Developed Countries

Special Report

The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015 In 2015, the nominal sales of global listed companies shrank by -11.3 percent, marginally worse than the -11.0 contraction suffered during the Great Recession of 2008.  But because few people are aware of the depth of this latter sales recession, we are calling it the ‘hidden sales recession of 2015’ (Feature Chart).  Chart I-1The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015 Significantly, all of the major stock markets suffered sales recessions in 2015, even when their domestic economies were expanding healthily (Chart I-2). Which starkly illustrates that the performance of stock markets often has little, or no, connection with the performance of their domestic economies. Chart I-2All The Major Stock Markets Suffered Sales Recessions In 2015 The euro area and UK economies grew strongly in 2015, yet the nominal sales of listed European companies contracted by -7 percent. Meanwhile, the sales of listed companies in the US shrank -3 percent, and in China by -10 percent. However, among the major stock markets, the worst pain was felt by the UK stock market where total nominal sales plunged -20 percent (Charts 3-5). Chart I-3US Listed Companies' Sales Shrank 3 Percent Despite A Growing Economy Chart I-4European Listed Companies' Sales Shrank 7 Percent Despite A Growing Economy Chart I-5UK Listed Companies' Sales Shrank 20 Percent Despite A Growing Economy The particularly sharp contraction in UK stock market sales, with their heavy exposure to the oil and resource sectors, points to the cause of the sales recession of 2015: the interrelated weakness in emerging markets, oil and other commodity prices, and a surging dollar. What Caused The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015? In 2015, Chinese policymakers started tightening policy to lean against a putative credit bubble. This exacerbated a slowdown in Chinese growth that was already underway. In turn, China’s slowdown set off a domino effect in other emerging economies which relied on China as a major export market. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve signalled its intention to exit its extended period of zero interest rate policy, arguing that extraordinarily easy monetary policy was no longer appropriate for a US economy that had returned to normality. On the other sides of the Atlantic and Pacific though, the ECB and the BoJ were moving monetary policy in the opposite direction, obsessed by the persistent undershoot of inflation relative to the two percent target. This combination of tighter monetary policy in the US combined with looser policy in the euro area and Japan precipitated a surge in the value of the dollar. The surging dollar worsened China’s problems. With the yuan pegged to the dollar, the stronger dollar hurt the competitiveness of Chinese companies. But when China loosened the peg in August 2015, it just unleashed another problem: capital outflows.  The price of WTI plunged from a $107 peak in mid-2014 to just $27 in early 2016. Crucially, the synchronized slowdown across emerging economies hit the demand for commodities, catalysing a collapse in prices across the whole commodity complex. The price of WTI plunged from a $107 peak in mid-2014 to just $27 in early 2016 (Chart I-6); metal markets also suffered, the copper price fell from $7000 to $4500; as did agricultural commodities like soybeans whose prices almost halved. This collapse in commodity prices simply added further pressure on emerging economies that are major commodity producers, like Brazil. Chart I-6The Sales Recession Of 2015 Was About A Collapse In Prices In Key Sectors Of The Economy In turn, the problems in the emerging economies and commodity complex set off other negative feedback loops that further hurt prices. For the significant portion of emerging market debt that is denominated in dollars, a stronger dollar meant a greater debt burden and danger of default. At the same time, the collapse in the oil price endangered the financial viability of the heavily indebted US shale oil producers and thereby their corporate bonds.     To summarise, the stock market sales recession of 2015 was partly about a slowdown in sales volumes. But it was more about a collapse in the prices in certain key sectors of the economy, namely oil, materials, and industrials. And as nominal sales are the product of sales volumes and prices, the nominal sales of listed companies suffered as sharp a recession in 2015 as in 2008. Why Does The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015 Matter Today? The experience of 2015 painfully illustrates that the nominal sales of the dominant companies in a stock market may have little, or no, connection with their domestic economy, or indeed with conventional measures of the global economy. The reason is that the stock market, which by definition only includes publicly listed companies, has different sector skews compared with the whole economy. This is particularly true for those European stock markets where sector skews make them over exposed to the oil, materials, and industrial sectors, whose output prices can show wild swings that swamp the impact of sales volumes. The years 2010-11 and 2017-18 witnessed a strong catch-up in listed companies’ nominal sales. But after this snapback