Money/Credit/Debt

Dear Client, Next week I will be presenting our 2021 outlook on China at our last webcasts of the year "China 2021 Key Views: Shifting Gears In The New Decade".  The webcasts will take place next Wednesday, December 16 at 10:00AM EST (English) and at 9:00 AM Beijing/HK/Taipei time, 12:00 PM Australian Eastern time (Mandarin). In addition, our final weekly publication for 2020 will be on Wednesday, December 16, 2020. Best regards, Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights Chinese policymakers have shifted their focus from supporting economic growth at all costs to risk management. The trend will likely gather speed in 2021. A deceleration in credit growth next year is almost a certainty. While policymakers will be data dependent and the slowdown will be managed, our baseline scenario suggests a decline of approximately three percentage points in credit impulse in 2021. Chinese stocks could still trend higher in Q1, but prices will falter as the market starts to price in a tighter policy environment and slower profit growth in 2H21. We recommend a tactical neutral stance in both the onshore and offshore markets.  We continue to favor Chinese government bonds on a cyclical basis, while gyrations in the onshore corporate bond market will endure for at least the next six months. Feature China’s economic growth momentum has strengthened in recent months, but the nation’s policy stance has also turned more hawkish. As set out in the 14th Five-Year Plan, 2021 will mark the beginning of a new era in which policymakers will switch gears from building a "moderately prosperous society" to becoming a "great modern socialist nation.” The pivot means China’s top officials may tolerate slower economic growth, implement tougher financial and industry regulations, and accelerate structural reforms by allowing more bankruptcies and industry consolidations. As we pointed out in our November 4, 2020 Strategy Report,1 external challenges combined with a stronger domestic leadership will allow China to initiate more meaningful reforms in the next decade than in the past ten years. The reforms will strengthen our structural view on China’s economy and financial assets, but this restructuring will create headwinds for growth in the short to medium term.  Therefore, investors should maintain low expectations for Chinese growth and financial asset prices. In 2021, credit growth will decelerate, regulations will be tightened and the “old economy” will moderate in the second half of the year.  We will discuss four main themes in our outlook for 2021. Key Theme #1: Macro Policy: Turning More Hawkish Government officials recently stepped up mention of financial risk containment in their public announcements, along with tightened industry regulations. Many market commentators are downplaying the risk of a tighter policy in 2021, citing China’s fragile recovery and a weak global economy. However, the current environment resembles the policy backdrop in late 2016/early 2017 when President Xi Jinping began his financial deleveraging campaign. Our policy framework suggests that China currently faces fewer constraints than in 2016/2017. Thus, the odds are high that the leaders will turn their tough rhetoric into action in the next six to twelve months.   Importantly, despite low year-over-year GDP growth, the pace of China’s domestic economic recovery has been faster than in 2016 (Chart 1). The PMIs in both the manufacturing and service sectors have been above the 50 percent boom-bust threshold for nine consecutive months (Chart 2). The laggards in the economy - manufacturing investment and household consumption - have been consistently improving (Chart 3). Bond yields have climbed sharply, but given that corporate bond issuance only accounts for 10% of total social financing, the economic impact from rising corporate bond yields has been more than offset by the large number of government bonds issued (Chart 4). Moreover, the recovery in China’s export sector and current account balance has fared surprisingly well this year, propelled by the global demand for medical supplies and stay-at-home electronic goods (Chart 5). Portfolio inflows also have been strong, fueling a rapid appreciation in the RMB.  Chart 1Current Economic Recovery In Better Shape Than In 2016 Chart 2PMI Remains Strong Chart 3The Laggards Are Catching Up Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus More Than Offset Tighter Monetary Stance Chart 5Exports Surged Chart 6Chinese Business Cycle Upswing Still Has Steam Looking forward, China’s economic recovery should continue for at least another two quarters due to this year’s credit expansion. Economic activities usually lag the turning points in credit growth by six to nine months (Chart 6). Moreover, headline economic data in 1H21 should be impressive, given the deep slump in domestic output during the same period in 2020. The strengthening economic data will provide China’s leadership with a long-awaited opportunity to focus on risk management. Chart 7A Mild Deflation Will Not Stop Policymakers From Reining In Stimulus Furthermore, the ongoing deflation in the ex-factory prices should not stop the authorities from scaling back policy support. It is worth noting that Xi’s administration doubled down on squeezing shadow banking activity in early 2017 when the CPI was decelerating; the PPI turned positive only due to a low base factor from deep contractions in 2016 (Chart 7). In this vein, as long as the deceleration in both the CPI and PPI does not drastically worsen, we think that policymakers will see less need to reflate the economy. China’s external environment will be less challenging in 2021 than in 2016/2017. Geopolitical tensions are set to ease, at least temporarily, with US President-elect Joe Biden taking office in January. This contrasts with 2016/2017 when President Xi began his financial deleveraging campaign despite increasing strain from then newly-elected President Donald Trump. In hindsight, Xi’s intention may have been to solidify China’s financial sector in preparation for a trade war with the US. The same logic can be applied to our view for next year: Xi will accelerate structure reforms to mitigate risk in the domestic economy before the Biden administration turns its focus to China. We do not think the Communist Party’s 100th anniversary next year will prevent Xi from adopting a hawkish policy bias either. Xi plowed ahead with tightening financial regulations in 2017 even as the ruling Communist Party Committee (CPC) was preparing for a generational leadership reshuffle. In the past two years, the escalation in US-China tensions has strengthened Xi’s power in the CPC and Chinese society. The recent large number of changes in provincial CPC leaders should help Xi to further consolidate his centralized power over local governments. All signs indicate that both the domestic and external landscapes should provide Xi with even more room to undertake reforms in 2021 compared with 2017. Key Theme #2: Stimulus: Deceleration Ahead A deceleration in both credit growth and fiscal support in 2021 is almost a certainty in light of the more hawkish tone by Chinese policymakers. Chart 8 shows that between 2017 and 2019, policymakers came close to stabilizing the macro leverage ratio, but the progress was more than reversed this year due to the pandemic. If policymakers are to allow the increase in the 2021 debt-to-GDP ratio to be within the range of the past four years, then credit may expand at a rate slightly above nominal GDP growth in 2021 (assuming nominal output growth at around 10-11% next year). This scenario, which is our baseline view, is in line with recent statements from the PBoC, which calls for aligning credit growth with nominal GDP in 2021.  Our calculation suggests that credit impulse will reach around 29% of next year’s GDP, about 2 to 3 percentage points lower than in 2020 (Chart 9). Chart 8Financial Deleveraging Efforts Erased By COVID-19 Chart 9Credit Growth Will Decelerate In 2021 Even if the PBoC keeps its official policy rate (i.e. the 7-day interbank repo rate) steady, tightening regulations and repricing credit risk will lead to higher funding costs and a lower appetite for borrowing (Chart 10). Banking regulators have made it clear that some of the one-off easing measures from this year, such as the extension of loan payments (through March 2021) and the delay of macro-prudential assessments (through end-2021), will end next year. Financial institutions will need to slow the pace of their asset balance sheet to comply with these regulations. The regulatory pressures will lead to de facto deleveraging. On the fiscal front, we expect the large budget deficit to remain intact next year. Targeted stimulus through subsidies and tax cuts to support household consumption and small businesses will likely continue. Government spending in the new economy sectors such as semiconductor and tech-related infrastructure will even accelerate. However, the new-economy infrastructure investment is estimated to only account for about 1% of China’s total capital formation, having limited impact on the overall economy.2 Chart 10Higher Funding Costs Will Discourage Corporate Borrowing Chart 11Fiscal Boost For Infrastructure Will Scale Back The proceeds from the large number of the local government special purpose bonds (SPBs) this year will continue to provide tailwinds for infrastructure investment into Q1 2021. However, as the laggards in the economic recovery catch up and government tax revenue improves next year, 2021 quotas for government general and SPBs are likely to be scaled back, reining in expenditure growth in the traditional infrastructure sector (Chart 11).   Finally, investors should watch for signs of further hawkishness from China’s leaders at the Central Economic Work Conference this December and the National People’s Congress next March.  While we expect policymakers to be data dependent and keep a controlled deceleration in credit and economic growth, risks of a policy overkill cannot be ruled out. A more bearish scenario would be if policymakers decide to fully revert the pace of debt accumulation to the average rate in 2017-2019. In this case, credit impulse in 2021 could fall by more than 5 percentage points compared with 2020 (Scenario 2 in Chart 9 on Page 6). Key Theme #3: Chinese Equities: Position For A Peak In Prices This year’s cyclical (6- to 12 months) call to overweight Chinese stocks within a global portfolio has panned out. In the next 12 months, the risks in Chinese stocks relative to global benchmarks are to the downside; Chinese stocks are vulnerable to setbacks in policy support next year, in both absolute and relative terms. We are closing the following trades: Long MSCI China Index/Short MSCI All Country World Index, for a 1.5% profit; Long MSCI China A Onshore Index/Short MSCI All Country World Index, for a 5.6% profit; Long MSCI China Ex-TMT/Short MSCI Global EX-TMT, for a 0.7% loss; Long Investable Materials/Short broad investable market, for a 5.6% profit; and Long Onshore Materials/Short broad A-Share market, for a 9.3% profit. Chart 12Onshore Equity Market Investors Will Start To Price In Slower Profit Growth In 2H21 In absolute terms, Chinese onshore stocks on an aggregate level could still inch higher in the next quarter, supported by an improving business and profit cycle (Chart 12). However, in Q2 the market may start to price in slower economic and profit growth in 2H21, erasing the gains from the first quarter.  The resilient performance in Chinese stocks against a tightening policy backdrop in 2017 is not likely to repeat itself next year. Current valuations in both China’s onshore and offshore equity markets are higher than at the end of 2016; the price-to-forward earnings ratios in both markets this year have breached the peak levels achieved in 2017 (Chart 13A and 13B). Recovering earnings in the next year will help to digest the currently elevated valuations, i.e. the market has already priced in a substantial post-pandemic profit recovery and investors’ focus will soon switch to a more pessimistic outlook for corporate earnings in 2H21.  Chart 13AInvestable Stocks Are More Expensive Now Than Prior To The Last Tightening Cycle Chart 13BA-Shares Are Less Expensive, But Valuations Still Elevated Additionally, a property market boom in 2017 boosted the stock performance of real estate developers and related sectors in the supply chain (Chart 14). Policies have already turned much more restrictive in the past month, and deleveraging pressures faced by property developers may weigh on both the sector’s profit growth and stock performance in the next six to twelve months.3 The investable market may not be insulated from tighter domestic policies either. Recent anti-trust regulations in China could create headwinds for mega-cap technology stocks in the near term. Global investors will demand a higher risk premium for China’s tech sector than in the past, as the rich valuations of tech stocks pose more downside risks in a less friendly policy environment (Chart 15).  Chart 14Housing Boom In 2017 Also Helped Sustain A Bull Market Back Then Chart 15Valuations In Chinese Tech Stocks Are Elevated Chart 16A Policy Overkill Will Significantly Raise Prob Of A Earnings Contraction In 12 Months Furthermore, if we presume a policy overkill with more aggressive deleveraging and a further appreciation in the RMB in 2021, our model shows a significant increase in the probability of a profit growth contraction in the next 12 months (Chart 16). In this scenario, selloffs in Chinese stock prices may start in Q1, a risk that cannot be ruled out. In relative terms, Chinese stocks will likely underperform global equities. It is doubtful that the impressive outperformance in Chinese investable stocks throughout 2017 will be repeated in 2021. Chinese equities have benefited from the successful containment of China’s COVID-19 situation in the past year (Chart 17). As breakthroughs in vaccines make the pandemic less threatening to the global economy, Chinese risk assets relative to global ones will become less appealing. Global cyclical stocks, particularly European and Japanese equities, should benefit from improvements in business activities and relatively low valuations (Chart 18). Chart 17Chinese Equities Have Benefited From A Better Control Of COVID-19 This Year... Chart 18...But Vaccines Will Give A Boost To Other Markets Next Year Importantly, despite strong inflows this year from foreign investors to China’s bond market, foreign portfolio flows into China’s onshore equity market have been less than one-third of that in 2019 (Chart 19). Looking ahead, global investors will be less keen to support Chinese stocks, based on the expectation of tighter onshore liquidity conditions and less buoyant economic growth.   Chart 19Foreign Investors Have Not Been So Keen On Chinese Risky Assets This Year Everything considered, we anticipate that Chinese A-shares and investable stocks will start descending in Q2 in absolute terms. Their performance relative to global equities will also peak. We recommend a neutral stance on both bourses in the next three months to minimize the downside risks.  Key Theme #4: Chinese Bonds: Favor Onshore Government Over Corporate Bonds We continue to recommend a cyclical long position in Chinese government bonds within a global fixed-income portfolio. However, we are closing our long Chinese onshore corporate bond trade for now, for a 17% gain (Chart 20). The large interest rate differential between yields in Chinese bonds versus those in other major developed nations should remain intact into the new year. The yield on the short-duration government notes will continue to trend higher in 1H21, based on the prospect of tighter monetary policy. The yield on long-dated bonds will also escalate as the outlook for the economy continues to improve. We are pricing in a 70BPs increase in the 1-year government bond yield and a 40BPs rise in the yield of the 10-year bond from their current levels (Chart 21).   