Developed Countries

This week we instituted a new size view preferring small caps to large caps as the sector composition of the former is better positioned to benefit from reviving economic growth. Table 1 shows that industrials comprise the largest market cap weight in small cap indexes, and coupled with the materials and energy laggards, the deep cyclical (ex-tech) weight adds up to 26% or twice the SPX weight. With regard to defensives, small caps have lower exposure compared with the SPX to the tune of 700bps (ex-telecom services). Taken together, the relative cyclicals (ex-tech)/defensives (ex-telecom) gap is 20 percentage points. Moreover, rising yields will act as a headwind to the technology universe that large caps have a disproportionately high exposure to (or 14% delta with small caps). Bottom Line: We initiated a long small caps/short large caps trade with a 9-12 month time horizon via the long IWM:US/short SPY:US exchange trade funds. For more information, please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report. Table 1

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights Duration: The Fed’s adoption of an Average Inflation Target and the emerging correlation between bond yields and a “blue sweep” election outcome were the two main catalysts that caused us to reduce our recommended portfolio duration stance last week. Monetary Policy: The Fed is unlikely to increase its pace of Treasury purchases, unless a selloff in risky assets (equities and credit) threatens the economic recovery. As long as the Fed sticks with its ultra-dovish interest rate guidance, a moderate bear-steepening of the Treasury curve will not cause such a selloff. Economy: Weekly claims data are consistent with a continued decline in the unemployment rate, due mostly to fewer temporarily unemployed workers. All in all, the US economy is recovering, but it remains very far from full employment. Feature Chart 1Real Yields Have Troughed After having advocated “at benchmark” portfolio duration since March, we officially lowered our recommended duration stance to “below benchmark” in last week’s Special Report.1 Two main catalysts led us to this decision. First, there was the Fed’s late-August adoption of an Average Inflation Target. This was an important bond-bearish catalyst because it signaled that the Fed’s reaction function has reached its maximum dovishness. Treasury yields stayed low throughout the summer even as the economy recovered because the Fed was simultaneously guiding the market toward a more dovish reaction function. As evidence for this dynamic, notice that between March and August the uptrend in the cost of inflation compensation was completely offset by falling real yields (Chart 1). But now, the Fed has officially adopted its new Average Inflation Targeting framework. In addition, it has promised not to lift rates at all until inflation is above its 2% target and is expected to overshoot that target for some time. To get more dovish from here, the Fed would probably need to actually increase its long-run inflation target from 2% to 3%, a step it is not prepared to take. For this reason, we expect that the Fed has exhausted its ability to push real yields lower as the economy recovers. With the Fed’s interest rate reaction function at maximum dovishness, only a negative economic growth shock can push yields lower. With the Fed’s interest rate reaction function at maximum dovishness, only a negative economic growth shock can push yields lower. Such a shock would cause investors to anticipate a slower return of inflation and thus push bond yields down, even if the market’s assessment of the Fed’s willingness to respond to inflationary pressures (aka its reaction function) remains constant. The failure of Congress to deliver additional fiscal stimulus after the expiry of the CARES act’s main income-supporting provisions is the sort of thing that could cause such a shock. However, September’s market action made it clear that investors are willing to look past the failure to deliver a bill if they can look forward to a larger fiscal stimulus in January. As we wrote last week, the most likely election outcome of the Democrats winning the House, Senate and White House would certainly deliver on that promise. Bottom Line: The Fed’s adoption of an Average Inflation Target and the emerging correlation between bond yields and a “blue sweep” election outcome were the two main catalysts that caused us to reduce our recommended portfolio duration stance last week. Will  The Fed Use Its Balance Sheet To Keep Bond Yields Low? Chart 2Fed Treasury Holdings Over Time One possible counterargument to our bond-bearish view is that, even if the Fed’s interest rate guidance is as dovish as it will get, the central bank will simply ramp up asset purchases to prevent any significant rise in long-maturity bond yields. Certainly, the Fed has not shied