it much more sensitive to the near-term evolution of the economy (Box I-1). Box I-1Bond Yield Sensitivity Versus Economic Sensitivity The upshot is that for stocks and sectors whose profits are in a major uptrend, the key driver of the price is the direction of the bond yield. Whereas for stocks and sectors whose profits are in a major downtrend, the key driver is the near-term direction of the world economy (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6Exposure To Healthcare And Technology Determines Bond Yield Sensitivity Chart I-7Exposure To Financials And Energy Determines Economic Sensitivity Pulling all of this together, the rally in healthcare and technology stocks is extremely vulnerable to a sustained rise in the bond yield. But a sustained rise in the bond yield seems highly unlikely without a breakthrough vaccine or treatment for COVID-19. While the coronavirus is still in play, the long-term hollowing out and scarring in the jobs market will only become apparent in the coming months once furlough schemes and temporary relief programs end. This will force all central banks to remain ultra-dovish and where possible, become more dovish. Meanwhile, for financials and energy to produce a sustained rally, there must be no relapse in global growth during the autumn and winter of 2020/21. However, with the coronavirus still in play and the usual flu and virus season yet to come, a key hurdle to overcome will be the physical reopening of schools and childcare facilities this September. Hence, for the time being, remain overweight healthcare and technology versus financials and energy. This translates to underweight Europe versus the US. And overweight Germany, France, Netherlands and Switzerland within Europe. How To Play Good News In Europe Things have been going right in Europe. First, unlike in the US, the COVID-19 outbreak is subsiding, at least for now. New infections have been steadily declining through the warm summer months (Chart I-8). Chart I-8New Infections Declining In Europe, Rising In The US Second, the ECB has injected ample liquidity into the banking system which, combined with ultra-low interest rates, has permitted a strong expansion in bank lending. Though somewhat disappointingly, the bank lending surveys tell us that the loans are being used for emergency working capital requirements rather than investment. Third, the EU has approved a €750 billion Recovery Fund, over half of which will take the form of grants to the sectors and regions most stricken by the coronavirus crisis. Given that the fund will be financed by jointly issued EU bonds, this amounts to a fiscal transfer to the areas that need the most help. Hence, even if the amount of the stimulus may be smaller than in other parts of the word, it comprises a huge symbolic step towards greater unity in the EU and euro area. Still, despite this trifecta of good news, European stock markets have not outperformed (Chart I-9). This just emphasises that stock market relative performance has little connection with domestic economics and politics. To reiterate, stock market relative performance is almost always the result of the sector concentration of a handful of dominant stocks. Chart I-9Despite Good News In Europe, European Equities Are Not Outperforming Begging the question: how to play the continuation of good news in Europe? The answer is through the currency and fixed income markets, which have a much stronger connection with domestic economics and politics (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). Chart I-10Play Good News In Europe Via European Currencies... Chart I-11...And Sovereign Yield Spread Tightening Remain long a basket of EUR, CHF, and SEK versus the USD. Our favourite cross out of these three is long CHF/USD given the haven character of the CHF in periods of market stress. To play bond yield convergence between the US and Europe and between core and periphery Europe, remain long US 30-year T-bonds and Spanish 30-year Bonos versus German 30-year bunds and French 30-year OATs.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System* The spectacular rally in silver is fractally fragile, and at a point which has signalled several trend reversals through the past five years. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short silver, with the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss set at 12.5 percent. In other trades, long GBP/RUB achieved its profit target. Against this, short Germany versus UK and long bitcoin cash versus ethereum reached their stop-losses. Long nickel versus copper reached the end of its holding period in partial loss. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 59 percent. 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. * 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 System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations 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 - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations      

The drubbing in the US/EMU sovereign bond spread is cause for concern for the SPX’s slingshot recovery off the March 23 lows, especially given the tight positive correlation of these two series over the past three decades (top panel). Typically, higher relative yields attract capital to US shores and vice versa, and some of that capital inevitably leaks into US stocks. Moreover, theory would suggest that relative yields move with the ebb and flow of relative return on capital. Indeed, the bottom panel of the chart highlights such an empirical relationship. Currently, euro area return on assets is narrowing the gap with the US which usually happens in recessions. The persistent unresponsiveness in the 10-year UST yield near the zero line which stands closer to the ECB’s NIRP, likely spells short-term trouble for the SPX. Bottom Line: We remain cautious on the near-term prospects of the S&P 500 until the election uncertainty lifts in November.   