Chart 20Handsome Returns On Chinese Government Bonds Chart 21Our Projections On Government Bond Yield Hikes Next Year Chart 22RMB Appreciation Will Continue In 2021, But At A Slower Pace Than This Year The ongoing appreciation in the RMB will also make Chinese government bonds attractive to global investors. The speed of the gain in the RMB against the US dollar may slow in 2021, but the economic fundamentals do not yet suggest that this trend will reverse. Relative growth and interest rates between China and the US will probably narrow and the geopolitical tailwinds affecting the RMB following the Biden win in the US election will subside in the new year (Chart 22). However, China's strong export sector should still support a record high trade surplus and provide a floor to the Chinese currency against the USD. Chinese onshore corporate bonds have undergone a major shakeout in the domestic corporate bond market in the past month. A slew of state-owned enterprise (SOE) bond defaults has pushed up the yields on the lower-rated corporate bond by nearly 40BPs in one month. In our view, the recent panic selloff in the onshore corporate bond market is overdone and domestic corporate bonds are starting to look attractive on a cyclical basis. Bloomberg data shows that the value of defaulted bonds in the first three quarters of this year is in fact much lower than in the past two years: it dropped to 85Bn RMB from 142Bn RMB defaults in 2019 and the default of 122Bn RMB in 2018. Bondholders have been spooked by the fact that the Chinese local government and top financial regulators allow defaults by state-backed firms. The policy change to shift risk to the markets should result in a continuation of risk-off sentiment among investors, inducing selling pressure in the domestic corporate bond market in the near term. However, on a cyclical basis, such selloffs could present good buying opportunities. While we expect China’s onshore corporate bond defaults to be higher in 2021, the default rate remains below the global average (Chart 23). As we pointed out in our previous report, since 2017 Chinese onshore corporate bonds have been priced with a significantly higher risk premium than their global peers, which in our view is overdone (Chart 24). Chart 23Chinese Corporate Bond Default Rate Lower Than Global Average... Chart 24...And Much Lower Than Their Risk Premiums Imply Chart 25Chinese Corporate Bonds Can Bring Better Returns Once The Peak Intensity In Policy Tightening Passes In addition, Chart 25 shows that the total returns on Chinese onshore corporate bonds briefly declined in 2017 when the government’s financial de-risking efforts intensified. It sequentially rebounded in 2018, suggesting a turnaround in investors’ sentiment after the first cleanup wave in the corporate sector.  As such, while we do not favor Chinese onshore corporate bonds in the next six months, on a 12-month horizon, conditions could become more favorable to initiate a long position. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Please see China Investment Strategy Report "The 14th Five-Year Plan: Meaningful Transformations Ahead," dated November 4, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Chinese Economic Stimulus: How Much For Infrastructure And The Property Market?" dated March 25, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China: The Implications Of Deleveraging By Property Developers," dated October 21, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Our semi-annual virtual meeting with the long-standing client Ms. Mea took place on December 1. Given it is the end of the year, Ms. Mea inquired about our strategies for 2021 and reviewed the evolution of our views during 2020. Below is a transcript of our discussion, which we hope will help clients better grasp our views and analysis. Chart 1EM Relative Equity Performance And EM Currencies Versus DM ex-US Ms. Mea: Before we get to investment recommendations for next year, let’s review which of your views have worked in 2020 and which have not. Answer: From a big picture perspective, we went from being very negative on EM over the last decade to being neutral on EM risk assets in both absolute terms and relative to DM peers. Since April, we have been waiting for a pullback to go long and overweight EM, but a meaningful setback has not materialized. That said, although EM risk assets and currencies have rallied substantially in absolute terms, they have not outperformed their DM peers, as shown in Chart 1. Concerning the evolution of our strategy, as you might recall, we had to chase EM stocks higher late last year after the trade deal between the US and China created euphoria in financial markets, pushing EM assets higher. But even then, we did not change our bullish view on the US dollar and continued recommending an underweight allocation in EM versus DM in global equity and credit portfolios. In our January 23, 2020 report we contended that the risk premium in global markets was extremely low and that risk assets were extremely overbought. The following week, as news of the COVID-19 outbreak in China emerged, we recommended closing the long position in EM stocks. On February 20, we asserted that odds of a breakdown were substantial and recommended shorting EM stocks outright. We closed this position on March 19 with a substantial gain. On March 26, we argued that it was too late to sell but too early to buy. In retrospect, the latter part of this assessment was incorrect. Then, on April 23, we recommended going long duration in EM local currency bonds or buying domestic EM bonds while hedging currency risk. We recommended receiving 10-year swap rates in several EM countries. We changed our long-standing strategic bullish stance on the US dollar to bearish on July 9. Simultaneously, we closed our shorts in various EM currencies versus the greenback and recommended shorting many of these EM currencies versus an equal-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY (please refer to the bottom panel of Chart 1).   We upgraded EM credit from underweight to neutral on June 4 and lifted the allocation to EM stocks from underweight to neutral on July 30. EM relative equity performance versus DM has been in a broad trading range for the whole of 2020 (please refer to the top panel of Chart 1). Chart 2Facing Technical Resistance Ms. Mea: What is your EM outlook going into 2021? Answer: The odds of a major breakout in EM equities, currencies and fixed-income markets have risen, yet there could be a shakeout before the breakout. Both EM equity and the global ex-US equity indexes have risen to their previous highs which proved to be a formidable resistance level (Chart 2). The main reasons to expect a major breakout in EM and global ex-US share prices are as follows: First, the global economy could experience periodic setbacks, but things cannot be worse than they were during the pandemic-induced lockdowns in early 2020. The deployment of vaccines is likely to improve global economic conditions in 2021, especially in hard hit services sectors. Second, asset purchases by major central banks around the world have effectively removed many securities (mostly government bonds) from the marketplace while creating an enormous supply of money (Chart 3). The upshot is that too much money is chasing fewer assets. Chart 4 illustrates this phenomenon in the case of US dollar securities. Cash in both US institutional and retail money market funds is still elevated. As a share of market value of US dollar denominated equities and bonds, the amount in US money market funds has declined but it is still above its February lows. Provided that US money market rates are zero, one can make the case for more flows from money markets into both equities and bonds. Chart 3Booming Money Supply Worldwide Chart 4How Much Cash On-SidelinesIs There Left In The US?   Finally, odds that EM equities will break above the trading range they have been in over the last 10 years have increased. As we discussed in our previous reports, EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan have been facing hard budget constraints due to limited fiscal stimulus packages, a breakdown in their monetary transmission mechanism, and massive foreign capital outflows in early 2020. These harsh conditions have forced many companies to restructure to boost their efficiency. The banking system has been recognizing and provisioning for bad assets. Finally, some governments have adopted difficult structural reforms. These could be sowing seeds of structural transformation in these economies, in turn producing a secular bull market in their equities and currencies. As was discussed in a recent Country In-Depth report, India is one example where structural reforms stand to have a positive effect on its long-term outlook. Indonesia, Colombia, Mexico, and Brazil are other candidates that could undergo similar transformations. In a nutshell, unless the global economy craters – which has low odds – one can envision a scenario in which risk assets continue marching higher. Ms. Mea: However, you mentioned that there could be a shakeout before the breakout. What makes you say that? Answer: A potential shakeout before the breakout may occur due to the following three peaks: Peak investor sentiment: Investor sentiment is very elevated and risk assets are overbought. The ZEW global growth expectations index (a survey of analysts on DM economies) has rolled over after reaching an all-time high (Chart 5, top panel). The Sentix survey of investor future expectations has reached an apex (Chart 5, bottom panel). Importantly, net long positions in copper and net bullish sentiment on copper are at their previous highs (Chart 6). This is a plausible proxy for investor sentiment on both China and global growth. Chart 5Investor Expectations Are Elevated Edited Chart 6Investors Are Super Bullish On And Very Long Copper   Chart 7Investors Are Bullish On US Equities Finally, sentiment among US equity investors is also elevated (Chart 7). Peak stimulus: In China, both credit and fiscal stimulus will likely peak in Q4 2020, as demonstrated in Charts 8 and 9. The US and the euro area will experience a negative fiscal thrust in 2021 equal to 7.4% and 3.8% of GDP, respectively. A new fiscal package worth $1.5 trillion is needed in order for the US fiscal thrust to be neutral. As Republicans are likely to retain control of the Senate, even after Georgia’s Senate election vote on January 5, 2021, a new fiscal package larger than $500-750 billion is unlikely. On the whole, many countries in DM and EM are experiencing peak stimulus in 2020. Chart 8China: Peak Credit Stimulus Chart 9China: Peak Fiscal Stimulus   Peak manufacturing growth: We should differentiate between the top in a business cycle and an end in growth acceleration. As far as global manufacturing is concerned, we are likely currently experiencing growth acceleration at its height. Global manufacturing will continue to expand, but at a slower rate. Share prices could either rally or correct when growth begins to decelerate. The stock market reaction is contingent upon how overbought and how expensive equity prices are. The top panel of Chart 10 illustrates that the tops in the US ISM manufacturing new orders-to-inventory ratio have historically marked setbacks in global cyclical stocks. Similarly, EM share prices and industrial metals fluctuate with the EM and China manufacturing PMI (Chart 10, middle and bottom panels). Having risen sharply to very elevated levels, odds are that global and China manufacturing PMIs are probably topping out. Granted, these are diffusion indexes, and declines/rollovers in global manufacturing PMIs do not necessarily imply that a recession is on the horizon. Rather, they signal the end of the acceleration phase in a cycle. Bottom Line: Given how overbought and expensive they are, share prices might react negatively to peak stimulus. Ms. Mea: Your outlook on the Chinese economy has become more nuanced since the spring. How do you see China’s business cycle and financial markets evolving? Answer: We upgraded our view on the Chinese business cycle in late May after it had become apparent that China had again injected enormous credit and fiscal stimulus into the economy. On June 18, we upgraded Chinese stocks to overweight within an EM equity portfolio. We continue to expect decent growth numbers and reviving corporate profits in most of H1 2021. That said, authorities have been tightening monetary policy since May. Policymakers realize that China’s credit excesses have become even larger and they have been proactive in policy tightening to rein in leverage and speculative activities. The central bank has siphoned off banks’ excess reserves causing interbank rates to rise considerably (Chart 11). With a time lag, money/credit will decelerate and the business cycle will follow. We expect the Chinese business cycle to crest around the middle of 2021. Chart 10Cyclical Assets Fluctuate With Manufacturing PMIs Chart 11China: Liquidity Tightening Works With A Time Lag   The recent shakeout in the onshore corporate bond market will lead to a reduction in corporate bond issuance as investors now require higher yields to finance SOEs. In addition, banks and non-bank financial institutions have to comply with the asset management regulation by the end of 2021. This will restrict banks’ ability to expand their balance sheets and curb NBFI risk appetite. All in all, credit-sensitive sectors like capital spending and the property market will decelerate considerably in H2 2021. Provided that they make up a large share in the mainland economy, overall income growth will also slump. Concerning financial markets, if there is a selloff in Chinese stocks in the coming weeks or months, it will give way to another upleg later in H1 2021. Ms. Mea: Going forward, what will be the driving forces of EM risk assets and how will they shape up? Answer: EM risk assets – equities, credit markets and high-yielding domestic bonds – are by and large driven by three factors: (1) China’s import and commodities cycles (which often move in tandem); (2) domestic fundamentals in EM ex-China; and (3) sharp swings in US growth and the S&P500. (1) We elaborated on the intricacies of the Chinese business cycle above and will now offer a few insights on commodities prices. There has been a broad-based recovery in Chinese demand for commodities and various commodities prices have risen substantially. Nevertheless, the outlook for commodities prices is less certain going forward. Chart 12China's Booming Copper Imports Imply Inventory Accumulation In particular, copper prices have surged but the rally is only partially attributable to recovering real demand in China. Other forces, namely inventory restocking in China and financial (investor) demand, have been responsible for the massive rise in copper prices. The mainland’s imports of copper and copper products have boomed since spring, growing at a rate of 70-80% from a year ago. Meanwhile, the recovery in Chinese infrastructure investment in electricity, water, and gas – which are the largest consumers of copper – has been considerable but not extraordinary (Chart 12). This surge leads us to infer that a sizable inventory restocking cycle has been taking place in China since last spring. Such large inventory accumulation has likely been prompted by the easy availability of credit and rising copper prices. Besides, investors hold record net long positions in copper on the New York Mercantile Exchange (refer to Chart 6). In brief, as we discussed in detail in the Special Report from November 25, Chinese purchases of copper will decline even as its real demand for copper continues to expand. Oil prices are at risk of excess supply as many producers are reluctant to continue suppressing their crude output. Saudi Arabia has been trying hard to limit OPEC+ production. However, it will be increasingly difficult for it to do so. The basis is that many producers are naturally looking to maximize the net present value of cash flow from their oil reserves. Due to inflation, $45 today is worth more than $45 in five years. As and when oil producers accept that global demand for oil will stagnate as the world switches to more environmentally friendly sources of energy, they will have an incentive to produce and sell as much crude as possible at current prices. Chart 13EM Sovereign Credit Spreads (Shown Inverted) Fluctuate With Commodities Prices If Saudis lose control over output, they will ramp up their own production to increase their market share. Crude prices will plunge anew. The timing is uncertain, but we expect it to happen sooner rather than later. Overall, even though China’s business cycle recovery will continue in H1 2021, prices for certain important commodities like oil and copper will likely struggle. Setbacks in commodities prices will have ramifications for financial markets in resource-producing EM countries. EM currencies, as well as their sovereign spreads, correlate with commodities prices (Chart 13). (2) Domestic demand in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan will gradually improve but from a very low point. Many developing countries still face major hurdles, including banking systems that are struggling with non-performing loans, a looming fiscal drag, and a lack of control over the pandemic. Further, EM outside North Asia will lag behind advanced countries in procuring and deploying COVID-19 vaccines. Consequently, consumer and business confidence will be slow to recover in these countries, and their business cycle revival will continue to trail that of North Asia (China, Korea and Taiwan) and advanced economies. (3) Finally, any shakeout in the S&P500 will reverberate through EM. Having rallied considerably, North Asian equity and currency markets have already priced in a great deal of good news. In EM ex-North Asia, the level of economic activity, albeit reviving, remains low. This makes these EM ex-North Asian financial markets very sensitive to fluctuations in global/US financial markets. Chart 14EM Equities Have Been A Low-Beta Play On The S&P500 The resilience of US equity and credit markets in recent months in the face of numerous challenges has surprised us. US share prices and credit markets have not corrected meaningfully despite (1) the third wave of COVID-19 which has resulted in partial lockdowns and a deterioration in consumer sentiment; (2) the lack of a second fiscal stimulus package and (3) uncertainty surrounding the presidential elections. In retrospect, investors have been willing to buy any small dip. Interestingly, in the past three years, EM share prices outperformed DM share prices when the S&P500 sold off and underperformed when US stocks rallied (Chart 14). EM versus DM relative share prices are shown inverted on this chart. This reveals that EM stocks are not a high beta on the S&P 500 and rising US equity markets do not guarantee that EM share prices will outperform their DM peers. Overall, the outlook for EM risk assets is convoluted, warranting a neutral stance for now both in absolute terms and relative to DM. Chart 15The US Dollar Is Oversold Ms. Mea:  Where and how does the US dollar enter your analysis? Answer: The dynamics between EM and the US dollar is push-pull in nature, i.e., the causality runs both ways. EM fundamentals – that could be broadly defined as return on capital in these economies – drive their exchange rates’ trends versus the US dollar. Further, US dollar trends are also shaped by several global macro forces, including the global business cycle. The US fiscal position and monetary policy stance also drive fluctuations in the value of the greenback. Over the next several years, the US dollar will likely be in a bear market because US inflation will rise and the Federal Reserve will fall behind the inflation curve. US real rates will remain negative, which will continue to undermine the dollar’s value. All that said, the US dollar has become very oversold and investor sentiment is bearish on the greenback (Chart 15). From a contrarian perspective, the dollar might be set up for a countertrend rebound. Interestingly, after the 2016 US elections, the US dollar rallied strongly for several weeks before selling off violently. It seems that the broad trade-weighted dollar is now following a reverse pattern (Chart 16).  