away from transacting in the Treasury market this year (Chart 2). In fact, the Fed took down more than 100% of gross note and bond issuance in the second quarter (Chart 3) and its current stated policy is to purchase at least $80 billion of Treasury securities per month. At present, the Fed holds more than 35% of all outstanding Treasuries with more than 10 years to maturity and about one quarter of the outstanding supply for all other maturities (Chart 4). This is a significant presence in the Treasury market, but not so large that the Fed would think twice about increasing its pace of Treasury purchases if such a policy was deemed necessary. But what would actually make the Fed increase its pace of asset purchases? Would a modest bear-steepening of the Treasury curve (our base case outlook) be enough? We doubt it. Chart 3Fed Purchases Peaked In Q2 Chart 4Fed Owns A Good Chunk ##br##Of The Market Chart 5Financial Conditions Are Highly Accommodative The Fed would be concerned if broad measures of financial conditions started to tighten, as that would indicate a looming period of slower economic growth. But that’s very different from long-maturity Treasury yields moving somewhat higher in response to an improving economic outlook. In fact, to get a meaningful tightening in broad measures of financial conditions, we would need to see significant credit spread widening and weaker equity prices (Chart 5). A bear-steepening Treasury curve, even if long-dated yields move 40-50 bps higher, will not prompt a selloff in credit markets or equities as long as the market believes that the Fed is committed to maintaining an accommodative monetary policy stance. Bottom Line: The Fed is unlikely to increase its pace of Treasury purchases, unless a selloff in risky assets (equities and credit) threatens the economic recovery. As long as the Fed sticks with its ultra-dovish interest rate guidance, a moderate bear-steepening of the Treasury curve will not cause such a selloff. Can  The Fed Use It’s Balance Sheet To Keep Bond Yields Low? Chart 6Fed Purchases Work Mainly Through Signaling Interest Rate Intentions Of course, in the extreme, the Fed could decide to set a cap on the 10-year Treasury yield and promise to purchase as many securities as necessary to maintain that cap. This sort of Yield Curve Control would effectively prevent long-maturity Treasury yields from rising, even as the economy recovered. As discussed above, we think the economic situation would have to turn quite dire for the Fed to pursue such a policy. A more relevant question is whether, in the absence of a stated yield cap, the Fed’s current pace of $80 billion of Treasury purchases per month (or even $100 billion per month) will prevent Treasury yields from rising. Our sense is that, without a stated yield cap, Fed Treasury purchases won’t stop bond yields from rising. In fact, we see very little evidence to support the notion that changes in Fed Treasury purchases influence the trend in bond yields, beyond what the purchase announcements signal to markets about the Fed’s intentions with regards to interest rate policy. Consider Chart 6, which shows the 10-year Treasury yield alongside the Global Manufacturing PMI and two different measures of Fed Treasury purchases. At first blush, between 2010 and 2012, there is a fairly strong relationship between a falling 10-year Treasury yield and an increase in Fed Treasury holdings greater than five years. However, the correlation between the 10-year Treasury yield and the Global Manufacturing PMI during this period is even stronger. This suggests an alternative explanation where the decline in bond yields is driven by the market shifting its rate hike expectations out into the future in response to slowing economic growth. Greater Fed purchases only served to reinforce the Fed’s increasingly dovish interest rate guidance during this time. Without a stated yield cap, Fed Treasury purchases won’t stop bond yields from rising. The key point from Chart 6 is that it is difficult to identify periods when the Fed’s balance sheet policy and interest rate guidance suggest opposite outcomes for bond yields. Typically, when the Fed is ramping up asset purchases it is also signaling to the market that it will shift toward a more dovish interest rate policy. Similarly, when the Fed is reducing its asset purchases, it tends to also be preparing the market for eventual rate hikes. This makes it impossible to say conclusively whether a given move in bond yields is driven by interest rate guidance or balance sheet actions. In our minds, this casts a lot of doubt on the notion that the Fed could maintain its current interest rate guidance during the next 6-12 months while also preventing a rise in Treasury yields by increasing asset purchases. The policy of increasing asset purchases would appear incoherent if it wasn’t also paired with increasingly dovish