Highlights In this report, we initiate coverage of the EU Emission Trading System’s (ETS) CO2 allowances. We expect this policy-driven cap-and-trade market to become central to the market-driven pricing mechanism for CO2 fundamentals. Futures on EU CO2 emissions allowances will resume their rally – and surpass the €30 level seen in July 2019 – as ETS allowances supplies tighten in September. Global CO2 emissions are projected to fall 8% this year – 2.6 billion MT (2.6 gigatonnes, or Gt) – as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on IEA modeling. If realized, this would be up to six times the decline in CO2 emissions following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). The speed at which actual CO2 emissions return to pre-COVID-19 levels will be a function of how quickly global growth recovers, and the intensity of “green” investments. Post-COVID-19, the rebound in emissions could be sharply higher, as has been the case with previous global downturns. Following the GFC, CO2 emissions recovered all of the year-on-year (y/y) decline in 2009 by 2010 (Chart of the Week). As with any COVID-19-related projection, uncertainty – to the upside and downside – dominates our outlook. Chart of the WeekCOVID-19 Crushes Global CO2 Emissions Feature The EU’s CO2 emissions market is designed to achieve policy goals – i.e., reducing the carbon footprint of utilities and manufacturers in Europe. As tempting as it may be to view the surge in EU CO2 emission allowances futures as a harbinger of a powerful recovery in European economic growth, such hopes would be misplaced (Chart 2).1 The sharp rally in part reflects the expected decrease in the volume of CO2 emission allowances that will be available for trading over the September 2020 – August 2021 period. In line with its policy mandates, the ETS reduced this volume by 0.33 Gt following a May 2020 meeting, bringing the total volume available for trade in the year beginning in September to ~ 1.32 Gt.2 The EU’s CO2 emissions market is designed to achieve policy goals – i.e., reducing the carbon footprint of utilities and manufacturers in Europe – vs. pricing those emissions purely as a function of supply-demand fundamentals. Chart 2CO2 Allowances Rally Reflects Anticipated Supply Squeeze CO2 Emissions As is the case with industrial commodities – particularly oil, base metals, iron ore and steel – non-OECD markets dominate CO2 emissions. CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted into the atmosphere, and the largest share – almost two-thirds – of it is accounted for by fossil fuel use in industrial and transportation processes (Chart 3). CO2 emissions are closely tied to oil consumption. In non-OECD economies, this means they are closely tied to GDP, as the income elasticity of oil consumption for EM economies is ~ 0.65, meaning a 1% increase in income translates to a 0.65% increase in oil demand. In DM, transportation and electric generation drive hydrocarbon usage. In non-OECD and OECD markets, we model emissions as a function of oil consumption and financial variables (Chart 4). Chart 3Fossil-Fuel CO2 Dominates GHG Emissions It comes as no surprise that commodity prices generally are highly correlated with CO2 emissions, given the markets in which they trade are continually responding to supply-demand shifts in industrial and consumer markets. This can be seen in our Global Commodity Factor, which extracts the common factor across 28 real commodity prices (Chart 5). Chart 4CO2 Emissions Trend With GDP, Oil Consumption As is the case with industrial commodities – particularly oil, base metals, iron ore and steel – non-OECD markets dominate CO2 emissions (Chart 6). Chart 5CO2, Commodity Prices Closely Aligned Chart 6Non-OECD Economies Dominate CO2 Emissions Within this category, China accounts for ~ 45% of non-OECD CO2 emissions post-GFC, and close to 28% of global emissions, according to BP’s 2020 Statistical Review.3 China’s heavy reliance on coal-fired power generation and heating drive its CO2 emissions (Chart 7, top panel). Asia as a whole accounts for ~ 19 Gt of CO2 emissions, or 53% of the global total, while the US and Europe account for 18% and 17%, respectively.4 US CO2 emissions are driven by electric generation and transport, as the bottom panel of Chart 7 shows. Chart 7Electric Generation And Heating Drive China’s CO2 Emissions EU CO2 Emission Allowances The ETS also will force the overall number of emission allowances to contract at a 2.2% rate p.a. beginning next year. In the 21st century, ICE EUA futures prices have not followed actual EU CO2 emissions (Chart 8). This is not unexpected, given this market largely is a policy-driven market, not a fundamentally driven market. The ETS runs a cap-and-trade system covering ~ 45% of the EU’s GHG emissions, which limits emissions by more than 11,000 power stations, industrial plants and other heavy energy-use applications. Until 2019, the ETS adjusted supplies of emissions allowances by literally removing surpluses from the market resulting from overallocations of supplies via its free allocations and auctions. Thereafter, the ETS Market Stability Reserve (MSR), began absorbing unallocated emissions allowances to keep prices from falling to the point that investment in CO2 abatement would be disincentivized.5 Chart 8Two Ships In The Night: EU CO2 Emissions and EUA Futures As ETS system surplus allocations are reduced, we expect this market will more closely reflect the actual supply and demand for CO2 allowances. The ETS also will force the overall number of emission allowances to contract at a 2.2% rate p.a. beginning next year, versus the 1.74% p.a. contraction observed over the 2013-2020 period, in order, it says, to keep the GHG emissions falling to policy levels set for 2030. Even with its flaws vis-à-vis a true commodity market driven by supply-demand fundamentals, the ETS’s CO2 emissions allowances market is extremely important as a source of information regarding the state of the