The US dollar in 2016 is shown inverted in this chart. The greenback was selling off before the 2020 US elections and has continued weakening since. If this reverse pattern were to play out, the US dollar will near its bottom soon and then stage a playable rebound. Chart 16The US Dollar Before And After 2016 And 2020 Presidential Elections Chart 17EM Stocks Are Cheap If The Structural EPS Trend Is Up In short, a long-term bear market but near-term rebound in the US dollar is consistent with our view of a shakeout before a breakout for EM equities and risk assets. Ms. Mea: What about EM equity and currency valuations? Are they not still cheap despite their recent rally? Answer: From a secular perspective, EM equities appear modestly cheap as illustrated by our cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio (Chart 17). However, it is vital to realize that this CAPE valuation model assumes that EPS (earnings per share) in real (inflation-adjusted) US dollar terms will revert to its long-term trend sooner rather than later (Chart 17, bottom panel). There is a lot of uncertainty regarding the structural trend in EM EPS. For the past decade – and therefore well before the pandemic – EM EPS in nominal US dollar terms has been fluctuating in a wide range (Chart 18). Not surprisingly, EM share prices have been flat for the past ten years. Further, EM EPS has massively underperformed US EPS in local currency terms for the past ten years (Chart 19). Consistently, EM share prices have underperformed the S&P 500 even in local currency terms. Chart 18EM EPS: No Growth For 10 years Chart 19EM Versus US: Relative Stock Prices And Relative EPS   As for EM currencies, the aggregate real effective exchange rate of EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan currencies suggests that they are cheap (Chart 20). Overall, to argue that EM stocks are cheap, one should be confident that EM EPS in real (inflation-adjusted) USD terms will be expanding in the years to come (Chart 17, bottom panel). While some EM economies have undertaken some restructuring, there is currently no strong evidence to suggest that EM EPS will be in a structural uptrend. From a cyclical perspective, EM EPS will certainly be recovering in 2021 (Chart 21). However, a notable chunk of this profit recovery has already been largely priced in. Chart 20EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan: Currency Valuations Chart 21EM Profits Will Recover In 2021   To sum up, a bet on EM share prices breaking out above their decade-long trading range implies betting on EM EPS entering a period of structural growth. Over the past ten years, EM companies have not delivered the secular growth needed to warrant higher equity multiples. We are open to the idea that structural reforms carried out in several nations will allow for higher productivity, income and profit growth. However, it is still too early to jump to that conclusion. Chart 22Will Asian Markets Finally Break Out? Ms. Mea: Where in your analysis and strategy might you be wrong? Answer: The key risks to our view are twofold: First, FOMO (fear of missing out) on the part of investors continues to propel EM risk assets higher while either their fundamentals remain mediocre or they are already very expensive. As we have shown in Chart 4, there is still a lot of US dollar cash sitting in US money market funds and these could feed the EM rally, preventing the materialization of a shakeout. Second, we might be late to recognize structural shifts in certain EM economies and, might therefore miss breakouts in those bourses. Notably, there is no single EM equity market that has clearly broken above its previous highs (Chart 22). Ms. Mea: What are your overweights and underweights for equity, currency and fixed-income portfolios? Answer: For an EM equity portfolio, our strong conviction overweights have been and remain China, Korea and Mexico. Chart 23 shows the performance of our fully-invested EM equity portfolio based on our recommended country allocation. It has outperformed the EM MSCI equity benchmark by 3.7% in 2020 and by 74% since its initiation in May 2008. The latter translates into a 4.7% CAGR outperformance versus the EM MSCI equity benchmark in 10.5 years. Critically, this outperformance has been achieved with very low volatility and small drawdowns. Chart 23Performance Of Our EM Equity Country Allocation Portfolio (Country Recommendations) As for EM local bonds, we continue to recommend receiving ten-year swap rates in Korea, Malaysia, Russia, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, China and India. We are looking for a setback in their currencies to switch to holding cash bonds, i.e., without hedging currency risk. Among EM currencies, our short basket consists of BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY and IDR while our favored ones have been MXN, RUB, CZK, INR THB and SGD. All these country recommendations and positions as well as the one in the EM sovereign credit space (US dollar bonds) are always presented at the end of our reports (please refer to the following pages). Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Inflation Breakeven Trades: We are taking profits on our recommended inflation breakeven widening trades in Italy and Canada, as breakevens in both countries are no longer below the fair values implied by our models. We are initiating a new trade this week, going long French 10-year inflation-linked bonds versus French nominal OATs, as French breakevens remain below fair value. Yield Curve Butterfly Trades: We are closing three of our four outstanding government bond yield curve trade recommendations, taking profits in France and Italy and realizing a loss in the UK. We are maintaining our US 5/7/10 butterfly trade, which is the cheapest way to position for an expected steepening of the Treasury curve based on our valuation models. Cross-Country Spread Trades: We are cutting our losses in our New Zealand-UK government bond spread trade, with the odds of the RBNZ shifting to a negative interest rate policy severely curtailed by political pressure over surging New Zealand house prices. We are maintaining our US-Germany spread widening trade, as the spread is too narrow based on our fair value model and we see more scope for US Treasury yields to drift higher in the coming months. Feature Dear Client, Next week, we will be jointly publishing our semi-annual Central Bank Monitor Chartbook along with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy. You will receive that report a few days later than usual on Friday, December 11. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Tuesday, December 15 with our 2021 Key Views report outlining our main investment themes and ideas for the upcoming year. Best Regards, Rob Robis As we enter the final weeks of an incredibly eventful and (unfortunately) all too memorable 2020, our attention now turns to investment ideas for the coming New Year. This week, all BCA Research clients will receive the 2021 Outlook report, detailing the key themes and recommendations from all our strategists. We will follow that up with our own 2021 Global Fixed Income Strategy outlook report later this month. The waning days of the year also offer a good time to review our more short-term trade recommendations currently in our Tactical Overlay portfolio. In addition, the waning days of the year also offer a good time to review our more short-term trade recommendations currently in our Tactical Overlay portfolio (Table 1). Several of our suggested trades have generated a solid profit (like inflation breakeven wideners) but have now outlived their original rationale. Others, like some of our yield curve trades in Europe, have not gone as we expected and should therefore be closed out. Table 1Changes To Our Tactical Overlay Portfolio As a reminder to our regular readers, our Tactical Overlay is a portfolio of individual trade ideas within the global fixed income space with an investment horizon of six months or less. These differ from our more typical strategic (6-12 month) recommendations that also populate our model bond portfolio. Ideas for our Tactical Overlay trades often stem from our fair value models, but can also be plays on events that we expect will be market relevant on a near-term basis, like central bank meetings. All recommended trades are implemented using specific securities, rather than generic Bloomberg tickers or bond indices. This allows for a more transparent process where clients can follow along with the performance of our trades. Evaluating Our Tactical Inflation-Linked Breakeven Trades We currently have two open tactical trade recommendations involving inflation-linked bonds: Long 10-year Italian inflation-linked bonds vs short 10-year Italian bond futures Long 10-year Canadian inflation-linked bonds vs short 10-year Canadian bond futures We initiated both of these trades back in June of this year, as well as an additional trade involving US TIPS, based on the output of our inflation breakeven fair value framework. In our models, we regress 10-year inflation breakevens on the annual rate of change of oil prices in local currency terms and a multi-year moving average of realized headline inflation.1 At the time of our mid-year report, inflation breakevens were too low on our models in the majority of developed market countries with inflation-linked bonds – a lingering after-effect of the COVID-19 shock to global growth in the second quarter of 2020 (Chart 1). Since then, 10-year inflation breakevens have caught up to fair value in the US, Germany, Italy and Canada, and have even moved above fair value in the UK and Australia. Chart 1A Big Shift In Inflation Breakeven Valuations In June, we also entered into a US 10-year TIPS breakeven widening trade, but we took profits on the trade once US breakevens returned back to our model fair value estimate in September. We now see a similar situation in Canada (Chart 2) and Italy (Chart 3) where breakevens have converged to our model-implied fair value. Chart 2Canadian 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model A move above fair value is possible, but could be harder to achieve with the Canadian dollar and euro steadily trending higher which could weigh on the market’s view on future inflation in Canada and Italy. We are taking profits on our Canada and Italy 10-year breakeven trades, realizing profits of 4.7% and 5.6% respectively.  Thus, we are taking profits on our Canada and Italy 10-year breakeven trades, realizing profits of 4.7% and 5.6% respectively. The Italian returns were boosted considerably by the long side of this trade, as we entered the position when the 10-year real yield was +1.05% and which has since collapsed to -0.05% on the back of the massive rally in Italian bonds. One place where breakevens still look attractively cheap, trading close to one standard deviation below our model fair value, is in France (Chart 4). This contrasts with the breakevens in Italy and Germany that have fully converged to fair value. Thus, we are entering a new trade this week, going long the on-the-run 10yr French inflation-linked bond (OATi) and shorting French bond futures (Euro-OATs). The hedge ratio used for this trade to keep both legs duration matched, given the much shorter duration of the OATi relative to nominal French bonds, is 0.49 (see the Tactical Overlay table on page 17 for specific details on the securities used in the trade). Chart 3Italian 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart 4French 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Bottom Line: We are taking profits on our recommended inflation breakeven widening trades in Italy and Canada, while initiating a new breakeven widening position in France, based on the output of our breakeven fair value models. Evaluating Our Yield Curve/Butterfly Spread Trades Back in July, we initiated a series of yield curve butterfly spread trades in the US, UK, Italy and France.2 Butterfly spreads compare the yield of a single bond (bullets) to that of a duration-neutral combination of bonds with shorter and longer maturities relative to the bullet (barbells). Our valuation models produce fair value estimates of various butterfly combinations based on the relation of the butterfly spreads to the slope of the yield curve. We then combine those valuations with our own macro views on the future slope of yield curves to come up with potential value-based curve trades.3 We now evaluate our four existing curve trades in turn. Long UK 3/20 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet Our original rationale for entering this trade was two-fold. Firstly, this position was the most attractive butterfly combination in terms of the standardized deviation of the spread from its model-implied fair value. Secondly, there was a relatively low correlation between nominal UK bond yields and inflation breakevens--meaning that we could see a rise in long-dated inflation expectations that did not also push up nominal bond yields by a proportional amount. This made the trade consistent with our overall macro view back in July that the Gilt curve would flatten (the same rationale applies to the other two long barbell versus short bullet trades, or “flatteners”, in France and Italy that we discuss below). Unfortunately, our rationale did not play out as expected (Chart 5). Instead of reverting to fair value, the butterfly spread was mostly flat while the bullet grew more expensive relative to the barbell, driven by a rise in the model fair value. This in turn was due to significant steepening in the underlying 3/20 curve, contrary to our expectations. We also saw a significant overall upward shift in the overall UK Gilt curve, which generated losses on our long barbell position (which has a higher interest rate convexity) that overwhelmed the profits on our short bullet position. Going forward, there are good technical and strategic reasons to exit this trade. The butterfly spread is not yet at levels where it tends to mean-revert (second panel). In addition, Joe Biden’s US election victory has also increased the odds of a Brexit deal, which would put bear-steepening pressure on the UK Gilt curve. With that in mind, we are closing our Long UK 3/20 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet for a loss of -0.17%. Long France 2/30 Barbell vs. 5-Year Bullet Our rationale for entering this flattener was the same as in the UK. However, we fared quite a bit better here. The underlying 2/30 curve did flatten, as we expected, however, the butterfly spread itself moved further away from fair value, with the bullet component becoming relatively more expensive (Chart 6). So, as with the UK, the returns