forward rate guidance, guidance that the Fed is likely unwilling to deliver. Bottom Line: Even if the Fed modestly increases its monthly pace of Treasury purchases, or shifts some purchases further out the curve as some FOMC participants have suggested, the impact on long-dated Treasury yields will be negligible without a concurrent shift in interest rate guidance. The Hedging Effectiveness of Treasuries Is Diminished, But Not Gone Completely One topic that has come up a lot recently in our client interactions is the idea that Treasury securities are no longer an effective hedge for equity portfolios. There are two possible reasons why this could be true. The first is that with Treasury yields so close to the zero-lower-bound there is very little scope for capital appreciation in bonds. The second is that Treasury yields may not respond to falling equity prices by declining, as they have in the past. We don’t currently see much evidence for the second reason. The only way that bond yields wouldn’t decline alongside a major equity sell-off is if that sell-off was driven by high and rising inflation and expectations that the Fed would aggressively hike rates to combat higher prices. Inflation is nowhere near high enough for this to be a concern. The first reason, however, could hold some water. To test it, we first looked at this year’s COVID-driven 34% drop in the S&P 500 that occurred between February 19th and March 23rd (Table 1). If an investor purchased a 5-year Treasury note on February 19th and sold it on March 23rd, they would have earned 5.21% on that trade, offsetting some portion of the equity decline. The same trade in a 30-year T-bond would have earned 16.65%. Long-maturity Treasuries still perform their role as hedging instruments for equity portfolios. But with starting bond yields much lower today, Treasuries may not offer the same protection. Table 2 shows how much an investor would earn if they bought a Treasury security today, held it for six months, and during that timeframe the entire spot yield curve fell to zero. We also show what returns would be earned if the yield curve shifted in the same way it did during the Feb 19th – Mar 23rd equity selloff, except we don’t let any yields fall into negative territory.2 Table 1Total Returns From Stock Market Peak (Feb. 19th) To Stock Market Through (Mar. 23rd) Table 2Treasury Total Returns Over A Hypothetical 6-Month Period Notice that projected returns for shorter maturities in Table 2 are significantly lower than the returns earned during the Feb 19th – Mar 23rd episode. A 5-year Treasury note will earn only 1.90% during the next six months if the entire yield curve falls to zero, this is well below the 5.21% earned in February and March. However, for maturities beyond 10 years, returns are similar between Table 1 and Table 2. This makes sense because, unlike the short-end, those long-dated yields are still fairly far from the zero bound. Bottom Line: Treasuries still perform their role as hedging instruments for equity portfolios, but investors now have to move further out the curve, and thus take more interest rate risk, to get the same protection they received from less-risky shorter-maturity notes in the past. US Economy: Digging Into Claims Chart 7Labor Market Update Initial unemployment claims spooked some investors when the weekly number jumped to +898k two weeks ago, even as the consensus was calling for a small decline.3 But that spike was completely reversed last week, and a good chunk of it was actually revised out of the data. A delay in California’s reporting was one reason for the big swing. The state had failed to report claims data for two consecutive weeks at the beginning of the month. This meant that the national claims number was based on an assumed figure for the state. California resumed reporting last week and the result was a big drop in overall claims, back down to +787k. Stepping back from the large swings of the past two weeks, a good portion of which are statistical artifacts stemming from California’s reporting delay, we see that overall employment trends haven’t changed much. Initial claims have flattened-off since late-August, but continuing claims are still falling rapidly (Chart 7). This suggests that the unemployment rate will drop again next week when October’s employment report is released. The big question in next week’s employment report will be whether the decline in the unemployment rate is once again driven by falling temporary unemployment, or whether the number of permanently unemployed workers will reverse its uptrend (Chart 7, bottom panel). All in all, the labor market data continue to paint a picture of an economy that is recovering but that still has a very large output gap. In other words, the economy is a long way from generating meaningful inflationary pressure. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 3Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep”, dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Blank cells in Table 2 mean that returns are the same as in the “Spot Curve Falls To 0%” scenario. 3 Please see BCA Daily Insights, “Slowing US Labor Market Momentum: Investors Should Not Have Been Surprised”, dated October 15, 2020, available at din.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Global Duration: US Treasury yields have started to creep higher and the move is likely to continue in the coming months regardless of who wins the White House. Reduce overall global duration exposure to below-benchmark, focused on the US. Country Allocation: Based on our view that US Treasury yields have more upside, we are making the following changes to our recommended country allocations in the government bond portion of our model bond portfolio: downgrading the US to underweight, downgrading higher-beta Canada and Australia to neutral, and raising lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and the UK to overweight. Treasury-Bund Spread: We introduce a new trade in our Tactical Overlay to capitalize on our expectation of higher US bond yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread: selling 10-year Treasury futures versus buying 10-year German bund futures. Feature In a Special Report jointly published last week with our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy, we laid out the case for why US Treasury yields have bottomed and should now begin to drift higher.1 We reached that conclusion for two reasons: 1) there will be a major US fiscal stimulus after the upcoming US election, especially so if Joe Biden becomes president and the Democrats take the Senate; and 2) the Fed’s shift to Average Inflation Targeting in late August represented the point of maximum Fed dovishness. The investment conclusions were to reduce duration exposure, while also downgrading our recommended allocation to US government bonds to underweight. We also advised cutting exposure to non-US government bond markets with relatively higher sensitivity to changes in US bond yields, while increasing allocations to countries with a lower “yield beta” to US Treasuries (Table 1). Table 1Updated GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning In this follow-up report, we will further discuss the implications of our changed view on US yields for non-US developed market government bonds. This includes specific adjustments to the recommended country allocations in our model bond portfolio, as well as a new tactical trade to profit from a move higher in US yields that will not to be matched in Europe. Our Recommended Overall Duration Stance: Now Below-Benchmark The case for a future cyclical bottoming of global yields has been building for the past few months, even as yields have remained range-bound at very low levels across the developed economies. Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of economic sentiment measures and leading economic indicators, bottomed back in March and has soared sharply since then (Chart of the Week). Given the usual lead time between peaks and troughs of the Indicator and global bond yields - around nine months, on average – that suggests yields should bottom out sometime before year-end. Chart of the WeekA Cyclical, US-Led Bottoming Of Global Bond Yields Chart 2UST Yields About To Break Out? In the US, we now think we are past that point, as we discussed last week. The 10-year US Treasury yield has been drifting higher during the month of October and is now bumping up against its 200-day moving average of 0.83% (Chart 2). This is only the first such attempt at a trend breakout in yields, and such a move is unlikely prior to US Election Day - or, more accurately, “US Election Is Decided Day” which may not be November 3! The case for a future cyclical bottoming of global yields has been building for the past few months, even as yields have remained range-bound. Outside the US, however, momentum of bond yields and potential trend breakouts paint a more mixed picture. German and French bond yields remain stable and generally trendless, with Italian and Spanish yields continuing to grind lower. At the same time, yields in the UK, Canada and Australia have started to perk up but remain just below their 200-day moving averages. Bond yields have not responded to the sharp cyclical rebound across the developed world, with large gaps between elevated manufacturing PMIs and stagnant bond yields (Chart 3). Low inflation, ample spare economic capacity and dovish monetary policies are all playing a role, with bond markets not expecting an imminent inflation surge that could drive up yields and fuel expectations of tighter monetary policy. By way of contrast, China - where domestic services sectors have improved at a rapid pace from the COVID-19 recession and where the central bank is not running an