world. Last year, Reuters’s Refinitiv service estimated that of the $164 billion worth of CO2 emissions traded globally 90% was accounted for by the European market.6 As ETS system surplus allocations are reduced, we expect this market will more closely reflect the actual supply and demand for CO2 allowances. This will allow it to generate a market-clearing price for emissions allowances, which will be a valuable data point for global markets, especially when it comes to allocating capital to reducing GHG emissions. The ETS is retaining the right to issue free allocations, so that participants in the system are not disadvantaged by other jurisdictions not subject to the stringent requirements imposed by the ETS. Bottom Line: The ETS’s CO2 emission allowances will resume the rally launched in March 2020, as the supply of allowances contracts beginning in September. We are not ready to recommend any positions in this market, but will continue to follow and write about it going forward, expecting it will become not only a viable market but an important source of information of the market-clearing price of CO2 emissions.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Fernando Crupi Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy FernandoC@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Brent and WTI prices have been moving side-ways since June at ~ $41/bbl and $39/bbl, respectively. Fundamentals are tightening but fear of a second wave of COVID-19 infections weighs on prices. Bakken shale-oil producers could struggle to restart drilling and production activities after a court ordered the closure of the basin’s crucial Dakota Access pipeline – responsible for moving ~ 600k b/d – due to insufficient environmental checks. As previously shut-in production comes back on line, regional prices could remain under pressure to incentivize additional crude-by-rail volumes – at close to double the transportation costs – out of the basin, keeping prices below producers’ breakevens (Chart 9). Base Metals: Neutral Copper prices continue moving up as economic activity in China recovers (Chart 10). Prices are now 32% higher vs. March lows. Large metal-producing countries in Latin America have been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. This puts supply at risk and could have lasting impacts as needed investment in new mines is delayed. In fact, Codelco announced it is suspending construction at its El Teniente mine in Chile due to rising COVID-19 cases in the region. Copper could enter a persistent supply-deficit period if demand remains in its upward trend. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold prices crossed $1,800/oz on Tuesday, reaching their highest level since 2011. The yellow metal’s rally continues to be fueled by record Western investment demand. ETFs inflows in June reached 104 tons, pushing gold-backed ETF volumes and AUM to new highs. Globally, ETF holdings’ tonnage increased by 25% ytd. This more than offsets the collapse in physical demand from China and India. Going forward, we expect a lower US dollar will support income growth in EM countries, providing additional demand for gold. Ags/Softs:  Underweight The latest USDA Acreage report surprised the market, with corn producers planting 5 million less acres than their intentions in March. This large decline caused corn futures to rally to 3-month highs. Since then, the market has focused on adverse weather, hoping dryness in major corn producing areas would reduce corn yields. However, that didn’t materialize. Forecasts are showing less intense heat in the Midwest crop belt and futures are losing some ground compared to recent highs. The market is now awaiting Friday’s USDA Supply and Demand report. With exports on pace to come in slightly below the USDA estimate for the year and a much-reduced planting area, we expect corn ending stocks to be well below the June estimate of 3.32 Bn bushels. Chart 9Bakken Crude Prices Are Falling Vs WTI Chart 10China's Economic Growth Supports Copper Prices     Footnotes 1    These futures are the EUA contracts for delivery of Carbon Emission Allowances at the Union Registry, which was set up to account “for all allowances issued under the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS).”  Contracts for delivery of these allowances are traded on ICE Futures Europe’s platform. 2    Please see ETS Market Stability Reserve to reduce auction volume by over 330 million allowances between September 2020 and August 2021 published by the European Commission May 8, 2020. 3    Please see bp Statistical Review of World Energy 2020: a pivotal moment published June 17, 2020. 4    Please see CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions published by Our World in Data, a collaboration between researchers at the University of Oxford, and the non-profit organization Global Change Data Lab, in December 2019. 5    Surpluses have been a feature of the market since 2009.  Please see Market Stability Reserve published by the European Commission. 6    Please see Value of global CO2 markets hit record 144 billion euros in 2018: report published January 16, 2019 by reuters.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2020 Summary of Closed Trades