phase, nominal sales revert to a more moderate trend-like rate of growth. Chart I-7After A Sales Recession, There Is A Snapback There is another important message for today. After a sharp contraction in nominal sales caused by either volumes or prices plunging, as in 2008 and 2015, the first part of the recovery from overly-depressed levels tends to be the sharpest. This sharp snapback phase tends to last no more than two years. So the years 2010-11 and 2017-18 witnessed a strong catch-up in listed companies’ nominal sales. But after this snapback phase, nominal sales revert to a more moderate trend-like rate of growth (Chart I-7). Clearly, the sharp snapback phase is most powerful for the most beaten-up sectors during the nominal sales recession, such as energy and materials. For such ‘value cyclicals’, nominal sales growth tends to outperform that of the aggregate stock market in the snapback, and then underperform once the snapback is over (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8Energy Outperforms In The Snapback, Then Underperforms Chart I-9Materials Outperform In The Snapback, Then Underperform Chart I-10Healthcare Underperforms In The Snapback, Then Outperforms The corollary is that the sectors that did not suffer much during the sales recession, such as healthcare do not have a snapback phase. Hence, for such a ‘growth defensive’, nominal sales strongly underperform the aggregate market during the two year snapback, and then outperform once the snapback is over (Chart I-10). Let’s conclude with some brief investment thoughts. First, for mainstream stock markets, nominal sales and earnings can grow in 2020, but the growth rate will not be as strong as in the snapback phase of 2017-18. Without any support from lower bond yields and the associated multiple expansion for stocks, this means that stock markets are likely to deliver low single digit returns. Second, value cyclicals such as energy and materials outperformed in the snapback phase from 2017 to mid-2019, but now appear to be rolling over into an underperformance phase. Structurally underweight energy and materials. For mainstream stock markets, nominal sales and earnings can grow in 2020, but the growth rate will not be as strong as in the snapback phase of 2017-18.  Third, a growth defensive such as healthcare underperformed sharply in the snapback phase, but now appears to be back in an outperformance phase. Stay structurally overweight healthcare.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Global High-Yield: The widening of US Caa-rated high-yield spreads is narrowly focused in Energy-related companies. The conditions for a spillover into the broader junk bond market (tight monetary policy, tightening lending standards & deteriorating corporate health) are not currently in place. Stay overweight high-yield in both the US and euro area, where Caa-rated spreads have also widened. Australia: A sluggish economy and soggy inflation, with little evidence of an imminent turnaround, imply that the Reserve Bank of Australia may not be done with its rate cutting cycle. Maintain an overweight stance on Australian sovereign debt relative to global benchmarks. Feature There’s Nothing To “Caa” Here The clouds of pessimism on global growth, and financial markets, continue to slowly dissipate. The global manufacturing PMI has clearly bottomed, our rising global leading economic indicator is signaling more upside for the first half of 2020, equity markets worldwide are grinding higher, volatility is subdued, while corporate credit spreads in the US and Europe remain generally tight. Yet within the corporate bond market, a peculiar dynamic has emerged. We do not see a reason to extrapolate the weakness in lower-rated US junk bonds into a broader macro issue for the corporate bond market, and the US economy. The option-adjusted spread (OAS) for the overall Bloomberg Barclays US high-yield (HY) index now sits at 376bps. While this spread is relatively narrow from a longer-term perspective, investors may have become more discerning about credit risk. Lower-rated HY has dramatically underperformed higher-rated HY debt of late, with the US Caa-rated OAS now sitting at 985bps compared to Ba-rated spreads of 196bps (Chart of the Week). The divergence across credit tiers is unprecedented, in that Caa spreads are widening while Ba spreads are narrowing – typically, spreads move in tandem directionally, both in bull and bear markets for US junk bonds. The widening of US Caa-rated junk bond spreads has started to raise concerns that this is a “canary in the coal mine” signaling future financial stress among US corporate borrowers. Yet the same dynamic is occurring in euro area HY, with Caa-rated and Ba-rated spreads tracking the US on an almost tick-for-tick basis. In a report published yesterday, our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy investigated the history of Caa spread widenings dating back to 1996.1 They noted that Caa spread widening has typically been a good predictor of one-year-ahead negative excess returns for the overall US junk bond index. However, there has never been a period like today where Caa spreads have widened while overall HY spreads have remained stable. Chart of the WeekSome Odd Divergences In Global Credit We do not see a reason to extrapolate the weakness in lower-rated US junk bonds into