overly accommodative monetary policy – has seen a more typical positive correlation between government bond yields and the rising manufacturing PMI over the past several months (Chart 4). This suggests that developed market bond yields can begin to normalize if the domestic services side of those economies emerges more forcefully from the lockdown-induced downturn. Chart 3A Wide Gap Between Growth & Yields Chart 4Are Chinese Yields Sending A Message? The news on that front is more optimistic in the US compared in Europe. The Markit services PMIs for the euro area and UK have all weakened over the past few months, with headline inflation rates flirting with deflation (Chart 5). Similar data in the US has trended in the opposite direction, with stronger US services activity with rising inflation. Chart 5Deflation Risks In Europe, Not The US The pickup in new COVID-19 cases, and the degree of the response by governments to contain it, has been far stronger in Europe and the UK than in the US on a population-adjusted basis (Chart 6). Lockdowns have become more widespread across Europe to contain the second larger wave of the virus. The recent softer services PMI data in the euro area and UK are a reflection of those greater economic restrictions and weaker confidence. This gap between the US economy and non-US economies is only magnified by the fiscal stimulus measures proposed by both US presidential candidates.  In the US, governments have been far less willing to implement politically unpopular restrictions in an election year, while lockdown-weary consumers have been more willing to go about their lives rather than stay sheltered at home. The result is a healthier tone to the US data compared to other countries, even with the number of new US cases on the rise again. This gap between the US economy and non-US economies is only magnified by the fiscal stimulus measures proposed by both US presidential candidates. As we discussed in last week’s Special Report, both the Biden and Trump platforms are calling for major fiscal stimulus – between $5-6 trillion over the next decade, including tax changes – although the Biden plan has much more front-loaded direct government spending, only partially offset by tax increases, if fully implemented. This is the “Blue Sweep” scenario, with a Biden victory and Democratic Party control of the US Congress, that is most bearish for US Treasuries, as the outcome would eventually help reduce the expected 2021 US fiscal drag of -7.2% of GDP as estimated by the latest IMF Fiscal Monitor (Chart 7). Even a re-elected Trump, however, would also mean more US fiscal stimulus, although with a mix of tax cuts and spending increases. Chart 6The Latest COVID-19 Wave Is Hitting Europe Harder Combined with an improving services sector and rising inflation, this puts the US in a much different economic position than the major economies of Europe. Chart 7Post-Election US Stimulus Will Offset Fiscal Drag There, the IMF is also projecting some fiscal drag in 2021, but now with a much less healthy domestic economy due to the COVID-19 surge and where inflation is already near 0%. Our decision to reduce our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark is largely driven by trends in the US that are more bond-bearish than in the rest of the developed world. There will likely be another round of fiscal measures to help combat virus-stricken economies in Europe and elsewhere, but the US election is bringing the issue to the forefront more quickly. In other words, the US will get a more bond-bearish fiscal stimulus before Europe does. Bottom Line: US Treasury yields have started to creep higher and the move is likely to continue in the coming months regardless of who wins the White House. Reduce overall global duration exposure to below-benchmark, focused on the US. Our Recommended Country Allocation: Downgrade US, Upgrade Lower-Beta Countries Net-net, our decision to reduce our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark is largely driven by trends in the US that are more bond-bearish than in the rest of the developed world. This also has implications for our recommend country allocation in our model bond portfolio. First, are downgrading our recommended US Treasury allocation to underweight. We are also increasing our desired weighting in countries where government bond yields are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields – especially during periods when the latter are rising. We call this “upside yield beta”. The countries that have the highest such beta to US Treasuries are Canada, Australia and New Zealand, making them downgrade candidates (Chart 8). Similarly, lower upside beta countries like Germany, France, Japan and the UK are upgrade possibilities. Chart 8Favor Countries With Lower Yield Betas To USTs Already, we are seeing the widening of yield spreads between US Treasuries and non-US