Please note that I will be hosting a webcast on Friday July 17 and that the webcast will replace next week’s report. Highlights Go tactically short stocks versus bonds. But express it as short DAX versus the US 10-year T-bond, given the greater scope for compression in US bond yields than in German bond yields. Target a profit of 10 percent but apply a stop-loss if stock versus bond outperformance continues for another 10 percent. There is now a strong incentive for short-term investing and a strong disincentive for long-term investing, forcing formerly long-term investors to think and behave like traders. Don’t obsess with the Covid-19 mortality rate. Focus instead on the morbidity, or hospitalization, rate. Covid-19 is unlikely to kill you, but it can make you ill and, in some unlucky cases, permanently ill. Feature Chart of the WeekA Sell Signal For Stocks To Bonds Financial markets have reached an absurdity. It is now more rewarding to be a short-term trader who holds investments for just three months than it is to be a long-term investor who buys and holds them for ten years. And just to be clear, we are comparing cumulative returns over the entire holding period of three months versus one that is forty times longer at ten years. The case for buying and holding most mainstream investments has collapsed. Investors seeking attractive long-term returns can no longer rely on mainstream bond and stock markets. Nowadays, the long-term investment story is about sectors and themes, and we will continue to tell this story in our regular reports. However, this week we will focus on the implications of short-termism in the mainstream markets. Short-Term Returns Now Beat Long-Term Returns Through the past year, anybody who has bought the German 10-year bund, with the intention of holding it until it redeems in 2029 is guaranteed a deeply negative return. Yet there have been many three-month periods in which the bund has generated a high single-digit return (Chart I-2). Chart I-23-Month Returns Now Beat 10-Year Returns! Likewise, anybody who owns the US 10-year T-bond has made almost as much money in the first three months of this year as they mathematically can by holding it for ten years! By extension, the same principle also applies to mainstream stock markets which are priced for feeble long-term returns – yet can rally by 20-30 percent in the space of a few weeks. It is now more rewarding to be a short-term trader who holds investments for three months than it is to be a long-term investor who buys and holds them for ten years. Admittedly, these are nominal returns, and the long-term real returns could be boosted by deflation. Nevertheless, the economy would have to experience Great Depression levels of deflation to make the long-term real returns genuinely attractive. Yet it wasn’t always like this. Until recent years, the cumulative returns available from long-term investing were many multiples of those available from short-term investing – as they should be (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). But today, the incentive structure is back-to-front. There is a strong disincentive for long-term investing and a strong incentive for short-term investing, forcing formerly long-term investors to think and behave like traders. Albeit traders that must get their timing right. Chart I-3Today, There Is A Strong Disincentive For Long-Term Investing... Chart I-4...And A Strong Incentive For Short-Term Investing Unfortunately, when everybody behaves like traders there are worrying implications for financial market liquidity and stability. Short-Termism Destroys Market Liquidity We have been brought up to believe that agreement and consensus create peace and harmony, whereas disagreement and opposition create conflict and discord. Hence, it is natural to think that agreement and consensus also create calm and stability in the financial markets. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. A calm and stable market requires disagreement. Disagreement is the source of market liquidity and stability. Meaning, the ability to convert stocks into cash, or cash into stocks, quickly and in volume without destabilising the stock price. For an investor to convert a large amount of stocks into cash without destabilising the price, a mirror-image investor must be willing to take the opposite position. It follows that market liquidity comes from a disagreement about the attractiveness of the investment at a given price. As an aside, we often read comments such as ‘investors are moving out of stocks into cash’, or vice-versa. Such comments are nonsensical. If one investor is selling stocks, then a mirror-image investor must be buying stocks. The stocks cannot just vanish into thin air! A market which loses its variation of investment horizons loses its liquidity and stability. If institutional investors are selling, then a mirror-image investor must be buying. The mirror-image buyer could be less savvy retail investors, in which case we might interpret the institutional selling as a sell signal. Or the mirror-image buyer could be ‘smart money’ hedge funds, in which case we might interpret the institutional selling as a buy signal. It follows that unless we know the identity of both the seller and the buyer, the ‘flows’ information is useless. The much more useful information is the variation of investment horizons in the market. This is because a market which possesses a variation of investment horizons also possesses the disagreement required for liquidity and stability. Conversely, a market which lacks this variation of investment horizons could soon run out of liquidity and undergo a change in trend. Investors with different time horizons disagree about the attractiveness of an investment at a given price because they interpret the same facts and information differently. For example, a day-trader will interpret an outsized rally as a ‘momentum’ buy signal, whereas a value investor will interpret the same information as a ‘loss of value’ sell signal. Therefore, the market possesses liquidity and stability when its participants possess a variation of investment horizons. For example, both a 1-day horizon and a 3-month (65 business days) horizon. The corollary is that the market’s liquidity and stability disappear when its participants no longer possess this healthy variation in horizons. In technical terms, this occurs when the market’s fractal structure collapses. In the above example, it would be signalled by the 65-day fractal dimension collapsing to its lower limit (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Stock-To-Bond Fractal Structure Has Collapsed All of which brings us to our tactical stock-to-bond