a broader macro issue for the corporate bond market, and the US economy, for two main reasons: Chart 2Lower Energy Prices Hurt Lower Rated US HY 1) The widening is focused on Energy related debt The widening of US Caa-rated spreads in 2019 has occurred alongside a parallel increase in the spreads of Energy-related companies in the US junk bond universe (Chart 2). A similar trend played out during the 2014/15 HY bear phase, which was triggered by the collapse of world oil prices that ravaged the US shale oil industry which dominated the lower-rated tiers of the junk bond market. In 2019, oil prices have declined, although not as dramatically, and HY Energy spreads have widened but to nowhere near the levels seen five years ago. More importantly, non-Energy junk spreads remain very subdued and stable, unlike the case in 2014/15 (bottom panel). When looking at the 2019 year-to-date excess returns for the Bloomberg Barclays US HY index, it is clear that the overall negative returns for the Caa-rated bucket have been driven by the lagging performance of Energy names (Chart 3). The rest of the market has generally been delivering solid excess returns. Chart 3Contribution To 2019 YTD US HY Excess Returns* 2) The widening has not been confirmed by signals from other reliable credit cycle indicators We believe that, from a top-down macro perspective, corporate credit performance in the US is influenced by three main factors: the state of US corporate health, the stance of the Fed’s monetary policy and the trend in lending standards for US banks. We have dubbed this our “Credit Checklist”, and we present a version of that checklist for US high-yield in Chart 4. Chart 4Conditions Not In Place For A Broad US HY Selloff Our “bottom-up” US HY Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) aggregates, for a sample set of US HY issuers, published financial ratios that are typically used to determine the creditworthiness of borrowers – measures like interest coverage, operating margins and leverage. The US HY CHM is currently at a “neutral” reading (2nd panel), unlike past periods where Caa-rated spreads widened sharply: during the early 2000s telecom bust, the 2008 Financial Crisis and the 2014/15 collapse in oil prices. The readings for the three components of our US HY Credit Checklist are all at neutral levels, suggesting that there is no fundamental underpinning at the moment for a sustained increase in US HY spreads. Yet another reason why the latest widening of Caa-rated spreads looks unusual. Turning to measures of the stance of US monetary policy, we look at both the slope of the US Treasury curve (2-year vs 10-year) and the gap between the real fed funds rate and the New York Fed’s estimate of the neutral “r-star” rate. Prior to the early 2000s and 2008 blowout in Caa spreads, the Fed had pushed the real funds rate into restrictive territory above r-star, and the Treasury curve subsequently inverted. That was not the case during the 2014/15 Caa widening, as the Fed was only beginning to transition away from its QE/zero-rate era at that time. Currently, the real funds rate is right at r-star, and the Treasury curve is very flat but not inverted, indicating a broadly neutral monetary policy stance. Finally, we look at data from the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey to evaluate lending standards for US banks. On that front, the latest reading on standards for commercial and industrial loans showed a very modest tightening in the third quarter of 2019, but the overall level remains broadly neutral – unlike the sharp tightening of conditions seen in the early 2000s and 2008 (and the modest tightening in 2014/15). The readings for the three components of our US HY Credit Checklist are all at neutral levels, suggesting that there is no fundamental underpinning at the moment for a sustained increase in US HY spreads. Yet another reason why the latest widening of Caa-rated spreads looks unusual, rather than a sign of future stress in US credit markets. We even see a similar dynamic at work in the euro area. In Chart 5, we present a Credit Checklist for euro area HY, using the same indicators that go into our US HY Credit Checklist. The readings here are even more positive for corporate credit performance than in the US. Our euro area bottom-up HY CHM is showing no deterioration of euro area corporate health, the real ECB policy rate is well below the estimate of r-star, the German yield curve is not inverted and the ECB’s survey of euro area bank lending standards showed a modest easing in the third quarter. Just like in the US, the fundamental backdrop does not argue for a sustained period of euro area HY spread widening, making the latest move higher in euro area Caa spreads as unusual as the move in US Caa. We cannot even blame lower oil prices for the spread widening, as Energy represents only a tiny fraction of the euro area HY market, compared to the large weighting of Energy borrowers in the US junk bond universe. Chart 5Conditions Not In Place For A Broad European HY Selloff We suspect that the correlation between US and euro area HY spreads, by credit tier, has more to do with the increased correlation of trading within global credit markets. Or perhaps it is a sign of investors staying cautious and staying up in quality, even within the riskier HY market. Whatever the