government markets – with more to come as US Treasuries grind higher over the next 6-12 months. We see the greatest upside for spreads between the US and the low upside yield beta countries – that means wider spreads for US-Germany, US-France, US-Japan and US-UK (Chart 9). Chart 9Expect More Underperformance From USTs Chart 10Fed QE Momentum Peaking, Unlike Other CBs Thus, this week are making significant changes to our strategic government bond country allocations (see page 15), as well as the country weightings in our model bond portfolio (see pages 13-14), based on our new view on US bond yields and non-US yield betas. Specifically, we are not only cutting our recommended US weighting to underweight, but we are also downgrading Canada and Australia from overweight to neutral. On the other side, we are upgrading UK Gilts to overweight from neutral, while also upgrading Germany, France and Japan to overweight. Importantly, we are maintaining our overweight stance on Italian and Spanish sovereign debt, as those markets are supported by greater European fiscal policy integration in the world of COVID-19 and, just as importantly, large-scale ECB asset purchases. More generally, the relative “aggressiveness” of central bank quantitative easing (QE) does play a role in our recommended country allocation. We expect the Fed to be more tolerant of higher Treasury yields if the move is driven by improving US growth and/or greater US fiscal stimulus – as long as the higher yields were not having a negative impact on equity or credit markets. We expect the Fed to be more tolerant of higher Treasury yields if the move is driven by improving US growth and/or greater US fiscal stimulus – as long as the higher yields were not having a negative impact on equity or credit markets. This means less expected QE buying of Treasuries by the Fed. Conversely, given how aggressive the Reserve Bank of Australia and Bank of Canada have been with expanding their balance sheet via QE (Chart 10), this makes us reluctant to shift to the underweight stance on those countries implied by their high beta to rising US Treasury yields. Therefore, we are only downgrading those two countries to neutral. Bottom Line: Based on our view that US Treasury yields have more upside, we are making the following changes to our recommended country allocations in the government bond portion of our model bond portfolio: downgrading the US to underweight, downgrading higher-beta Canada and Australia to neutral, and raising lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and the UK to overweight. A New Tactical Trade: A UST-Bund Spread Widener Using Futures This week, we are also introducing a new recommended trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 16 to take advantage of our view on US bond yields: a 10-year US-Germany spread widening trade using government bond futures. Chart 11A Tactical Opportunity For A Wider UST-Bund Spread This trade makes sense for several reasons: Germany has one of the lowest yield betas to US Treasuries during periods when the latter is rising, as shown earlier. Our US Treasury-German Bund fundamental fair value spread model – which uses relative policy interest rates, unemployment and inflation between the US and the euro area as inputs - suggests that the spread is now far too tight after the massive rally in US Treasuries in 2020 (Chart 11). The main reason why the spread looks so “expensive” is that the underlying fair value has risen with US inflation rising and euro area inflation falling (Chart 12, bottom panel). The UST-Bund yield differential is not stretched from a technical perspective, when looking at deviations of the spread from its 200-day moving average or the 26-week change in the spread; both measures suggest room for additional spread widening before reaching historical extremes (Chart 13). Also, duration positioning by US fixed income investors is only around neutral, according to the JP Morgan duration survey, suggesting scope to push yields higher if bond investors become more defensive. Chart 12Inflation Differentials Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread Chart 13Technical Trends Favor A Wider UST-Bund Spread As a reference, we are initiating this trade with the cash bond 10-year US-Germany spread at +138bps, with a target range of +170-190bps over the 0-6 month horizon we maintain for our Tactical Overlay positions. Bottom Line: We introduce a new trade in our Tactical Overlay to capitalize on our expectation of higher US bond yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread: selling 10-year Treasury futures versus buying 10-year German bund futures.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Special Report, "Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep", dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com and 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