sell signal. A Sell Signal For Stocks To Bonds Since 2015, a collapsed 65-day fractal structure of the German stock-to-bond ratio has reliably presaged a change in trend, implying either a sell or buy signal based on the direction of the preceding trend. The two most recent occurrences happened this year on January 2, a sell signal, and March 9, a buy signal (Chart of the Week). A collapsed 65-day fractal structure of the German stock-to-bond ratio has reliably presaged a change in trend. The 65-day fractal structure of the German stock-to-bond ratio has collapsed once again, reinforced by a similar observation in the US stock-to-bond ratio. This suggests that the recent 40 percent rally in stocks versus bonds is approaching exhaustion and is susceptible to a tactical reversal (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The 40 Percent Rally In Stocks Versus Bonds May Be Near Exhaustion Hence, go tactically short stocks versus bonds. But express it as short DAX versus the US 10-year T-bond, given the greater scope for compression in US bond yields than in German bond yields. Target a profit of 10 percent but apply a stop-loss if the outperformance continues for another 10 percent. One caveat is that bullish fundamentals can swamp fragile fractal structures. Hence, the strong outperformance of stocks versus bonds would persist if, for example, a breakthrough treatment or vaccine suddenly emerged for Covid-19. On the other hand, it is worth noting that US hospitalizations for the disease are rising once again, even if deaths, so far, are not (Chart I-7). Nevertheless, we reiterate that the Covid-19 morbidity (severe illness) rate is much more important than the mortality rate, for two reasons. Chart I-7US Hospitalizations For Covid-19 Are Rising Again First, it is morbidity rather than mortality that swamps the finite and limited intensive care unit (ICU) capacity in healthcare systems. Second, the evidence now suggests that many recovered Covid-19 victims suffer long-term damage to their lungs and/or other vital organs such as kidneys, the liver, and the brain. This is the case even for apparently mild cases of the disease that do not require hospitalization. Therefore, don’t obsess with the Covid-19 mortality rate. Focus instead on the morbidity, or hospitalization, rate. The threat from Covid-19 is not that it will kill you. It almost certainly won’t. The threat is that it will make you ill and, in some unlucky cases, permanently ill. Fractal Trading System* As discussed, this weeks recommended trade is short DAX versus 10-year T-bond, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 10 percent. Chart I-8GBP/RUB In other trades, long GBP/RUB is within a whisker of its 3 percent profit target. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 59 percent 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. * 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.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations 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 - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Butterflies & Yield Curve Models: With bond market volatility now back to the subdued levels seen prior to the COVID-19 market turbulence earlier in 2020, it is a good time to update our global yield curve valuation models to look for attractive butterfly trade ideas. Valuations: The models generally indicate that flattener trades offer better value across all countries. Our medium-term strategic bias, however, is towards steeper yield curves with policy rates on hold and depressed global inflation expectations likely to continue drifting higher over the latter half of the year. Yield Curve Trades: We are initiating the first set of yield curve trades within our rebooted Tactical Trade Overlay: going long a 7-year bullet vs. a 5-year/10-year barbell in the US; long a 2-year/30-year barbell vs. a 5-year bullet in France; long a 5-year/30-year barbell vs. a 10-year bullet in Italy; and long a 3-year/20-year barbell vs. a 10-year bullet in the UK. Feature In a Special Report published back in February of this year, we dusted off our model-based framework to find value in trades focused on the shape of government bond yield curves.1 By comparing the market-implied short-term interest rate expectations extracted from our curve models to our own macro views, we are able to come up with actionable buy or sell signals across the yield curve in nine developed markets: the US, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK, Japan, Canada, and Australia. Table 1Most Attractive Butterfly Trades Given the extreme market turbulence around the time we published that report, as the full scope of the COVID-19 pandemic was becoming evident, we chose not to recommend any curve trades from our models until global volatility subsided to acceptable levels. The vigorous action from central banks to manipulate bond yields since then - quantitative easing, aggressive forward guidance, outright yield curve control in Japan and Australia, and other unconventional monetary policy measures - introduced another layer of difficulty in implementing successful curve trades using models estimated in more normal times. With global bond market volatility now back down to pre-COVID levels, we feel that the time is right to use our curve models to help identify opportunities. Specifically, we are implementing new recommended yield curve trades in the US, France, Italy, and the UK. Table 1 shows the most attractive butterfly trades across all the markets covered in this analysis. Note that three of the four trades we are initiating include very long-dated bonds where yields are less susceptible to direct central bank influence. The only exception is our US long 7-year bullet vs. 5-year/10-year barbell trade, the reasoning for which we outline later in this report. Three of the four trades we are initiating include very long-dated bonds where yields are less susceptible to direct central