on this trade can be largely explained by the relative outperformance of the barbell component due to its higher convexity. In France, however, the effect worked to our favor as the yield curve shifted downwards significantly. The positive returns on the long French 30-year OAT component, where yields have been nearly slashed in half since July, dominated the other parts of the trade - even with the 30-year bond only being a small piece (11%) of the duration-weighted barbell Chart 5UK 3/10/20 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 6France 2/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Although we did make profits on the flattener, it turned into a convexity bet that was not our original intention. Seeing as our underlying logic did not work out as expected, we are not comfortable remaining in this position. Thus, we are closing our France butterfly trade for a profit of 0.56%. Long Italy 5/30 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet As with the UK and France, we entered this trade based on its attractive model-based valuation and the relatively low correlation between inflation breakevens and nominal yields in France. Our expectation of flattening in the underlying 5/30 curve did not bear out as it remained mostly flat (Chart 7). We did see some reversion in the butterfly spread towards our model-implied fair value, which helped us make profits on our trade. Again, we cannot ignore the effect of convexity when looking at the outperformance of the barbell component. Yields fell dramatically across the Italian curve in one of the clearest examples of the yield-chasing behavior we have been describing this year.4 As Italian yields continue their race to the bottom, supported by ECB asset purchases and perceptions of more fiscal co-operation between the countries of Europe, there is a chance that this trade will continue to perform by virtue of its exposure to the long end of the Italian curve. However, as our original bias towards curve flattening did not play out, we prefer to maintain our exposure to Italian government debt via an overweight allocation in our model bond portfolio instead. We therefore close our Long Italy 5/30 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet for a profit of 0.83% Long US 7-Year Bullet vs. 5/10 Barbell The US was the only region where we initiated a “steepener” trade, with a long bullet versus short barbell combination that does well when the yield curve steepens. We chose this particular 5/7/10 butterfly as it was the most attractive steepener available based on our model-implied valuation that also fit our fundamental macro bias back in July towards US Treasury curve steepening – a view that we still hold today. With signs pointing towards further bear steepening of the Treasury curve, we feel comfortable keeping this US 5/7/10 butterfly spread trade open. Our rationale for initiating the trade was borne out, with the underlying 5/10 Treasury curve steepening and the butterfly spread tightening towards fair value (Chart 8). Our trade was supported by a continued rebound in long-dated US inflation expectations as well as the US election result, the most bond-bearish event of the year. Chart 7Italy 5/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 8US 5/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Going forward, we see good reasons to maintain this trade. The butterfly spread, after briefly reaching expensive levels, is back to being attractively valued. Even if the residual were to dip back below zero, it would still have room to become more expensive, shoring up our trade. This trade also remains the most attractive of all the steepener trades on a model-implied valuation basis, removing any incentive to rotate towards another part of the curve. The odds favor more reflationary Treasury curve steepening after the US election. President-elect Biden has a stated goal of more fiscal stimulus, while his selection of Janet Yellen as Treasury Secretary signaling increased cooperation between monetary and fiscal authorities. With signs pointing towards further bear steepening of the Treasury curve, we feel comfortable keeping this US 5/7/10 butterfly spread trade open. Bottom Line: We are closing three of our four outstanding government bond yield curve trade recommendations, taking profits in France and Italy and realizing a loss in the UK. We are maintaining our US 5/7/10 butterfly trade, which is the cheapest way to position for an expected steepening of the Treasury curve based on our valuation models. Evaluating Our Cross-Country Yield Spread Trades We currently have two recommended trades involving plays on the spread between government bonds: Long 5-year New Zealand government bonds versus short 5-year UK Gilts, currency-hedged into GBP We initiated this trade on August 25, and to date the trade is severely underwater with a total return of -1.8%.5 That loss comes from the long New Zealand leg of the trade, as the 5-year NZ bond yield has increased by 34bps from our entry level. Chart 9A Rapid Shift Upward In NZ Rate Expectations The rationale for this trade was based on our assessment of the relative probability of the Bank of England (BoE) and Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) moving to a negative interest rate policy. Both central banks hinted strongly at such a move throughout the summer months as part of their efforts to support pandemic-stricken economies. Our view back in late August was that it was more likely that the RBNZ would choose negative rates, as New Zealand had far lower inflation expectations than the UK and, unlike the British pound, the New Zealand dollar was not undervalued. This trade was initially profitable, but all that changed rapidly during the month of November. The RBNZ disappointed investor expectations on a move to negative rates at the November 11 monetary policy meeting. The central bank elected instead to increase the size of its existing quantitative easing program, while giving no hint that negative rates were coming soon. The response was a sharp move higher in both New Zealand bond yields and the New Zealand dollar (Chart 9). There was an even more violent adjustment in yields and the currency last week, after New Zealand Finance Minister Grant Robertson wrote a letter to RBNZ Governor Adrian Orr asking the central bank to change its policy remit to include controlling New Zealand house price inflation. Markets interpreted this blatant political pressure on the central bank as the end of any hopes of negative rates in New Zealand, with bond yields and the currency spiking higher once again. House prices have surged after the RBNZ aggressively cut interest rates earlier this year, with a rapidly rising share of new mortgages having higher loan-to-value ratios (Chart 10). House price inflation is now running at 19.8%, and Finance Minister Robertson did cite deteriorating housing affordability and inequality as the basis for his letter to the RBNZ. It is clear that a move to negative interest rates – which could further fuel the explosion in house prices – is now very difficult for the RBNZ to pull off without facing intense criticism. It is clear that a move to negative interest rates – which could further fuel the explosion in house prices – is now very difficult for the RBNZ to pull off without facing intense criticism. This shatters the underlying rationale for our long New Zealand/short UK yield spread trade (Chart 11). Chart 10RBNZ-Fueled Boom In House Prices Thus, we are choosing to cut our losses and close out our recommended trade. Long 10-year German Bunds versus short 10-year US Treasuries Chart 11Time To Cut Our Losses On The NZ-UK Trade We initiated this recommendation on October 27, and to date the trade is running a small loss of -0.17%.6 The rationale behind the trade was two-fold: Our valuation model for the 10-year UST-Bund yield spread showed that the spread was far below fair value; We turned more bearish on US Treasuries just before the US presidential election, downgrading our recommended allocation to underweight while also upgrading more defensive Germany – with its low yield-beta to US Treasuries - to overweight. The trade initially performed well, driven by faster growth and inflation in the US versus the euro area (Chart 12). The Treasury selloff has stalled of late, but we view this as more a consolidative pause than a near-term peak in yields. Chart 12Fundamentals Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread With our Treasury-Bund valuation model still showing that the spread is too tight, and with the spread not looking overly stretched versus its 200-day moving average (Chart 13), we are keeping our US versus Germany trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio. Chart 13Valuation & Momentum Point To A Wider UST-Bund Spread Bottom Line: We are cutting our losses in our New Zealand-UK government bond spread trade, with the odds of the RBNZ shifting to a negative interest rate policy severely curtailed by political pressure over surging New Zealand house prices. We are maintaining our US-Germany spread widening trade, as the spread is too narrow based on our fair value model and we see more scope for US Treasury yields to drift higher in the coming months   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 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. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies", dated July 7, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Readers looking for more detailed background on butterfly trades and our yield curve modelling framework should refer to the July 7, 2020 Strategy Report where we initiated these trades. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "We’re All Yield Chasers Now", dated August 11, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Assessing The Leading Candidates To Join The Negative Rates Club", dated August 26, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields", dated October 27, 2020 available at gfis.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

We are publishing the November issue of Charts That Matter. The key message from the charts on the following pages is that investor sentiment on global growth is elevated and the reflation trade is a bit overstretched. As a result, risk assets and commodities prices will likely correct, and the US dollar will rebound. Investors should keep dry powder to buy EM assets at a better entry point. A trigger for a selloff could be one or a combination of the following: the lack of a large US fiscal stimulus package, falling activity in Europe, peak stimulus in China or the recent jitter in the Chinese onshore corporate bond market. CHART OF THE WEEKThe Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Is At A Critical Juncture US Equity Sentiment Is Elevated US equity sentiment is somewhat elevated and is consistent with a correction in share prices. Chart 1US Equity Sentiment Is Elevated Chart 2US Equity Sentiment Is Elevated   Peak Growth Sentiment Investors are quite optimistic on global growth. A record large net long positions in copper corroborate a very bullish investor stance on China/EM growth. From a contrarian perspective, this heralds a correction in commodities prices and EM as well as a rebound in the US dollar. Chart 3Peak Growth Sentiment Chart 4Peak Growth Sentiment   Defensive Versus Cyclical Equity Segments Defensive sectors/markets have been underperforming and are oversold. Their outperformance is likely in the near term. Chart 5Defensive Versus Cyclical Equity Segments Chart 6Defensive Versus Cyclical Equity Segments   Near-Term Risks To Industrial Metal Prices The Baltic Dry index is falling and iron ore prices have relapsed. This is consistent with diminishing Chinese imports of iron ore. However, iron ore inventories in China are not excessive, so odds are it is a correction and not a bear market in iron ore prices.  Chart 7Near-Term Risks To Industrial Metal Prices Chart 8Near-Term Risks To Industrial Metal Prices   Chart 9Near-Term Risks To Industrial Metal Prices Chinese Imports Of Commodities Are At Risk From Destocking  Starting April-May, Chinese imports of copper and other commodities was running at very high rates, exceeding any reasonable estimates of final demand. This suggests China has been accumulating commodities. Even as final demand continues recovering, China might diminish imports of commodities weighing on their prices in the near term. Chart 10Chinese Imports Of Commodities Are At Risk From Destocking Chart 11Chinese Imports Of Commodities Are At Risk From Destocking   Oil Prices, Energy Stocks And Glencore Share Price Oil prices and energy stocks are facing a technical resistance. Yet, the share price of the world’s largest global commodity trader – Glencore – seems to be breaking out. The coming weeks will reveal which way the commodities complex will trade. Our bias is that a near-term correction is overdue. The US dollar holds the key, please refer to the next page. Chart 12Oil Prices, Energy Stocks And Glencore Share Price Chart 13Oil Prices, Energy Stocks And Glencore Share Price   Rising US Real Rates (TIPS Yields) Will Lead To A US Dollar Rebound US inflation expectations – which have risen sharply since March – are likely to retreat as the US Senate does not approve a large fiscal stimulus package. Falling US inflation expectations will translate into higher TIPS yields. The latter and very bearish sentiment/positioning on the US dollar will trigger a rebound in the greenback. Chart 14Rising US Real Rates (TIPS Yields) Will Lead To A US Dollar Rebound Chart 15Rising US Real Rates (TIPS Yields) Will Lead To A US Dollar ReboundChart 16Rising US Real Rates (TIPS Yields) Will Lead To A US Dollar Rebound   US Elections And The US Dollar: Is 2020 The Opposite Of 2016? After the 2016 US elections, the US dollar rallied strongly for several weeks and then it sold off considerably. It seems the broad trade-weighted dollar is following a reverse pattern now.  It was selling off before the 2020 US elections and has continued weakening afterwards. If the reverse of the 2016 pattern persists, it means the US dollar is about make a major bottom and stage a playable rebound. Chart 17US Elections And The US Dollar: Is 2020 The Opposite Of 2016? Chart 18US Elections And The US Dollar: Is 2020 The Opposite Of 2016? Chart 19US Elections And The US Dollar: Is 2020 The Opposite Of 2016?   More Reasons To Expect A US Dollar Rebound The periods when US share prices outperform their global peers in local currency terms often coincide with strength in the US dollar. Recently, this relationship has broken down. The greenback might soon recouple to the upside, re-establishing this relationship (Chart 21). Besides, the broad trade-weighted dollar is very oversold (Chart 22). Chart 20More Reasons To Expect A US Dollar Rebound Chart 21More Reasons To Expect A US Dollar Rebound   Rising Real US Yields And Growth Stocks Rising US TIPS yields could create headwinds for growth stocks. FAANG and Tencent share prices have risen about 20-fold since January 2010 – as much as the Nasdaq 100 did in the 1990s before topping out. Chart 22Rising Real US Yields And Growth Stocks Chart 23Rising Real US Yields And Growth Stocks   Drivers Of EM Corporate And Sovereign Credit Spreads EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads are driven by EM exchange rates and commodities prices. A potential US dollar rebound and a correction in commodities prices warrant near-term caution on EM credit markets. Chart 24Drivers Of EM Corporate And Sovereign Credit Spreads Chart 25Drivers Of EM Corporate And Sovereign Credit Spreads Messages From Indicators And Chart Patterns Various indicators and technical chart configurations send mixed signals. Our bias is to expect a correction in risk assets in the near term.  