reason, we see little fundamental reason to expect the widening of Caa-rated spreads to leak into the broader high-yield market. In fact, if oil prices begin to move higher again, as our commodity strategists are expecting for 2020, that might create a tactical buying opportunity in Caa-rated junk bonds in both the US and euro area. In the meantime, we see no reason to change our recommended overweight stance on US and euro area HY corporate bonds, even with the widening of lower-rated spreads. Bottom Line: The recent widening of US Caa-rated high-yield spreads is narrowly focused in Energy-related companies. The conditions for a spillover into the broader junk bond market (tight monetary policy, tightening lending standards & deteriorating corporate health) are not currently in place. Stay overweight high-yield in both the US and euro area, where Caa-rated spreads have also widened. Australia: The RBA May Not Be Done Yet The rally in Australian government bonds has been driven by the dovish policy response from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to weak economic growth and tepid inflation – a backdrop that is showing little sign of reversing quickly. We have maintained a recommended overweight investment stance on Australian government bonds since December 19, 2017. Since then, the yield on Bloomberg Barclays Australian Treasury index has declined by -140bps, sharply outperforming bonds in the other developed markets and ending Australia’s long-time status as a “high-yielding” developed economy bond market (Chart 6). The rally in Australian government bonds has been driven by the dovish policy response from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to weak economic growth and tepid inflation – a backdrop that is showing little sign of reversing quickly. The central bank has already cut interest rates by 75bps this year, taking the Cash Rate down to a record low of 0.75%. At the November 5th monetary policy meeting, the RBA held off on additional easing but still delivered what was perceived by the market to be a dovish surprise, emphasizing persistently below-target inflation and potential downside risks stemming from the housing market. The door was kept wide open for further rate cuts, if necessary. RBA Governor Philip Lowe has even discussed the possibility that the RBA may have to cut rates to the zero bound and start buying assets via quantitative easing to try and restore inflation back to the midpoint of the RBA’s 2-3% target band. Chart 6Australian Bonds Have Outperformed Sharply   The RBA’s dovishness is justified, given sluggish economic growth and tepid inflation. Real GDP growth slowed sharply in the first half of 2019 to a meager 1.4% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 7). Consumer sentiment and business confidence remain depressed, having both declined since the start of the year. The former is being hit by weak house prices and sub-par income growth, while the latter is suffering under the weight of weaker demand from Australia’s most important trade partner, China. In addition, persistent drought conditions in much of the country have pushed up food prices and brought down incomes related to the farming sector. Chart 7Sluggish Australian Domestic Demand Chart 8From Boom To Bust In Australian Housing A bellwether for the Australian economy, the housing market, has not fared much better (Chart 8). Building approvals for new dwelling units have fallen almost 20% since September of last year, while house prices in the major cities have been contracting since the fourth quarter of 2017. Responding to easy financial conditions in Australia and the rest of the world, the standard variable mortgage rate has now fallen to a 60-year low. It remains to be seen how quickly the housing market will turn around and when that, in turn, will lift dwelling investment, but the RBA cuts in 2019 should give a bit of a lift to Australian housing in 2020. As in other developed markets, trade uncertainty and fears of a recession have made Australian firms more hesitant to invest. Real private business investment is now falling in year-over-year terms, even with the boost to the terms of trade (and corporate profits) from the increase in prices for Australia’s most important commodities seen in 2019 (Chart 9). That impact may be starting to fade, however. The price for iron ore – a major Australian commodity export – has already fallen 28% from the 2019 peak. In addition, Chinese iron ore imports from Australia are contracting in year-over-terms, even with Chinese growth starting to show signs of stabilization in response to stimulus measures implemented earlier this year. Those is an ominous signal for Australian growth, given the massive swing in net exports seen this year. Chart 9Terms Of Trade Turning Negative For Australian Capex Chart 10An Unsustainable Lift From Net Exports Driven by the persistent depreciation of the Australian dollar, and supportive terms of trade, the Australian trade balance has reached its highest value as a percent of nominal GDP (3.7%) since 1959, when quarterly data began (Chart 10). The surge has come almost entirely from the export side, occurring alongside the boost to commodity prices that was concentrated in iron ore, and looks both unsustainable and unrepeatable on a rate-of-change basis. Slowing Australian economic