bank influence. The only exception is our US long 7-year bullet vs. 5-year/10-year barbell trade. Before delving into our analysis proper, a quick note: in the interest of brevity, we will limit ourselves to a simple explanation of butterfly strategies and our yield curve models in this report. For those interested in a deeper explanation of the curve modeling framework, please refer to our February 25, 2020 Special Report. A Recap On Butterflies And An Update On Our Yield Curve Models A butterfly fixed income strategy involves two main components: a barbell (a weighted combination of long-term and short-term bonds) and a bullet (a medium-term bond that sits within the yield curve segment selected in the barbell). To implement a butterfly strategy, a bond investor would go long (short) the barbell while simultaneously going short (long) the bullet. By weighting the combination of the long- and short-term bonds in the butterfly such that the weighted sum of their duration equals the duration of the medium-term bond in the bullet, we achieve immunization to parallel shifts in the yield curve. At the same time, due to the relatively higher duration of the longer-term component of the butterfly, we get exposure to specific changes in the slope of the yield curve. In general, the barbell will outperform the bullet in a flattening yield curve environment, and vice-versa. Chart of the WeekButterfly Spreads & Yield Curves To actually decide how, and on which parts of the yield curve, to implement our butterfly strategies, we make use of our yield curve models. These models rely on the positive relationship typically observed between the butterfly spread and the slope of the yield curve. When the curve steepens, the butterfly spread widens, and vice-versa (Chart of the Week). This has to do with mean reversion: as the curve steepens, it increases the odds that the curve will flatten in the future since it cannot steepen indefinitely. Consequently, investors will ask for greater compensation to enter a curve steepener trade when the curve is already steepening. As a result, we can create simplified models of the yield curve by regressing any butterfly spread on its corresponding curve slope. Deviations from these fair value models indicate which butterfly strategies are cheap or expensive. However, the model output does not by itself constitute a buy or sell signal and must be integrated with our macro view on the slope of the curve. For example, a butterfly strategy with an expensive bullet implies that there is already a certain amount of steepening discounted in the yield curve. If the yield curve flattens, or even steepens by an amount smaller than what is discounted in the yield curve over the investment horizon, the barbell will outperform, as expected. However, if we see more steepening than is discounted in the yield curve, the bullet will outperform, even though it was already at relatively expensive levels. Therefore, it is crucial to integrate our macro view on how much the curve will steepen or flatten over the investment horizon into our curve trade selection framework. In recent reports, we have emphasized our high-conviction view that global inflation expectations will drift higher in the coming months, driven by reflationary fiscal and monetary policy and a continued rebound in global commodity prices (most notably, oil).2 However, a rise in inflation expectations does not necessarily translate to a “one-to-one” rise in nominal yields if it is offset by a compression in real bond yields. To disentangle this, we look at the 3-year rolling betas of nominal 10-year government bond yields to the corresponding 10-year breakeven inflation rates using inflation-linked bonds (Chart 2). The data suggest a currently weaker relationship between inflation expectations and nominal yields, with all betas well below their post-crisis maxima. Our overall macro bias is towards a global steepening in yield curves, but given our strong belief in a rebound in inflation expectations, we would be more willing to enter steepener trades in higher-beta regions such as Germany, Canada, the US, and Australia where it is more likely that a rise in inflation expectations will translate to higher nominal yields. Conversely, we are less hesitant to enter flatteners in the lower-beta regions such as the UK, France, Italy, and Japan. Chart 2The Link Between Nominal Yields And Inflation Expectations Has Weakened When we said earlier this year that we were “dusting off” our yield curve models, that was not just a figure of speech. The models date back originally to 2002, meaning that they are old enough to vote—perhaps even for a popular rapper. Even though we have been refining and updating it along the way, one of our concerns was that this model was estimated for a pre-crisis sample period before near-zero rates became ubiquitous in developed markets. Our overall macro bias is towards a global steepening in yield curves, but given our strong belief in a rebound in inflation expectations, we would be more willing to enter steepener trades in higher-beta regions such as Germany, Canada, the US, and Australia. To test that the curve relationships within our models are maintained when global central banks are pinning policy rates near 0%, we have re-estimated all the regressions for the post-financial crisis period from 2009 to 2017 when most central banks kept rates near the zero bound. Chart 3 shows the results for the representative 2-year, 5-year and 10-year portions of the yield curve. On the whole, the coefficients are weaker but still positive with the exception of Japan, where many years of zero rates and quantitative easing have caused the 2-year/5-year/10-year butterfly spread to become largely unmoored from the 2-year/10-year slope. Chart 3Looking For Structural Shifts In Our Yield Curve Models Therefore, we still see value in our curve modeling approach, even in the current environment where central banks are likely