Chart 26Messages From Indicators And Chart Patterns Chart 27Messages From Indicators And Chart Patterns   Chart 28Messages From Indicators And Chart Patterns Chart 29Messages From Indicators And Chart Patterns   Peak Stimulus In China Fiscal stimulus is running out. In addition, the PBoC has been tightening liquidity in the interbank market and interest rates have risen. Banks’ loan approvals have rolled over. All these point to a peak in the credit and fiscal impulse as well as money impulses in Q4 2020. Does it mean China’s economy is about to decelerate? – refer to the next page. Chart 30Peak Stimulus In ChinaChart 31Peak Stimulus In China Chart 32Peak Stimulus In China   China: Business Cycle Expansion To Continue In H1 2021 Our credit and fiscal spending impulse points to a continuous expansion in the Chinese economy for now. If the credit and fiscal impulse rolls over in Q4 2020, as shown in the previous page, the business cycle in China will peak around middle of 2021 given the nine-month time lag between this impulse and economic data. Chart 33China: Business Cycle Expansion To Continue in H1 2021Chart 35China: Business Cycle Expansion To Continue in H1 2021 Chart 34China: Business Cycle Expansion To Continue in H1 2021   Stress In The Chinese Onshore Corporate Bond Market The recent defaults by several SOEs on their bond payments have led to a spike in corporate bond yields. However, there is no stable historical relationship between onshore corporate bond yields and the A-share market. Chart 36Stress In The Chinese Onshore Corporate Bond Market Chart 37Stress In The Chinese Onshore Corporate Bond Market   Chart 38Stress In The Chinese Onshore Corporate Bond Market China: Can Share Prices Rally Amid Rising Corporate Borrowing Costs? During periods of rising onshore corporate bond yields, the MSCI ex-TMT Investable equity index rallied if Chinese EPS expectations where improving. The latest rollover in EPS growth expectations amid rising corporate bond yields is a warning to share prices. Chart 39China: Can Share Prices Rally Amid Rising Corporate Borrowing Costs? Chinese And EM Equity Relative Performance Versus Global Stocks China’s outperformance versus global stocks has been due to its TMT stocks (Alibaba, Tencent and Meituan). In turn, excluding Chinese stocks, EM ex-China has not really outperformed the global equity index. Chart 40Chinese And EM Equity Relative Performance Versus Global Stocks Chart 41Chinese And EM Equity Relative Performance Versus Global Stocks Various EM Equity Indexes Till very recent (before the announcement of progress in vaccines), EM small caps, the equal-weighted index, EM ex-TMT stocks and the EM index ex-China, Korea and Taiwan had been lackluster. Will the latest spike persist? It depends on the S&P500 and global risk asset performance. Chart 42Various EM Equity Indexes Chart 43Various EM Equity Indexes   Chart 44Various EM Equity Indexes Chart 45Various EM Equity Indexes   Emerging Asia And Overall EM Relative Equity Performance Versus Global Stocks Emerging Asia’s and overall EM relative performance versus global stocks is unlikely to break out now. We continue recommending a neutral allocation to EM equities in a global equity portfolio. Chart 46Emerging Asia And Overall EM Relative Equity Performance Versus Global Stocks Chart 47Emerging Asia And Overall EM Relative Equity Performance Versus Global Stocks   Chart 48Emerging Asia And Overall EM Relative Equity Performance Versus Global Stocks Chart 49Emerging Asia And Overall EM Relative Equity Performance Versus Global Stocks   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights In the first nine months of 2020, China's capital outflows, measured by the Balance of Payments (BoP) data, have been the largest since 2016. Unlike 2016, the outflows are mainly driven by a strategic accumulation of foreign currency (FX) assets by domestic entities rather than capital flight. Chinese banks may have been using some of their FX holdings and transactions to slow the pace in the RMB appreciation.  The RMB can still devalue relative to the USD in the next two months, but in the next 6-12 months, the RMB should continue to revert to its pre-trade war value. Feature Chart 1Large Capital Outflows Despite A Strong RMB China’s official BoP data imply that approximately $200 billion capital left the country in the first three quarters of the year, the largest amount since 20161 (Chart 1). The large capital outflows occurred when China’s post COVID-19 economic recovery was strengthening, the current account surplus was surging, and both direct and portfolio investment flows were net positive.  Moreover, unlike 2015-16 when capital outflows were driven by, and in turn, reinforced the depreciation in the Chinese currency, the RMB has been strengthening against the USD. In this report, we examine China’s BoP data and related figures, and use the framework from a previous Special Report to assess China’s capital outflows.2 Our research shows that at least a good portion of the capital outflows was likely an effort by Chinese policymakers to slow the pace of the RMB’s appreciation against a basket of its trading partners’ currencies. A Puzzling BoP Picture Official BoP data shows that China’s current account surplus was $170 billion in the first three quarters of this year, and net FDI and portfolio flows totaled at $54 billion. The surplus has been mostly offset by an estimated $155 billion of “Other Investment” outflow in the non-reserve FX account and $53 billion in Net Errors and Omissions (Table 1). Table 1China’s Balance Of Payments During the 2015-16 period, large outflows were driven by reduced foreign inflows, domestic firms paying down US dollar debt, and enterprises and households moving their assets overseas.  This time, however, the outflows appear to be largely government driven and strategic FX asset accumulations, and most likely through Chinese state-owned banks and institutional investors. Chart 2FX Settlement Has Been Net Positive Chart 2 shows a positive net FX settlement rate by banks on behalf of clients. This means more non-financial enterprises (such as exporters and investors) sold their foreign exchange holdings to banks than bought foreign exchange from banks. This is drastically different from the deep contraction in the net settlement data following the RMB devaluation in August 2015. Chart 3 also highlights that the level of Chinese firms’ short-term foreign obligations (outstanding foreign currency loans, trade credit and liquid deposits) has remained steady this year. This implies that domestic firms are not rushing to pay off their external debt as was the case in 2015/16. Chart 3Chinese Firms Are Not Rushing To Pay Off External Debt Chart 4Relatively Low Level Of Illicit Capital Outflows Moreover, service trade deficits from outbound tourism have narrowed substantially due to international travel restrictions, which have made it difficult for Chinese residents to move capital out of the country. Additionally, the illicit capital outflows through import over-invoicing are very low (Chart 4). Hence, a large negative reading in the “Other Investment” and “Net Errors and Omission” categories implies an accumulation of FX assets by China’s banks and intuitional investors. The net FX asset accumulation by commercial banks was $117 billion in the first nine months, largely offsetting the $170 billion current account surplus in the same period. A closer examination of BoP data also shows that in June the PBoC recorded a $118 billion fund transfer from a FX asset balance sheet, which has otherwise been flat over the past five years. It is unclear where the funds have gone, but coincidently the amount matches a $118 billion outflow in the BoP’s non-reserve FX assets during the same quarter (Chart 5). China’s non-reserve FX assets3 are mostly in offshore investment and lending, which is intermediated by a small group of state-owned entities. Given that external lending through China’s banks and financial institutions has slowed in the post-COVID-19 environment, direct and portfolio investments must have been the main sources of the FX asset accumulation (Chart 6). Chart 5Unexplained FX Fund Transactions Chart 6No Sign Of Extended Loans Or Trade Credit Capital Outflows As An Exchange Rate Stabilizer The sharp rise in the trade surplus and foreign capitals into China’s bond market this year explains the upward pressure on the RMB. Chinese policymakers may have been trying to slow the pace of appreciation in the RMB through a build-up in strategic FX assets by large state-owned banks and other financial institutions. Following the devaluation of the RMB in August 2015, China had to liquidate a quarter of its official FX reserves to defend the currency. The rapid depletion in the official reserves fueled market jitters and reinforced the RMB depreciation. The FX assets held by China’s state-owned banks and institutional investors, on the other hand, can mostly fly under the radar and, in recent years, may have become the policymakers’ preferred channel of regulating fluctuations in the currency market. We tested this theory by assessing the relationship between the net FX purchases by China’s banks and the RMB exchange rate against the USD and a basket of its trading partners’ currencies (measured by the CFETS index). The latter is the exchange rate reference regime that China switched to in 2017.4 The official “net FX settlement by bank itself” data series represents the difference between the banks’ purchases and sales of foreign exchange in the interbank system. We exclude settlements and sales by banks on behalf of clients to filter out the demand for FX from enterprises and households. Chart 7 shows that, prior to 2018, the banks’ net FX purchases ticked up when the RMB appreciated against the USD, and banks sold more FX when the USD rose against the RMB. The interventions intended to slow the market move in either direction to keep the USD/CNY exchange rate swings within the PBoC’s comfort zone. Chart 7Banks' Net FX Transactions Moved Closely With USD/CNY Until 2018 Chart 8Since 2018 China Targeted A Basket Of Currencies Interestingly, the tight relationship loosened somewhat after 2018. On several occasions, banks made more FX purchases even when the RMB was weakening against the USD. It appears that since US tariffs on Chinese goods began in 2018, Chinese policymakers have been more willing to allow market forces drive down the RMB in relation to the USD. Meanwhile, China has targeted a relatively stable value of the RMB against a basket of its trading partners’ currencies in the CFETS index. As Chart 8 (top panel) illustrates, since 2018, net FX purchases by Chinese banks have been more tightly correlated with the spread between the CNY/USD exchange rate and the CFETS index (both rebased to December 2014=100). When the RMB falls relative to the USD but not by enough to slow its increase against other trading partners, China’s banks would ramp up their FX purchases to push down the CNY/USD exchange rate or raise the value of other currencies in the CFETS basket (Chart 8, bottom panel). Investment Conclusions Chart 9Mean Reversion In The USD/CNY Will Continue The market sentiment has been overwhelmingly bullish on RMB. Partially, the CNY/USD market has been pricing in the possibility of a Biden administration in the US, and improved Sino-US relations. In our view, the RMB has not moved into outright expensive territory and will continue to revert to its pre-trade war value against the USD in the next 6-12 months (Chart 9). In the next two months, however, the RMB may still give back some of this year’s gains against the USD. A contested US election may bring negative surprises to the global financial markets. The COVID-19 pandemic also remains a headwind in Europe and North America until a vaccine is widely available. As such, the USD will likely have a near-term countercyclical rebound. In fact, a depreciation in the RMB would be a boon to China’s domestic economy as it currently faces disinflationary pressures. Meanwhile, the net FX settlement among Chinese banks has been trending sideways in the past three months, which signals that Chinese policymakers may be comfortable with the RMB’s current value. We think China will allow the RMB to appreciate against the USD as long as the RMB does not climb too rapidly against the basket of other major currencies. If the upward pressure on the RMB continues to push the CFETS index higher, then China may choose to step up its purchases of FX assets. Assets in Euro, the Japanese Yen, and the Korean Won may be high on the shopping list (Chart 10 and Chart 11). Chart 10China May Step Up Purchases Of Other Major Currencies Chart 11The CFETS RMB Index Composition     Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Based on the Balance Of Payments methodology, short-term capital outflows = current account surplus + changes in reserve assets + direct investment ≈ net flows in portfolio investment + net flows in other investment + net errors & omissions. 2Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows," dated March 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3FX assets held at banks and financial institutions other than the PBoC. 4CFETS RMB Index refers to CFETS (China Foreign Exchange Trade System) currency basket, including CNY versus FX currency pairs listed on CFETS. The sample currency weight is calculated by international trade weight with adjustments of re-export trade factors. The sample currency value refers to the daily CNY Central Parity Rate and CNY reference rate. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights COVID-19: Markets are trading off the longer-term positive news on COVID-19 vaccines, rather than the shorter-term negative news of surging numbers of new virus cases in Europe and North America. This will continue as long as the vaccine results stay promising, further boosting global equity and credit market performance, especially versus government bonds, as investors price in a return to “normalcy”. FX & Monetary Policy: An increasing number of central banks have raised concerns about unwanted currency appreciation. With interest rates stuck near-zero, asset purchases and balance sheet expansion will be the marginal policy tool used to limit currency moves, especially vs the US dollar. The greater impact will be on bond yield spreads versus US Treasuries with the Fed being less aggressive on QE. Stay underweight the US in global government bond portfolios. Feature Chart of the WeekMarkets Reacting Calmly To This COVID-19 Surge With US election uncertainty now fading away on a stream of failed Trump legal challenges, investors have turned their attention back to COVID-19. On that front, there has been both good and bad news. New cases and hospitalizations have surged across the US and Europe, leading to renewed economic restrictions to slow the spread at a time when governments are dragging their heels on fresh fiscal stimulus measures. Yet markets are seeing past the near-term hit to growth, focusing on the positive news from both Pfizer and Moderna about their COVID-19 vaccine trials with +90% success rates. With markets looking ahead to a possible end to the pandemic, growth sensitive risk assets have taken off. The S&P 500 is now at an all-time high, with beaten-up cyclical sectors outperforming. Market volatility is calm, with the VIX index back down to the low-20s. The riskier parts of the corporate bond universe are rallying hard, with CCC-rated US junk bond spreads tightening back to levels last seen in May 2019. Even the US dollar, which tends to weaken alongside improving global growth perceptions, continues to trade with a soggy tone - the Fed’s trade-weighted dollar index has fallen to a 19-month low (Chart of the Week). Expect more non-US quantitative easing (QE) over the next 6-12 months, to the benefit of non-US government bond performance. The weakening trend of the US dollar has already become a monetary policy issue for some central banks that do not want to see their own currencies appreciate versus the greenback at a time of depressed inflation expectations. Expect more non-US quantitative easing (QE) over the next 6-12 months, to the benefit of non-US government bond performance. There Is Room For Optimism Amid More Lockdowns The latest wave of coronavirus spread has dwarfed anything seen since the start of the pandemic. The number of daily new cases in the US, scaled by population, has climbed to 430 per million people in the US, setting a sad new high for the pandemic. The numbers are even worse in Europe, led by France where the number of new cases reached a high of 757 per million people on November 8 (Chart 2A). COVID-19 related hospitalization rates have also surged in the US and Europe, straining the capacity of health care systems to care for the newly sickened. In Europe, governments have already imposed severe restrictions on activity to limit the spread of the virus. According the data from Oxford University, the so-called “Government Response Stringency Index”, designed to measure the depth and intensity of lockdown measures such as school closures and travel restrictions, has returned to levels last seen during the first lockdowns back in March and April (Chart 2B). Chart 2AA Huge Second Wave of COVID-19 Chart 2BEconomic Restrictions Weighing On European Growth Vs US Oxford data on spending on sectors most impacted by lockdowns, like retail and recreation, also show declines in Europe and the UK similar in magnitude to those seen last spring. The data in the US, on the other hand, shows no nationwide pickup in lockdown stringency, or decline in spending. While economic restrictions are starting to be imposed in parts of the US, the hit to the overall domestic economy, so far, has been limited compared to what has taken place on the other side of the Atlantic. To be certain, the positive headlines on the vaccines will limit the ability of US local governments to impose unpopular restrictions anywhere near as severe as was seen earlier this year. Yet even if a vaccine ready for mass inoculation arrives relatively quickly, it will not be a smooth path to getting widespread public acceptance of the vaccine. According to a Pew Research survey