momentum has also impacted the labor market. Employment growth is slowing and the unemployment rate has ticked up to 5.3% from a cyclical low of 5% in February 2019 (Chart 11). The so-called “underemployment rate”, is a much higher 8.5%, indicating that there is still ample slack in the Australian labor market as workers are working fewer hours than they wish (and are hence, “underemployed”). The underemployment rate is negatively correlated to wage growth, suggesting that the modest upturn in the latter seen since the end of 2016 is likely to cool off (bottom panel). Chart 11Some Softening In The Australian Labor Market Chart 12Australian Inflation Remains Subdued The RBA has already warned that wage growth expectations may have become anchored at a lower level given the anemic growth over the past several years. That mirrors the trend seen in overall price inflation. Headline CPI inflation was only 1.6% in the third quarter of 2019, as was the “trimmed mean” CPI inflation rate that is favored by the RBA. Both are below the bottom end of the RBA’s target range of 2-3%, as are survey-based expectations of short-term inflation (Chart 12). The previously mentioned drought conditions have put some upward pressure on overall inflation via grocery food prices, but that is expected to be transitory. With depressed house prices and ongoing issues with spare capacity in the labor market, longer-term market-based inflation expectations, captured by the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate, have dipped below the 2% level. The combination of weakening growth and soggy inflation poses a problem for the RBA, as it tries to use monetary policy tools to reverse those trends at a time when Australian banks have seen an unprecedented level of scrutiny of their lending practices. Australian banks have been under the harsh political spotlight after the government’s Royal Commission on misconduct in the financial industry released its findings back in February of this year. Many banks were exposed for serious violations, including money laundering and “improperly” selling financial products to households. Several top bank executives lost their jobs as a result, with the overall industry duly chastised and humbled.  Australian banks remain well capitalized, following the path of most developed market banks in response to the Basel III reforms, while non-performing loans remain modest. Yet the risk moving forward is that Australian banks become more prudent in their lending practices after the public “flogging” they received this year, which may impair the transmission mechanism from low RBA policy rates to increased loan growth - and, eventually, faster economic activity. Already, private credit growth has slowed sharply, with the sharpest declines coming for housing and business lending (Chart 13). Investment implications for Australian bonds In the case of Australia, however, the underlying economy and inflation trends still point to a possibility that the RBA will have to ease again sometime in the next few months – a move that is unlikely to be matched in the other major developed markets. This likely means that Australian government bonds can continue to outperform in 2020. Despite signs that the global economy is starting to bottom out after the 2019 downturn, the momentum in Australian economic growth and inflation remains tepid. This suggests that Australian sovereign debt is likely to continue outperforming global peers on a relative basis over the next 6-12 months. Our RBA Monitor continues to signal that more interest rate cuts from the RBA are needed. Yet the Australian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve now discounts only 19bps of rate cuts over the next year (Chart 14). This mirrors the trend seen in other developed interest rate markets, as investors have shifted to pricing out the dovish policy expectations as global growth starts to improve. Chart 13Weakening Loan Demand, But No Credit Crunch Chart 14Stay Overweight Australian Government Bonds In the case of Australia, however, the underlying economy and inflation trends still point to a possibility that the RBA will have to ease again sometime in the next few months – a move that is unlikely to be matched in the other major developed markets. This likely means that Australian government bonds can continue to outperform in 2020. We advise staying strategically overweight Australian government bonds in global fixed income portfolios. Bottom Line: A sluggish economy and soggy inflation, with little evidence of an imminent turnaround, imply that the Reserve Bank of Australia may not be done with its rate cutting cycle. Maintain an overweight stance on Australian sovereign debt relative to global benchmarks.     Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Overweight While we were a tad early lifting the broad S&P health care sector to an overweight stance mid-year, quarter-to-date, health care stocks are the best performing GICS1 sector up 10%, besting the SPX by 450bps. Such consistent health care outperformance is significant and we reiterate our overweight stance on this defensive sector. Elizabeth Warren’s moves in the polls are a key driver behind the recent health care stellar returns and we would continue to lean against any increase in her probabilities of both winning the Democratic nomination and the 2020 Presidency (see chart). Importantly, Warren’s toning down of her “Medicare For All” speedy adoption to a more pragmatic phase-in approach over a number of years fueled the stampede into health care stocks in general and managed health care (which we are also overweight) in particular. Bottom Line: Any selloff in health care equities due to Warren’s rise in the polls presents an excellent buying opportunity. Stay overweight the S&P health care sector.

Highlights Duration: Incoming data are consistent with our view that global growth is at an inflection point, and will improve during the next few months. As this plays out and recessionary fears fade into the background, we expect the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield to settle near 2.5%, 57 bps above its current level. High-Yield: Caa-rated debt has underperformed the duration-matched Treasury index so far this year, despite strong performance for junk bonds overall. We document that weak Caa returns often precede negative returns for the overall junk index. High-Yield: We show several ways in which this year’s Caa underperformance is unique compared to prior episodes. All in all, we conclude that we should not take too strong a signal from the recent Caa spread widening. Remain overweight high-yield in US bond portfolios. The Way Back To 2.5% Chart 1Target 2.5% Worries about a looming US recession peaked in late August when the 2/10 Treasury curve inverted and the 10-year yield hit 1.47%. Since then, some better economic data and the prospect of a “phase 1” US/China trade deal have lifted yields and un-inverted the curve. But the bond market is not yet sending the all-clear. Once recession fears completely fade into the background, we would expect the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield to settle near 2.5%. This is the FOMC’s median estimate of the longer-run fed funds rate, and also where the 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked during the last two global growth upturns (Chart 1). We expect that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield will reach 2.5% in the first half of 2020, but global growth needs to rebound for that to happen. At present, we detect some positive signals from our preferred global growth indicators. The Global Manufacturing PMI troughed at 49.3 in July and came in at 49.8 in October (Chart 1, bottom panel). Then last week, Flash PMI data showed further gains in November for the US, Eurozone and Japan (Chart 2). Only the UK saw its manufacturing PMI drop in November, and it accounts for a mere 2% of the global index. There is no Flash PMI estimate for China. We detect some positive signals from our preferred global growth indicators.  More signs of economic optimism are found in regional manufacturing PMIs, which continue to diverge positively from the national number (Chart 3). November data have already been released for New York, Philadelphia, Kansas City and Dallas. All four surveys point to a stronger national print. Chart 2A Bottom In Global PMIs Chart 3Regional PMIs Hooking Up Other data released last week include the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Indicator, which held flat at just above zero in year-over-year terms (Chart 4). The Leading Index is at a key inflection point. A rebound from here would be consistent with the 2015/16 episode (our base case expectation), while a dip into negative territory would sound some alarm bells. Chart 4Keep A Close Eye On Jobless Claims October existing home sales and housing starts came out last week (Chart 4, panels 2 & 3). Both series continue to rebound sharply from the depressed levels seen earlier in the year. This should not be too surprising, given this year’s large drop in mortgage rates. It will be more interesting to see what happens to the housing data as bond yields move higher and the stimulus from low rates fades. We have previously argued that the housing market will provide important clues about where bond yields will peak for the cycle. It will be critical to monitor the housing data as bond yields move higher in 2020.1 One note of caution comes from initial jobless claims, which printed at 227k in each of the past two weeks, slightly above recent levels (Chart 4, bottom panel). Claims remain roughly flat on a 6-month basis, consistent with continued economic recovery. However, a sustained increase would send an important warning sign about the labor market. We will be watching claims closely during the next few weeks. Bottom Line: Incoming data are consistent with our view that global growth is at an inflection point, and will improve during the next few months. As this plays out and recessionary fears fade into the background, we expect the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield to settle near 2.5%, 57 bps above its current level. The Puzzling Underperformance Of Caa-Rated Junk Bonds Chart 5The Puzzling Case Of Caa-Rated Junk Bonds Overall high-yield returns have been solid in 2019, but oddly, the lowest-rated junk bonds have not participated in the rally. So far this year, Ba and B-rated junk bonds have bested duration-matched Treasuries by 786 bps and 717 bps, respectively. But Caa-rated bonds have underperformed the duration-matched Treasury index by 87 bps (Chart 5). We usually think of the Caa-rated credit tier as being “higher beta” than the Ba and B tiers. That is, it should perform best in “risk on” environments, and worst in “risk off” environments. With that in mind, this year’s Caa underperformance is puzzling, and raises two important questions that we attempt to answer in this report. Is Caa underperformance a warning sign for the overall junk sector? Can we identify the reasons for this year’s Caa underperformance? And if so, do they suggest a buying opportunity? A Caa-nary In The Coal Mine? To assess whether this year’s Caa underperformance might be a warning sign for overall junk bond excess returns, we ran a few tests using historical data. First, we looked at calendar year excess returns going back to 1996 (Table 1). We then tested the performance of a couple trading rules to see whether Caa performance is a bellwether for the overall index. For the first test, we identified calendar years when junk index excess returns were positive but Caa was the worst performing credit tier. Four years fit this criteria: 1999, 2005, 2014 and 2019. Of the three years other than 2019, two (1999 and 2014) were followed by negative junk index excess returns the next year. Table 1Junk Excess Returns By Calendar Year We also posited that one difference between the Caa and Ba/B credit tiers might be that Caa-rated firms tend to be smaller. We therefore identified calendar years when junk index excess returns were positive but when small cap equities underperformed large cap equities. We identified eight such years. Of the seven years other than 2019, five were followed by negative junk index excess returns the next year. Both rules appear to give a good warning sign for the overall junk index. What if we combine them? We identify three years when junk index excess returns were positive, but Caa was the worst performing credit tier and small cap equities lagged large caps: 1999, 2014 and 2019. Both 1999 and 2014 were followed by negative junk index excess returns the next year. So far the evidence of Caa underperformance being a warning sign for the overall index is quite compelling. But let’s look more closely at the periods flagged by our trading rules. It is only this year that we have seen a large divergence in terms of direction between Caa spreads and overall junk index spreads. Recall that we identified 2019, 2014, 2005 and 1999 as the four years when overall junk index excess returns were positive, but when the Caa credit tier was the worst performer. If we look at the direction of junk spreads in those periods, we see that the direction of Caa spreads tracked the overall index very closely throughout 2014, 2005 and 1999. It is only this year that we have seen a large divergence in terms of direction between Caa spreads and overall junk index spreads (Chart 6). This divergence is odd, and it suggests that this year is unique compared to the other periods identified in our analysis (more on this below). Chart 62019 Is Unique Another reason to doubt the potential relevance of our calendar year analysis is that the decision to use calendar years is arbitrary, and it severely limits our sample size. We therefore run the same analysis using rolling 12-month periods. The results are presented in Table 2. Table 2Predictive Power Of Caa Returns: Rolling 12-Month Periods From December 1996 To October 2019 First, note the baseline result that there are 178 12-month periods of positive junk index excess returns in our sample. Of those 178 periods, 31% were followed by negative excess returns during the subsequent 12 months. If we apply our “Caa Return” filter and look only at 12-month periods when junk index excess returns were positive but Caa was the worst performing credit tier, our 178 examples fall to just 22. Of those 22 episodes, half were followed by negative junk index excess returns during the subsequent 12 months. Our “Small Cap/Large Cap Equity” filter provides a similar 51% hit rate with a larger sample size of 78. In this analysis we also test a “Caa Spread” filter where we scan for 12-month periods when junk index excess returns were positive, but when Caa spreads widened despite tightening in the overall index spread. We identify only 16 such periods, 56% of which were followed by negative index excess returns. We also looked at what happens when we combine two or more of our filters. Using our “Caa Return” and “Small Cap / Large Cap Equity” filters together, we identify only 18 episodes, 61% of which were followed by negative junk index excess returns during the next 12 months. If we take all three of our filters together, we find only 5 episodes, 4 of which preceded a period of negative junk excess returns. Please recall that the most recent 12-month period meets the criteria of all three of our filters. As was the case with our Table 1 results, an important caveat to this analysis is that of the 5 episodes identified by all three of our filters, the direction of Caa spreads never diverged from the direction of the overall index spread. In fact, we could find no historical period other than this year when Caa spreads diverged in direction from the overall index spread for so long. We conclude that Caa underperformance can provide advance notice of negative junk index excess returns, but also that the current period is so unique that it requires further analysis. Can We Explain The Divergence Between Caa Spreads And The Overall Index? As mentioned above, the current period of sharply widening Caa spreads alongside a rangebound overall index spread is unique historically. This not only raises questions about the relevance of the historical analysis we just presented, but also cries out for an explanation. Fortunately, several things appear to explain the odd behavior of Caa spreads. First, changes in index duration. Junk index duration fell dramatically in 2019, but the decline was much larger for Ba and B rated credits than for the Caa tier. If we control for changes in index duration by looking at 12-month breakeven spreads instead of the average index option-adjusted spread, we see that the spread divergence looks much less dramatic (Chart 7). Controlling  for changes in index duration by looking at 12-month breakeven spreads instead of the average index OAS, we see that the spread divergence looks much less dramatic. Second, it’s possible that credit quality has deteriorated more for the lowest-rated credits than for the rest of the junk index. That would explain the spread divergence. However, this appears to not be the case. Our bottom-up sample of high-yield firms shows that debt-to-assets and interest coverage look similar compared to history for both the median high-yield firm and the worst 10% of firms (Chart 8). Chart 7A Duration Story Chart 8Credit Quality Is Not The Culprit   Finally, we consider the sector composition of the different credit tiers. We look at year-to-date sector contributions to each credit tier’s excess returns and find that the difference between Caa and the rest of the index is concentrated in the Energy and Communications sectors (Chart 9). Caa-rated Communications firms underperformed the Ba and B credit tiers because of two Caa-rated firms – Frontier Communications Corp and Intelsat – that ran into problems. As for Energy, we note that the Caa tier has much more exposure to the Oil Field Services sub-sector than the other credit tiers. This sub-sector captures many of the shale players, who have struggled with falling oil prices. Notice that this year’s decline in the WTI oil price tracks Caa spread widening very closely (Chart 10). Chart 9Contribution To Year-To-Date Excess Returns* (%)   Chart 10Blame Energy The Appendix at the end of this report provides a sector decomposition of the different junk credit tiers. Specifically, it presents three tables. One showing the sector weights in each credit tier. A second showing year-to-date excess returns for each sector by credit tier. A third showing the contribution from each sector to each credit tier’s year-to-date excess returns. Investment Conclusions Overall, we are hesitant to make too much of the recent Caa underperformance. Yes, we find compelling evidence that Caa underperformance can be a bellwether for negative high-yield excess returns. However, the behavior of Caa spreads in 2019 doesn’t resemble the prior periods in our analysis very closely. Specifically, the Caa spread doesn’t tend to diverge from the overall index spread in terms of direction, as it has this year. We are also able to identify two compelling reasons for this year’s divergence between Caa spreads and the overall index. The first is the change in relative index duration, and the second is stress in the shale oil sector due to a falling oil price. Spreads should adjust to changes in duration over time, and the stress in the shale sector should ease if oil prices rise as our commodity strategists expect.2 Given the uniqueness of the current period, and our base case outlook for a rebound in global growth, we are inclined to view Caa bonds (and junk bonds more generally) as an attractive buying opportunity in the current environment. But we will keep an eye on the performance of Caa bonds during the next few months. If global growth recovers and the oil price rises, but Caa continues to lag the overall index, then it may compel us to change our view. Appendix Table 3Sector Weights Within High-Yield Corporate Bond Credit Tiers* (%) Table 4Sector Year-To-Date Excess Return* By High-Yield Credit Tier (%) Table 5Sector Contribution To Year-To-Date Excess Return* For Each High-Yield Credit Tier (%) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Our commodity strategists forecast an average price of $63/bbl for WTI crude oil in 2020. Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Lingering Oil-Demand Weakness Will Fade”, dated November 21, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Underweight We reiterate our recent downgrade in the S&P semi equipment index to underweight. Our previous mid-year attempt to fight this rally in chip equipment stocks fell short, but thankfully our prudent risk management metric limited our losses. While still early, there is tentative evidence that our underweight stance is starting to bear fruit as the position has moved in our favor. We expect to harvest more gains down the road as a potential trade tension flare up and sustained capex blues leave no room for error in the perfectly priced S&P semi equipment index. Please refer to this Weekly Report for additional details. Bottom Line: We remain underweight the S&P semi equipment index, and maintain the stop loss at the -10% relative return mark. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the index are: BLBG – S5SEEQ – AMAT, LRCX, KLAC.