to be on hold for a period measured in years, not months. Bottom Line: Butterfly strategies are an effective way to position for changes in the slope of the yield curve without exposure to shifts in the curve. Our current strategic bias is to expect steepening of developed market yield curves through rising longer-term inflation expectations, but our global yield curve models indicate better value in most flattening trades. Thus, we need to be extremely selective in recommending trades based on the results of our yield curve models. Yield Curve Models And Trades By Region In the remaining pages of this report, we present the current read-outs from of our yield curve models for each of the major developed markets. More specifically, we provide the deviations from fair value for different combinations of bullets and barbells and highlight the most attractive butterfly strategy. The deviations from fair value shown in Tables 2-10 are standardized to facilitate comparisons between the different butterfly combinations. In addition, for each country we provide a quick assessment of the performance of these butterfly strategies over time by applying a simple mechanical trading rule. Every month, we enter the most attractive butterfly strategy, i.e. the one with the highest absolute standardized deviation from its model fair value. The overall message from the models is that barbells appear attractive relative to bullets across all the countries shown. However, we will only initiate trades in cases where the model output and our macro outlook complement each other. US Looking solely at our model output, US Treasury curve flatteners appear most attractive, with the long 3-year/30-year barbell vs. 5-year bullet trade displaying the greatest deviation from fair value with a residual of -1.55 (Table 2). However, we are inclined to agree with our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy on how to interpret Treasury curve valuation in the current environment. They argue that even though steepeners in the US are currently expensive, valuations can become even more overstretched with the Fed signaling no rate increases for at least the next two years and the market priced for an extended period of near-zero rates.3 Table 2US: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Our fundamental bias is towards US Treasury curve steepening, with the Fed locking down the front end of the curve and rising inflation expectations putting upward pressure on longer-term yields. Thus, we are entering into the long 7-year bullet vs. 5/10 barbell trade which has a small but positive model residual of +0.17. That represents a better valuation starting point than the other US butterfly spreads, and is therefore a more efficient and profitable way to position for steepeners becoming even more expensive going forward. As highlighted earlier, nominal yields in the US are also more sensitive to rising inflation expectations—another reason to enter into a curve steepener. The specific securities used to execute this trade, as well as the weights for the barbell component used to the make both legs of the trade duration-equivalent, can be found on Page 27 within our Tactical Trade Overlay table. Nominal yields in the US are also more sensitive to rising inflation expectations—another reason to enter into a curve steepener.  The 7-year bullet appears just 1bp cheap according to our model and would only underperform its counterpart given a flattening in the 5-year/10-year Treasury slope greater than 22bps, which we believe is unlikely given the reasons outlined above (Chart 4A). Chart 4AUS 5/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 4BUS Butterfly Strategy Performance Following the mechanical trading rule has delivered steady returns with only a few periods of negative year-over-year returns (Chart 4B). Germany The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the German yield curve is going long the 1-year/30-year barbell and shorting the 5-year bullet, which is almost one standard deviation above its model-implied fair value, with a standardized residual of -0.97 (Table 3). Table 3Germany: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals The 5-year bullet appears 29bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 1-year/30-year German curve slope greater than 50bps (Chart 5A). Chart 5AGermany 1/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 5BGermany Butterfly Strategy Performance Following the mechanical trading rule has been quite profitable, delivering consistently positive year-over-year returns for all but the initial period of our sample (Chart 5B). France The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the French OAT yield curve is going long the 2-year/30-year barbell and shorting the 5-year bullet (Table 4). This combination is a little less than one standard deviation over its model-implied fair value with a standardized residual of -0.84. Nominal yields in France are also relatively less correlated with inflation expectations, which makes this a prime candidate for a flattener trade. The specific securities used to execute this trade, as well as the weights for the barbell component used to the make both legs of the trade duration-equivalent, can be found on Page 27 within our Tactical Trade Overlay table. Table 4France: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals The 5-year bullet appears 21bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 2-year/30-year French curve slope greater than 48bps (Chart 6A). Chart 6AFrance 2/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 6BFrance Butterfly Strategy Performance As with Germany, following the mechanical trading rule in the French OAT market has also been profitable, with only three periods of negative year-over-year returns in our sample period (Chart 6B). Italy And Spain In Italy, the most attractively valued butterfly combination is going long the 5-year/30-year barbell and shorting the 