conducted in late September, only 51% of Americans would take a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as it was available (Chart 3). This was down from 72% in a similar survey conducted in May during the panic of the first US wave of the virus. The declines in willingness to take the vaccine were consistent across groupings of age, race, education and political leanings. Of those who said they would not take a vaccine right away, 76% cited a concern about potential side effects as a major reason. Chart 3Most Americans Are Wary Of A COVID-19 Vaccine So even with an effective vaccine now on the horizon, it may take some time to convince people that it is safe to take it. What is clear now, however, is that economic sentiment took a hit from the surge in COVID-19 cases before the vaccine news arrived. The latest ZEW survey of economic forecasters, published last week, showed a decline in growth expectations across the developed economies in the early days of November (Chart 4). The decline occurred for all countries, including the US, but was most severe for the UK, where there are not only new COVID-19 lockdowns but also the looming risk of a messy upcoming resolution to the Brexit saga. Yet the net balance of survey respondents was still positive for all countries in the survey, suggesting that underlying economic sentiment remains robust even in the face of more COVID-19 cases and increased lockdowns in Europe. The ZEW survey also asks questions on sentiment for other factors besides growth. Expectations for longer-term bond yields have moved moderately higher in recent months, as have inflation expectations, although both took a slight dip in the latest survey (Chart 5). No changes for short-term interest rates are expected, consistent with most central banks promising to keep policy rates near 0% for at least the next couple of years. Chart 4COVID-19 Surge Weighing On Global Growth Expectations While global bond yield expectations have clearly bottomed, the ZEW survey shows that expectations for global equity and currency markets have also shifted in what appears to be pro-growth fashion. Chart 5Global Interest Rate Expectations Have Bottomed Survey respondents expect both the US dollar and British pound to weaken versus the euro. At the same time, expectations for future equity market returns have improved, even for European bourses full of companies whose profitability would presumably suffer with a stronger euro (Chart 6). As the US dollar typically trades as an “anti-growth” currency, depreciating during global growth upturns and vice versa, greater bullishness on global equities and more bearishness on the US dollar are not inconsistent views – especially with bond yield and inflation expectations also rising. Greater bullishness on global equities and more bearishness on the US dollar are not inconsistent views – especially with bond yield and inflation expectations also rising. Chart 6Bullish Equity Sentiment, Bearish USD Sentiment The big question that investors must now grapple with is if the near-term hit to growth from the latest COVID-19 surge will be large enough to offset the more medium-term improvement in economic sentiment with a vaccine now more likely to be widely distributed in 2021. Given the message from bullish equity and corporate credit markets, and with US Treasury yields drifting higher even with US COVID-19 cases surging, investors are clearly viewing the vaccine news as more significant for medium-term growth than increased near-term economic restrictions. We agree with that conclusion. We continue to recommend staying moderately below-benchmark on overall duration exposure, with an overweight tilt towards corporate credit versus government bonds, in global fixed income portfolios. A more comprehensive breakdown of the US dollar would be a signal that investors have grown even more comfortable with the economic outlook for 2021. Chart 7A New Leg Of USD Weakness On The Horizon? A more comprehensive breakdown of the US dollar would be a signal that investors have grown even more comfortable with the economic outlook for 2021. The DXY index now sits at critical downside resistance levels, while a basket of commodity-sensitive currencies tracked by our foreign exchange strategists is approaching upside trendline resistance (Chart 7). While emerging market (EM) currencies have generally lagged the US dollar weakness story of the past several months, the Bloomberg EM Currency Index is also approaching a potentially important breakout point. The US dollar is very technically oversold now, so some consolidation of recent moves is likely needed before a new wave of weakness can unfold. Any such breakout of non-US currencies versus the US dollar will open up a whole new assortment of problems for policymakers outside the US, however – particularly those suffering from depressed inflation expectations. Bottom Line: Markets are trading off the longer-term positive news on COVID-19 vaccines, rather than the shorter-term negative news of surging numbers of new virus cases in Europe and North America. This will continue as long as the vaccine results stay promising, further boosting global equity and credit market performance, especially versus government bonds, as investor’s price in a return to “normalcy”. Currency Wars 2.0? On the surface, more US dollar weakness should be welcome by policymakers around the world. Much of the downward pressure on global traded goods prices over the past decade can be traced to the stubborn strength of the greenback. With the Fed’s trade-weighted dollar index now -1.9% lower on a year-over-year basis, global export prices and commodity indices like the CRB Raw Industrials are no longer deflating (Chart 8). While a weaker US dollar would help mitigate the downward pressure on global inflation rates from traded goods prices, such a move would hardly be welcomed everywhere. Within the developed world, some countries are currently suffering from more underwhelming inflation rates than others. The link between currency swings and headline inflation is particularly strong in the US, euro area and Australia (Chart 9). While a weaker dollar has helped lift headline US CPI inflation over the past few months, a stronger euro and Australian dollar have dampened euro area and Australian realized inflation. It should come as no surprise that both the European Central Bank (ECB) and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) have recently cited currency strength as a factor weighing on their latest dovish policy choices. Chart 8An Inflationary Impulse From A Weaker USD There is not only a link between exchange rates and inflation for policymakers to worry about – currencies represent an important part of financial conditions, and therefore growth, in many countries. Chart 9Currency Impact On Inflation Greater In Some Countries Chart 10Biggest Currency Impact On Financial Conditions Outside The US Financial conditions indices, which combine financial variables like equity prices and corporate bond yields, typically place a big weighting on trade-weighted currencies in countries with large export sectors like the euro area, Japan, Canada and Australia (Chart 10). This makes sense, as a strengthening currency represents a meaningful drag on growth via worsening export competitiveness. In the US with its relatively more closed economy and greater reliance on market-based corporate finance, the dollar is a less important factor determining financial conditions. So what can central banks do to limit appreciation of their currencies? The choices are limited when policy rates are at 0% as is the case in most developed countries. Negative policy rates are a possible option to help weaken currencies, but seeing how negative rates have destroyed the profitability of Japanese and euro area banks, central bankers in other countries are reluctant to go down that road. It is noteworthy that the two central banks that have made the loudest public flirtation with negative rates in 2020, the Bank of England (BoE) and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), have not yet pulled the trigger on that move. Both have chosen to go down a more “traditional” route doing more QE to ease monetary policy at a time of weak domestic inflation. The ECB is set to do the same thing next month, increasing its balance sheet via asset purchases and cheap bank funding in an attempt to stem the dramatic decline in euro area inflation expectations. Currencies represent an important part of financial conditions, and therefore growth, in many countries. Can more QE help weaken currency levels in any individual country? Like anything involving currencies, it must be considered on a relative basis to developments in other countries. In Chart 11, we plot the ratio of the Fed’s balance sheet to other developed economy central bank balance sheets versus the relevant US dollar currency pair. The thick dotted lines denote the projected balance sheet ratio based on current central bank plans for asset purchases.1 The visual evidence over the past few years suggests a weak correlation between balance sheet ratios and currency levels. At best, more QE can help mitigate currency appreciation that would otherwise have occurred – which might be all that the likes of the RBA and RBNZ can hope for now. There is a more robust correlation is between relative balance sheets and cross-country government bond spreads. Where there is a more robust correlation is between relative balance sheets and cross-country government bond spreads (Chart 12). This is reasonable since expanding QE purchases of government bonds can dampen the level of bond yields - either by signaling a desire to push rate hikes further into the future (forward guidance) or by literally creating a demand/supply balance for bonds that is more favorable for higher bond prices and lower yields. Chart 11Relative QE Matters Less For Currencies Chart 12Relative QE Matters More For Bond Yield Spreads This is the critical point to consider for investors: the more efficient way to play the relative QE game is through cross-country bond spread trades, not currency trades. On that basis, favoring government bonds of countries where central banks have turned more aggressive with expanding their QE programs – like the UK, Australia and Canada – relative to the debt of countries where the pace of QE has slowed – like the US, Japan and Germany – in global bond portfolios makes sense (Chart 13). Although in the case of Germany (and euro area debt, more generally), we see the ECB’s likely move to ramp up asset purchases at next month’s policy meeting moving euro area bonds into the “expanding QE” basket of countries. Chart 13More Non-US QE Will Support Non-US Bond Outperformance Chart 14Central Banks Are Increasingly 'Funding' Government Spending One final note: central banks that choose to expand their QE buying of government bonds may actually provide the biggest economic benefit by “funding” fiscal stimulus and limiting the damage to bond yields from rising budget deficits (Chart 14). This may be the most important factor to consider as governments contemplate more stimulus measures to offset any short-term hit to growth from the rising spread of COVID-19. Bottom Line: With interest rates stuck near-zero, asset purchases and balance sheet expansion will be the marginal policy tool used to limit currency moves, especially versus the US dollar. The greater impact will be on bond yield spreads versus US Treasuries with the Fed being less aggressive on QE. Stay underweight the US in global government bond portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The projections incorporate the following: by June 2021, the Fed grows its balance sheet by US$840 billion, the ECB by €600 billion, the BoJ by ¥80 trillion, the BoE by £150 billion, the BoC by C$180 billion, and the RBA by A$100 billion. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights US Election & COVID-19: Joe Biden’s apparent victory in the US presidential race, as well as the announcement of a potential successful COVID-19 vaccine trial, are both bond-bearish outcomes. This is especially so for US Treasuries given the more resilient growth momentum in the US. Fixed Income Strategy: The big news announcements do not motivate us to change our fixed income investment recommendations. Stay below-benchmark on overall duration, and underweight the US in global bond portfolios. Stay overweight global inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt, particularly in the US and Italy. Maintain an overweight stance on global spread product, focused on US corporates (investment grade and Ba-rated high-yield) and emerging market US dollar denominated corporates. Feature Chart of the WeekUS Yields Leading The Way Higher Investors have digested two major pieces of news over the past few days – the projected election of Joe Biden as the 46th US President and the positive results of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trial. Both outcomes are bond-bearish, but the bigger response came after the news of a potential vaccine, with the 10-year US Treasury yield hitting an 8-month high of 0.96% yesterday. Yields in other countries rose by a lesser amount, continuing the recent trend of US Treasury underperformance (Chart of the Week). After the US election result, however, we remain comfortable with our recommended below-benchmark overall duration stance and underweight allocation to US Treasuries in global bond portfolios.  The introduction of a successful vaccine would obviously be a game-changer for all financial markets, not just fixed income, as it would allow investors to see an end to the pandemic and a return to more normal economic activity. While we are heartened by the vaccine trial announcement, there are still many hurdles that need to be cleared before any vaccine is approved and distributed around the world. It is still too soon to adjust our bond investment strategy in anticipation of a post-COVID world. After the US election result, however, we remain comfortable with our recommended below-benchmark overall duration stance and underweight allocation to US Treasuries in global bond portfolios. While a Biden victory combined with the Republicans likely keeping control of the US Senate was the least bond-bearish outcome - thus avoiding the big surge in government spending likely after a Democratic “blue wave” - there is clear upward momentum in US economic growth that suggests more upside for Treasury yields on both an absolute basis and relative to other countries. Cross-Country Divergences Are Starting To Appear Our recent decision to cut our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark was motivated by our more bearish view on US Treasuries. However, a more defensive duration posture was justified by the rapid rebound in global growth seen since the depths of the COVID-19 recession. Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic data, has been calling for a bottom in global bond yields toward the end of 2020 (Chart 2). The rise in global yields we are witnessing now appears to be right on cue. There are now more relative growth, inflation and policy divergences opening up that will allow country allocation to become a bigger source of outperformance for fixed income investors. Chart 2Global Yields Are Bottoming Importantly, inflation expectations across the developed world have yet not risen by enough to force central banks to become less dovish. This suggests that global yield curves will have a steepening bias over at least the next six months, with longer-term yields rising more on the back of faster growth (and additional increases in inflation expectations) than shorter-maturity yields which are more sensitive to monetary policy shifts. Those trends will not be seen equally across all countries, though. There are now more relative growth, inflation and policy divergences opening up that will allow country allocation to become a bigger source of outperformance for fixed income investors. For example, the October US manufacturing ISM and Payrolls data released last week showed robust strength, even in a month where new US COVID-19 cases rose sharply. Europe, on the other hand, has seen an even bigger surge in new cases, resulting in a wave of national lockdowns that has already begun to weigh on domestic economic activity. Thus, core European bond yields have remained stable, even with the euro area manufacturing PMI remaining elevated (Chart 3). We see similar divergences in other developed economies, with generally strong manufacturing PMIs and mixed responses from bond yields. When looking at the breakdown of nominal bond yields into the real yield and inflation expectations components, even more divergences are evident (Chart 4).1 Chart 3Mixed Responses To Rebounding Growth Chart 4Real Yield Trends Are Starting To Diverge Chart 5Discounting An Extended Period Of Negative Real Rates The real yields on benchmark 10-year inflation-linked bonds are slowly rising in the US and Canada, but remain stable in Germany, the UK and Australia. Market expectations for central bank policy rates, extracted from overnight index swap (OIS) curves, are currently priced for an extended period of low policy rates over the next few years. This is no surprise, as central banks have told the markets this would be the case via dovish forward guidance. Yet central banks are also projecting inflation rates to move higher between 2021 and 2023, even as they are signaling unchanged interest rates over that same period (Chart 5). Central banks are effectively telling markets that they want an extended period of negative real policy rates - a major reason why real bond yields are negative across the developed world. At some point, however, markets will begin to challenge the need for deeply negative real policy rates as economies recover from the COVID-19 shock to growth. Unemployment in the US and Canada has already declined sharply since spiking during the first wave of COVID-19 lockdowns. In the US, the unemployment rate has fallen from a peak of 14.7% to 6.9%; in Canada, the decline has been from 13.7% to 8.9% (Chart 6). This contrasts sharply to trends in Europe and Australia, where unemployment rates remain elevated. Chart 6Diverging Trends In Unemployment At some point, however, markets will begin to challenge the need for deeply negative real policy rates as economies recover from the COVID-19 shock to growth. With the Fed and Bank of Canada (BoC) projecting additional declines in unemployment over the next few years, markets are starting to discount a less dovish stance from both central banks. The US and Canadian OIS curves are now discounting one full 25bp policy rate hike by Aug 2023 and May 2023, respectively. This is a bit sooner than signaled by the forward guidance of the Fed and BoC. Thus, markets are now pricing in a less negative path for real policy rates – and, by association, real bond yields. Chart 7Markets Still Discounting Low Yields For Longer This contrasts to the euro area, Australia and the UK, where unemployment rates remain elevated. The recent surge in coronavirus cases across Europe means that the ECB and Bank of England will be under no pressure by markets to reconsider their current easy money policies. While in Australia, persistently weak inflation and, more recently, worries about an appreciating Australian dollar are keeping expectations for Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) policy ultra-dovish. Given the likely hit to longer-term potential growth from the COVID-19 pandemic, coming at a time of elevated debt levels (both government and private), markets are justified in pricing in a structurally lower level of policy rates for longer (Chart 7). Yet even in such a world, there will be cyclical upswings in growth and inflation that will upward pressure on bond yields. At the moment, those pressures seem greatest in the developed world in the US and Canada. This suggests that global bond investors should underweight both the US and Canada. However, the Fed seems more willing to accept a period of rising bond yields than the BoC, which has been very aggressive in the expansion of its quantitative easing (QE) program, which leaves us to only consider the US as a recommended underweight. Bottom Line: Joe Biden’s apparent victory in the US presidential race, as well as the announcement of a potential successful COVID-19 vaccine trial, are both bond-bearish outcomes. This is especially so for US Treasuries given the more resilient growth momentum in the US. Recommended Fixed Income Strategy After A Busy Few Days Joe Biden’s election victory and the potential COVID-19 vaccine do not lead us to make any changes to our main fixed income investment recommendations, which generally have a pro-growth, pro-risk bias that would benefit from the reduction in US political uncertainty and, potentially, the beginning of the end of the pandemic. On duration, we continue to recommend a moderate below-benchmark overall exposure. Our main fixed income investment recommendations, which generally have a pro-growth, pro-risk bias that would benefit from the reduction in US political uncertainty and, potentially, the beginning of the end of the pandemic. On country allocation, we remain underweight the US, neutral Canada and Australia, and overweight the UK, core Europe, Italy, Spain and Japan. The country allocations are determined by each country’s sensitivity to changes in US Treasury yields, particularly during periods of rising yields. We are overweight the countries with a lower “yield beta” to changes in US yields. We view Italy and Spain as credit instruments, supported by large-scale ECB purchases and more fiscal cooperation within Europe. We are not recommending underweights to higher-beta Canada and Australia, however, with both the BoC and RBA being very aggressive with bond purchases (Chart 8). On credit, the backdrop remains very conducive to spread product outperformance versus government bonds, particularly with the monetary policy backdrop remaining highly accommodative (Chart 9). Chart 8Global QE Has Been Aggressive We expect some additional spread tightening for developed market corporate debt as well also emerging market US dollar denominated corporates. In terms of regions and credit tiers, we prefer US investment grade and Ba-rated high-yield to euro area credit. Chart 9Central Bank Liquidity Still Supportive For Global Credit Chart 10More Global QE Is Good For Inflation-Linked Bonds Finally, we continue to recommend overweight allocations to inflation-linked bods versus nominal government debt in the US, Italy and Canada. Central banks will continue to err on the side of maintaining stimulative monetary policy settings to keep financial conditions easy to support economic growth. That means no hawkish surprises on the interest rate front, while also continuing to buy bonds via quantitative easing (Chart 10) – reflationary policies that should help boost inflation expectations.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We have deliberately left Japan out of this analysis, as the Bank of Japan’s Yield Curve Control policy has effectively short-circuited the link between Japanese economic growth, inflation and bond yields. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights COVID-19 In Europe: The latest surge in COVID-19 cases in Europe has unnerved investors who now see renewed national lockdowns increasing the risk of a double-dip European recession and continued deflationary pressures. ECB: The signals from last week’s ECB policy meeting could not be more clear – the central bank will deliver new stimulus measures in December in response to the second wave of coronavirus sweeping through the euro area. This will be a combination of policies focused on expanding and extending the existing bond-buying vehicles and TLTROs, rather than cutting policy rates deeper into negative territory. European Bond Strategy: Stay overweight core European government debt, particularly versus US Treasuries. Remain overweight Italian and Spanish government bonds, as well, which remain supported by both ECB asset purchases and perceptions of increases European fiscal integration. Stay cautious on euro area corporate debt, however, as the renewed recession risk comes at a time when yields and spreads offer poor protection from future credit downgrades and defaults. Feature Chart of the WeekA Bad Time For A Second Wave Today’s long anticipated US election will be the focus for investors in the coming days (and, potentially, weeks) as all votes are counted. We have discussed our views on the potential bond market impact of the election - bearish for US Treasuries with both Joe Biden and Donald Trump promising big fiscal stimulus in 2021 – in our previous two reports. We will provide an update of those views as soon as we get clarity on the election result. This week, we discuss a new concern for jittery markets - the explosion of new COVID-19 cases in Europe that has already led to governments imposing aggressive lockdown measures. The timing of the new viral surge could not be worse for the euro area economy, which had recovered smartly from the massive lockdown-related demand shock this past spring. Real GDP for the entire euro area exploded higher at a 12.7% rate in Q3/2020, a big rebound from the 11.8% drop in Q2. Yet the second wave of coronavirus is starting to weigh on the more domestically focused service sectors most vulnerable to lockdowns and declining consumer confidence (Chart of the Week). From the perspective of European fixed income strategy, the imposition of lockdowns will only force the ECB to turn more dovish at a time when Europe is already in deflation, as was strongly signaled at last week’s ECB policy meeting. This will support the performance of euro area government bond markets, both in absolute terms and especially versus US Treasuries where yields are drifting higher and should continue to do so after the US election. Another Deflationary Shock To Europe From The Virus The surge in COVID-19 cases has hit the euro area hard and fast. France has seen the most stunning increase, with a population-adjusted daily increase of 596 new cases per million, a nearly six-fold increase in just two months (Chart 2). Importantly, this second wave has so far been nowhere near as lethal as the first wave. The “case fatality ratio” – confirmed deaths as a percentage of confirmed cases – is down in the low single digits for the largest euro area countries (bottom panel). The imposition of lockdowns will only force the ECB to turn more dovish at a time when Europe is already in deflation, as was strongly signaled at last week’s ECB policy meeting. Even with this second wave being less deadly, governments are taking no chances. France and Germany announced national lockdowns last week for at least the month of November, and Italy and Spain have put new restrictions on activity as well. The new lockdowns are already denting consumer confidence across the euro area and this trend will continue as people choose to spend less time outside of their homes to avoid infection. If the case numbers do not begin to stabilize and the lockdown measures extend into December or beyond, governments will likely be forced to consider new fiscal stimulus measures. According to the latest IMF Fiscal Monitor, the largest euro area economies are projected to have a negative “fiscal thrust” – the change in the cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance as a share of potential GDP – in 2021 of at least -3% of GDP (Chart 3). Chart 22nd Wave Of European Coronavirus Is Far Less Lethal Chart 3A Big European Fiscal Drag Coming Next Year In the case of Italy, the fiscal thrust is expected to be a whopping -6.6% of GDP. The main cause is reduced government spending as the massive temporary stimulus measures to fight the 2020 COVID-19 recessions roll off. Chart 4The ECB Has A Deflation Problem A fresh set of lockdowns will result in a need for more government support measures for unemployed workers, especially those in service-related industries like hospitality and tourism most exposed to lost business as consumers stay home. This poses a serious problem in countries like Spain and Italy that saw a rise in unemployment during the first lockdown but have seen no reversal since (Chart 4). More elevated unemployment rates suggest a lack of inflationary pressure, a point confirmed by recent inflation data. Overall headline HICP inflation fell to -0.3% in September, while core inflation is now a mere +0.4%. Headline HICP inflation rates are now below 0% in the largest euro area economies (Germany, France, Italy and Spain), while core HICP inflation in Italy fell to -0.3% in September. The collapse in oil prices earlier in 2020 has been the main cause of the negative headline inflation prints in the euro area, but is not the only source of weak inflation. According to a decomposition of inflation presented in the Bank of Italy’s October 2020 Economic Bulletin, a falling contribution from services inflation was responsible for about one-third of the entire decline in euro area headline HICP inflation since January (Chart 5). This comes from the part of the euro area economy most exposed to COVID-19 restrictions, highlighting the deflationary risk of the second wave. Chart 5Euro Area Deflation Is Mostly, But Not Only, Driven By Oil Simply put, the second wave of COVID-19 could not have come at a worse time. The euro area economy is still dealing with excess capacity and deflation, made worse by previous appreciation of the euro, with a looming fiscal tightening next year. Policymakers need to spring into action to help provide support for the euro area economy during this time, starting with the ECB. The second wave of COVID-19 could not have come at a worse time. The euro area economy is still dealing with excess capacity and deflation, made worse by previous appreciation of the euro, with a looming fiscal tightening next year. Bottom Line: The latest surge in COVID-19 cases in Europe has unnerved investors who now see renewed national lockdowns increasing the risk of a double-dip European recession and continued deflationary pressures. The ECB Will Deliver New Stimulus In December At last week’s policy meeting, ECB President Christine Lagarde announced that the Governing Council would reassess its monetary policy stance at the December meeting, when a new set of economic projections would be presented that factored in the negative impact of the second COVID-19 wave. Lagarde was very candid about the expected outcome of that next meeting, when she stated that the ECB would “recalibrate its instruments” based on the new economic forecasts. Chart 6European Banks Are Tigthening Lending Standards In our view, the ECB’s next policy options can only realistically focus on three options: Cutting policy rates deeper into negative territory Increasing the size, or altering the composition of its bond-buying programs Altering the terms of its current Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operations (TLTROs) We view a rate cut as a low probability outcome. Not only are policy rates at or below 0%, but it is not clear that a cut would even help boost the demand or supply of new loans. According to the ECB’s latest Bank Lending Survey, euro area banks tightened credit conditions in Q3/2020 (Chart 6). Worsening perceptions of risk and a deteriorating economic outlook were cited as the main reasons for tightening lending standards. The tightening was most severe in Spain, but Italy also saw a big swing away from the easing standards seen in the Q2/2020 survey. Within the details of the Q3/2020 survey, the demand for loans from companies was expected to improve in Q4/2020. The demand for housing and consumer credit increased due to favorable borrowing conditions and a softening in negative contribution from consumer sentiment. Not only are policy rates at or below 0%, but it is not clear that a cut would even help boost the demand or supply of new loans. The ECB’s bond buying programs – the Asset Purchase Program (APP) and the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) – were deemed to have a positive impact on bank liquidity and financing but a negative impact on profitability. Chart 7Low Interest Rates Are Crushing European Bank Stocks Therein lies the problem of the ECB’s negative interest rate policy and large-scale bond buying – it has lowered borrowing costs for euro area governments, consumers and businesses, but has crushed the profits of Europe’s banks. That can be seen when looking at the ongoing miserable performance of euro area bank stocks, which continue to plumb new lows. The relative performance of euro area banks versus the broad equity market benchmark index tracks the slope of government bond yield curves quite closely in the major euro area economies (Chart 7), highlighting the link between the level of euro area interest rates and bank profits. In Chart 8A, we show the Tier 1 capital ratio, as well as the non-performing loan (NPL) ratio for the five largest banks in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. The message from the chart is clear – European banks remain well capitalized, with double-digit Tier 1 capital ratios well in excess of regulatory minimums, and have a relatively low share of assets that are non-performing. This is especially true in Italy, where the NPL ratio has collapsed from a high of 20% to 7% over the past five years. In Chart 8B, we present the return on equity and return on asset ratios for the same banks presented in the previous chart. Most large euro area banks suffer from a very low return on assets, not materially above 0%, reflecting the non-existent interest rates banks earn on their government bond holdings as well as the low rates on their loan books. Chart 8AEuropean Banks: The Good News Chart 8BEuropean Banks: The Bad News So given the fragile state of euro area bank health, and with banks already tightening lending standards in anticipation of slower economic activity because of second wave lockdowns, we can rule out a policy interest rate cut as an option to ease policy in December. This leaves only two other easing options, both associated with an expansion of the ECB’s balance sheet – more asset purchases of sovereign bonds and encouraging bank lending through cheap funding via TLTROs (Chart 9). The impact of either policy in offsetting slowing growth is debatable. Government bond yields are already miniscule, if not outright negative, across the euro area and do not represent a hindrance to increased government spending. The ECB can tweak some of the terms of the existing TLTRO programs, like maturity or the price of funding, but that may not encourage new lending if both borrowers and lenders fear a double-dip recession because of the second wave. The pressure is on the ECB to do something to stem the decline in euro area inflation. Nonetheless, the pressure is on the ECB to do something to stem the decline in euro area inflation. While real interest rates are still negative, they are increasingly becoming less so as inflation expectations continue to drift lower. The 5-year/5-year forward EUR CPI swap rate is now down to 1.1%, and was last trading near the ECB’s inflation target of just under 2% in 2013-14 (Chart 10). Unsurprisingly, the rising real rate backdrop has helped boost the value of the euro, especially versus the US dollar, which has suffered under the weight of falling real US interest rates this year. Chart 9The ECB Can Only Expand Its Balance Sheet In the end, greater fiscal stimulus will be the only option available to get Europe through the second wave. All the ECB can do is provide a backdrop of loose monetary policy that supports easy financial conditions, so that any stimulus will have the maximum effect on growth. Chart 10Deflation Is Pushing Up Real Rates In Europe Bottom Line: The signals from last week’s ECB policy meeting could not be more clear – the central bank will deliver new stimulus measures in December in response to the second wave of coronavirus sweeping through the euro area. This will be a combination of policies focused on expanding and extending the existing bond-buying vehicles and TLTROs, rather than cutting policy rates deeper into negative territory. Stay Overweight European Government Bonds, But Stay Cautious On Euro Area Credit With the ECB set to deliver some form of easing in December, core European bond yields are likely to remain stable over at least the next six months. The ECB has shown no reservations about expanding its balance sheet via bond purchases when needed. A surge of buying similar in size to that of the first COVID-19 wave is not out of the question if Europe faces a double-dip second wave recession (Chart 11). Chart 11Stay Overweight Core European Government Bonds Chart 12Italian BTPs Are Preferable To Euro Area Corporate Credit In an environment where we see US Treasury yields having more upside on the back of post-election fiscal stimulus, this makes the likes of German bunds and French OATs good “defensive” lower-beta plays to replace high-beta US Treasury exposure in global USD-hedged bond portfolios. We also like core Europe as a pure spread trade versus Treasuries, as we see scope for the UST-Bund spread to widen further – a tactical trade we initiated last week (see our Tactical Overlay table on page 15). We continue to recommend overweighting Italian government bonds as the preferred way to add scarce yield to a European bond portfolio with an asset that will directly benefit from more ECB buying.  We continue to recommend overweighting Italian government bonds as the preferred way to add scarce yield to a European bond portfolio with an asset that will directly benefit from more ECB buying (Chart 12). The ECB has already been purchasing a greater share of Italy in the PEPP, allowing significant deviations from the Capital Key weights that limit purchases in the older APP. ECB President Lagarde noted last week that those deviations will continue over the life of the PEPP, which should help support further declines in Italian bond yields over at least the next six months. We are maintaining a relatively cautious stance on European credit, however, even with the ECB likely to make a move in December. The renewed recession risk from the second wave comes at a time when low yields and spreads for euro area corporate bonds offer poor protection from future credit downgrades and defaults. We continue to prefer owning US corporate credit, both investment grade and high-yield, versus US equivalents in USD-hedged bond portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Global risk assets have more downside in the near term. The US dollar is primed to rebound. Without major fiscal stimulus in the US, the upside in the greenback will be substantial. China’s business cycle recovery will continue but Chinese stocks and China-related plays are over-hyped and will experience a setback. For equity and credit investors, we recommend maintaining a neutral allocation to EM versus their DM counterparts. Feature Global risk assets have been in a twilight zone. On the one hand, there has been enormous uncertainty related to the US elections, the US fiscal stimulus and the impact of renewed social mobility restrictions on economic activity, especially in Europe. On the other hand, ultra-accommodative central banks, zero or negative interest rates on risk-free investments and the possibility of positive news on the COVID-19 vaccine front have until recently precluded a carnage in global risk assets. What will be the path going forward? We believe the risk-off period in global markets will continue in the near run, i.e., there will be a dusk before a sunrise. Hence, investors should maintain dry powder at the moment. Several negative outcomes have a non-trivial probability of occurring over the very near term. Chiefly these include a contested US presidential election or a Republican Senate under a Biden presidency acting as a constraint on large fiscal stimulus. Chart I-1The US Needs $1.5tn (7.4% Of GDP) Of Fiscal Stimulus In 2021 To Have A Neutral Fiscal Thrust Needless to say, without a large fiscal stimulus package, the US is facing a fiscal cliff. According to the US Congressional Budget Office, the fiscal thrust will be negative 7.4% of GDP in 2021 if no further stimulus is enacted (Chart I-1). The fiscal thrust is the change in the cyclically-adjusted budget deficit. Even if the cyclically-adjusted budget deficit as a share of GDP remains the same, fiscal thrust will be zero. Hence, to achieve a positive fiscal thrust in the US, the fiscal stimulus must be greater than 7.4% of GDP or above $1.5 trillion.  Even though Congress eventually approves a large fiscal package, there is a risk that the economy will slip in the interim. To emphasize, we do not mean there will be no fiscal stimulus. The point is that a large fiscal package is possible only if markets riot. With equity and credit markets still richly priced relative to their fundamentals, the carnage in global risk assets will likely continue.     With equity and credit markets still richly priced relative to their fundamentals, the carnage in global risk assets will likely continue. Chart I-2The US: Lower Inflation Expectations, Higher Real Rates And A Stronger Dollar In the absence of a large US fiscal package and amid falling oil prices, US break-even inflation expectations will drop and the TIPS (real) yields will bounce in the near term (Chart I-2). A rebound in TIPS (real) yields will induce a bounce in the US dollar (Chart I-2, bottom panel).  Provided that the primary risks presently stem from DM rather than Chinese growth, we recommend maintaining a neutral allocation to EM within respective global equity and credit portfolios. Why not overweight EM versus DM? First, the rebound in the greenback will weigh on EM financial markets. Second, outside China, Korea and Taiwan, EM fundamentals are poor. Net-net, odds of EM out- and under-performance versus DM are, for now, balanced. China: Peak Stimulus, Equities And Commodities China’s business cycle recovery is intact. However, Chinese equities have become fully priced and are at risk of a setback (in absolute terms) along with global share prices. Notably, there are several elements that could trigger a meaningful setback in Chinese stocks. First, the money and credit impulses are about to peak. The top panel of Chart I-3 shows that changes in commercial banks’ excess reserves ratio lead the credit impulse by about six months. The drop in the excess reserves ratio since May foreshadows the top in the private credit impulse. Interbank rates – shown inverted in the bottom panel of Chart I-3 – point to an apex in the narrow money (M1) impulse. Authorities have been shrinking commercial banks’ excess reserves at the PBoC since May/June.  Tightening liquidity conditions in the banking system have led to higher interbank rates as well as government and corporate bond yields. Higher borrowing costs will weigh on money and credit growth. Second, the loan approval index of the PBoC banking survey has rolled over (Chart I-4). This implies that bank loan origination will subside going forward. Chart I-3China: Money/Credit Impulses Are At An Apex Chart I-4China: Loan Growth To Moderate Finally, fiscal stimulus is also peaking. Chart I-5 shows that the issuance of local government bonds is set to dwindle in the coming months. A peak in stimulus does not herald an immediate end of the recovery in the business cycle. China’s combined credit and fiscal spending impulse leads the business cycle by about nine months (Chart I-6). Therefore, even as the credit and fiscal spending impulse reaches an apex, the Chinese mainland’s economic activity will stay firm in H1 2021. Consequently, corporate profits will continue to recover. Chart I-5China: Fiscal Stimulus Is Peaking Chart I-6China: The Economy Will Continue Recovering What do all these imply for share prices? In periods when borrowing costs rise along with accelerating profit growth/improving net EPS revisions, share prices could still advance (Chart I-7). Hence, peak stimulus is not a sufficient reason to turn negative on share prices. Chart I-7China: Share Prices (ex-TMT), EPS Expectations And Corporate Bond Yields That said, there are some signs that the Chinese equity market is overbought and over-hyped, making it vulnerable: A major IPO often marks a top in an asset class. Chart I-8 illustrates that Goldman Sachs’ IPO in 1999 preceded the secular top in US equities, IPOs of KKR and Blackstone in 2007 took place before the US credit bubble and the LBO boom unraveled; and finally, Glencore, the largest commodity trading house, went public in 2011 at the very peak of the secular bull market in commodities. In this respect, will Ant Group’s upcoming IPO mark a major top in Chinese or new economy stocks? Time will tell. Chart I-9 illustrates that Chinese IPO booms were historically associated with equity market tops. The current surge in Chinese IPOs – in various jurisdictions including China, Hong Kong, and the US – is a symptom of an over-hyped market. Chart I-8A Major IPO Often Marks The Top in Respective Asset Classes Chart I-9China: Booming IPOs = An Equity Market Top? Finally, new economy stocks in both the US and China have risen by about 20-fold since January 2010. Both in terms of duration and magnitude, their rallies are identical to the bull market in the Nasdaq 100 index in the 1990s (Chart I-10). The striking similarity with those episodes as well as current euphoria among investors about FAANG and Chinese new economy stocks warrant caution. In regard to commodities, in recent months we have been arguing that China is entering a commodity destocking cycle following the major restocking cycle that occurred in April-August. As Chinese imports of key commodities temporarily diminish due to destocking, commodities prices will relapse. Importantly, investor sentiment and net long positions in some key commodities are very elevated, suggesting overbought conditions (Chart I-11). Chart I-10FAANG And Tencent Have Been Tracking The Trajectory Of Nasdaq 100 In The 1990s Chart I-11Investors Are Very Bullish On Copper Critically, global mining stocks have been dropping since early September and are signaling a relapse in industrial metals prices (Chart I-12). In brief, commodity prices and commodity plays remain vulnerable. Chart I-12Global Mining Stocks Point To A Relapse In Industrial Commodities Prices Bottom Line: Marrying the positive outlook for China’s business cycle on the one hand with an  impending potential correction in global stocks, the peak in Chinese stimulus and signs of Chinese equity investor euphoria, we conclude that the risk-reward profiles of Chinese stocks and China-related plays in absolute terms are unattractive. That said, we continue recommending overweighting Chinese stocks within an EM equity portfolio. From a cyclical perspective, Chinese corporate profits will outperform EM and DM corporate earnings because China has dealt with the pandemic much better than almost all other countries. An Update On Currencies And Local Fixed-Income We have been shorting a basket of EM currencies – BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, KRW and IDR – against an equally-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY. This strategy remains intact. However, we believe the US dollar is primed to stage a major rebound, in general, and versus EM currencies, in particular. Therefore, US dollar-based investors should hedge their currency risk or short the same EM currency basket versus the greenback. In EM local fixed-income markets, we have been receiving 10-year swap rates but have not recommended owning cash domestic bonds because of currency risk. We continue to recommend investors receive 10-year swap rates in the following markets: Mexico, Colombia, Russia, China, India and Korea. We have also been recommending long positions in domestic bonds in certain frontier markets like Egypt, Ukraine, and Pakistan. The global risk-off phase will cause their currencies to relapse versus the US dollar, raising the possibility that local bond yields will rise. Therefore, investors who are long these markets should close these positions.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Special Report

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 80% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. Feature With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart II-1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart II-1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish Table II-1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table II-1).1 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Chart II-2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.2 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart II-2). Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart II-3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart II-3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).3 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 27%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 23%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 28%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 22%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 72%, versus a 28% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 72%, 45 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Chart II-4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart II-4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart II-5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart II-5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart II-5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart II-6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart II-5How High For Treasury Yields? Chart II-6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y   The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart II-6, bottom panel).4 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart II-7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart II-8).5 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart II-7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart II-8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed   All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart II-8, bottom panel).6 Chart II-9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Two More Curve Trades In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart II-9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. Chart II-10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart II-10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart II-11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart II-11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart II-12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart II-12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 2 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com