10-year bullet – a combination with a standardized residual of -0.79 (Table 5). In Spain, going long the 3-year/30-year barbell and short the 5-year bullet seems most attractive with a standardized residual of -0.83 (Table 6). Of the two peripheral euro area countries, we are choosing to put on a trade in the relatively larger and more liquid Italian government bond market. As with France, Italian nominal yields also display a relatively low beta to inflation breakevens. The specific securities used to execute this trade, as well as the weights for the barbell component used to the make both legs of the trade duration-equivalent, can be found on Page 27 within our Tactical Trade Overlay table. Table 5Italy: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Table 6Spain: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals In Italy, the 10-year bullet appears 22bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 5-year/30-year Italian curve slope greater than 153bps (Chart 7A). Following the mechanical trading rule in Italy has yielded strong excess returns, with only one very short period of negative year-over-year returns in our sample period (Chart 7B).  As with Italy, following the mechanical trading rule in Spain has yielded some of the strongest excess returns on a cumulative and year-over-year basis. Chart 7AItaly 5/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 7BItaly Butterfly Strategy Performance In Spain, the 5-year bullet appears 14bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 3-year/30-year Spanish curve slope greater than 47bps (Chart 8A). As with Italy, following the mechanical trading rule in Spain has yielded some of the strongest excess returns on a cumulative and year-over-year basis (Chart 8B). Chart 8ASpain 3/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 8BSpain Butterfly Strategy Performance UK On the UK Gilt yield curve, the most attractive butterfly combination is holding a 3-year/20-year barbell versus a 10-year bullet, which currently displays a standardized residual of -1.08 (Table 7). As with France and Italy, not only is this flattener trade attractively valued, the UK is also one of the countries where inflation breakevens are relatively less correlated with nominal yields, making this another excellent candidate for our Tactical Trade Overlay. The specific securities used to execute this trade, as well as the weights for the barbell component used to the make both legs of the trade duration-equivalent, can be found on Page 27. Table 7UK: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals The 10-year bullet appears 13bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 3-year/20-year Gilt curve slope greater than 52bps (Chart 9A). Chart 9AUK 3/10/20 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 9BUK Butterfly Strategy Performance Following the mechanical trading rule in the UK has produced consistent returns on a year-over-year basis (Chart 9B). Canada The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the Canadian yield curve is favoring the 5-year/30-year barbell versus the 7-year bullet, which currently displays a standardized residual of -1.41 (Table 8). Table 8Canada: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals The 7-year bullet appears 7bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 5-year/30-year Canadian curve slope greater than 42bps (Chart 10A). Chart 10ACanada 5/7/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 10BCanada Butterfly Strategy Performance Following the mechanical trading rule in Canada has historically been a good strategy, but we do note two periods of minor losses in 2013 and 2019 (Chart 10B). Japan The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the JGB yield curve is the 5-year/20-year barbell versus the 7-year bullet, which currently has a standardized residual of -1.03 (Table 9). As we noted earlier, however, valuations in the JGB market are likely distorted due to the Bank of Japan’s long-running programs of quantitative easing, zero policy rates and Yield Curve Control that aims to keep the 10-year JGB yield around 0%. Table 9Japan: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals The 7-year bullet appears 6bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 5-year/20-year Japan curve slope greater than 23bps (Chart 11A). Following our mechanical trading rule has produced decent returns, especially given the dormant nature of the JGB market, with only a couple minor periods without positive year-over-year returns. Chart 11AJapan 5/7/20 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 11BJapan Butterfly Strategy Performance Following our mechanical trading rule has produced decent returns, especially given the dormant nature of the JGB market, with only a couple minor periods without positive year-over-year returns (Chart 11B). Australia The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the Australian yield curve is going long the 2-year/10-year barbell versus the 7-year bullet, displaying a standardized residual of -1.73 (Table 10). Table 10Australia: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals The 7-year bullet appears 15bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 2-year/10-year Australian curve slope greater than 101bps (Chart 12A). Chart 12AAustralia 2/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 12BAustralia Butterfly Strategy Performance Compared to the other markets in our analysis, following the mechanical trading rule in Australia has not produced stellar returns (Chart 12B). However, excess returns on a year-over-year basis have been positive barring two periods.   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies", dated February 25, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations", dated June 23, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds", dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index ​​​​​​​ Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns