Developed Countries

Pervasive global policy uncertainty continues to fuel USD safe-haven demand. This keeps the Fed’s broad trade-weighted dollar index for goods close to record highs, which continues to stifle oil demand. At present, we do not expect this pervasive uncertainty to dissipate. For this reason, we are lowering our oil-demand growth expectation slightly for this year and next. Our estimate of global supply growth is slightly lower for this year and next, as well; we continue to expect OPEC 2.0 to maintain production discipline and for capital markets to restrain U.S. shale-oil growth.1 Our price forecast for 4Q19 is $66/bbl on average, an estimate that includes a risk premium reflecting continued tension in the Persian Gulf. Our updated supply-demand balances for 2020 reduce our Brent price forecast to $70/bbl versus our earlier expectation of $74/bbl. We continue to expect WTI to trade $4.00/bbl below Brent next year. Highlights Energy: Overweight. The Trump administration likely will not renew Chevron’s waiver to operate in Venezuela when it expires October 25. This raises the likelihood the country’s oil output will fall below 300k b/d, down from the 650k b/d we currently estimate.2 Production could revive next year, if Russian or Chinese firms step in to fill the void. This is not certain, however, as the U.S. is pressing both to end their support for the Maduro regime. Separately, the Aramco IPO could occur as early as November, according to press reports. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper treatment and refining charges in Asia are staging a recovery, clocking in at $56.70/MT at the end of last week, according to Metal Bulletin’s Fastmarkets. The MB index fell to a record low of $49.20/MT in late August. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold volatility remains elevated – standing at 15.1% p.a. on the COMEX – as markets continue to process news re a partial easing of tensions in the Sino-US trade war. Geopolitical tensions, which now encompass Turkey-US relations, remain elevated. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Uncertainty around a partial deal involving ag exports from the U.S. to China remains high, as negotiators deliberately minimize expectations of a successful outcome. The big sticking point appears to be whether U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports due to kick in in December will be removed. Feature Uncertainty arising from global economic policy risk continues to dominate commodity markets. This has been the case going on three years. While it is ubiquitous, it is difficult to isolate. In earlier research, we noted the tightening of global financial conditions – largely the result of the Fed’s rates normalization policy, which resulted in four rate hikes last year, and China’s deleveraging policy – were responsible for the sharp slowing of oil demand seen in 2H18-1H19.3 Recently concluded research allows us to extend our earlier thesis to account for the effect of pervasive global policy uncertainty over the past three years, which has dominated our analysis of commodity markets generally, oil in particular. To wit: We find a strong, positive correlation between uncertainty, as measured by the Baker-Bloom-Davis Global Economic Policy Uncertainty (GEPU) index, and the Fed's USD broad trade-weighted index for goods (TWIBG) from January 2017 to now (Chart of the Week).4 Chart of the WeekUSD Absorbs Global Policy Uncertainty USD Absorbs Global Uncertainty Sudden policy shifts have, over the past three years, resulted in a steady increase in the level of the GEPU index. Prior to 2017, the correlations between the GEPU index and the USD TWIBG were running at 33% and 63% for the periods 2000 to 2016 and 2010 to 2016, the post-GFC period for y/y returns. However, as right- and left-wing populism gained ground globally and monetary policy generally became more “data dependent” and ad hoc at the Fed, ECB and BoJ, the GEPU and USD TWIBG indices became highly correlated, surpassing 90% (Chart 2).5 This period saw the U.S. become more and more assertive vis-à-vis trade and foreign policy, particularly in re China, Iran and Venezuela, which caused those states to implement their own policy responses. In addition, as monetary policy generally became increasingly accommodative, central banks – and policy analysts – became less certain about the effects of their policies on the broader economy (e.g., the Fed shifting away from rates normalization, the ECB’s re-launching of QE, and the BoJ’s interest-rate targeting regime). Chart 2Co-Movement In GEPU, USD TWIBG Often, commodity markets were forced to adjust to sudden policy changes – e.g., the imposition of trade tariffs against China, or the granting of waivers to Iran’s eight largest importers in November 2018 just before oil-export sanctions were re-imposed. Sudden policy shifts have, over the past three years, resulted in a steady increase in the level of the GEPU index. Increasing uncertainty translated into a steadily increasing USD TWIBG, with safe-haven demand for dollars rising, as the Chart of the Week indicates. To date, we have not decomposed the drivers of monetary conditions, particularly in re central-bank accommodation versus global economic policy uncertainty on the evolution of the USD. The GEPU index hit a record high in August 2019, while the USD TWIBG hit a record in September 2019. It is possible the effects of general policy uncertainty could be cumulative – as earlier uncertainties remain unresolved and new ones are added to the global mix (e.g., US-Turkey foreign-policy tensions now have been added to other geopolitical risks). It is entirely possible global monetary policy easing – particularly from the Fed – is accommodating safe-haven demand accompanying higher uncertainty. If the Fed were to tighten while uncertainty remains elevated the USD could rally sharply and impact commodity demand even more. Persistent USD Strength Lowers Oil Price Forecast Based on our analysis, the effects of the uncertainty we observe in the USD above are transmitted to GDP globally, which feeds through to commodity demand. As the USD strengthens, it raises the local-currency cost of commodities and the cost of servicing USD-denominated debt ex-US. In addition, on the supply side, a stronger dollar lowers local production costs at the margin, which stokes deflation globally.  All else equal, these effects push oil prices lower by reducing demand and increasing supply at the margin. On the back of a stronger USD and persistent uncertainty, we are once again lowering our estimate of global demand growth. This is most pronounced in EM economies (Chart 3), but there are feedback effects into DM in the form of reduced trade volumes, which hits manufacturing economies like Germany harder than service-dominated economies like the US. On the back of a stronger USD and persistent uncertainty, we are once again lowering our estimate of global demand growth to 1.13mm b/d this year and 1.40mm b/d in 2020 (Chart 4). This is down slightly from 1.2mm b/d this year and 1.5mm b/d next year. In line with the U.S. EIA, we also lowered our estimate of 2018 demand, which has the effect reducing the level of demand we expect in 2019 and 2020. Chart 3Local-Currency Oil Costs Are High Chart 4BCA Research Supply-Demand Balances We maintain our expectation fiscal and monetary stimulus globally will revive demand, but, given the deleterious effects of global uncertainty and its effects on demand via the USD, we are moderating our position some, as the downward adjustment to consumption indicates. On the supply side, we expect KSA’s output to be fully restored by November, and for production in the Kingdom to average 9.9mm b/d in October and November. We are expecting overall OPEC 2.0 output growth of 250k b/d on average in the 2Q20 to 4Q20 interval, down from our previous growth estimate of 500k b/d. In the US, we expect shale-oil output to grow 900k b/d in 2020, versus 1.3mm b/d in 2019, which will leave overall U.S. crude output at 13.3mm b/d next year on average, as capital-market constraints continue to act as a governor on total output (Chart 5). Chart 5U.S. Shale-Oil Output Will Remain Capital-Constrained Overall, we expect global supply to finish 2019 at 100.8mm b/d and at 102.3mm b/d next year, which is down slightly from our earlier estimates (Table 1). Even with demand moderating, we expect inventories to continue to draw this year and into 3Q20 before they resume building, as the combination of OPEC 2.0 production discipline and capital markets constrain output (Chart 6). Chart 6OECD Oil Inventories On Track To Draw Table 1 Investment Implications Continued voluntary and involuntary production restraint will allow global inventories to draw despite slightly lower demand. Given our supply-demand expectations, we forecast Brent will trade lower next year, at $70/bbl on average versus our earlier expectation of $74/bbl. This is ~ $10/bbl above the median consensus. We continue to expect WTI to trade $4.00/bbl below Brent next year. Continued voluntary and involuntary production restraint will allow global inventories to draw despite slightly lower demand, which will keep Brent and WTI forward curves backwardated next year (WTI was in a slight carry earlier this week, while Brent was backwardated). We would caution that any resolution of the profound uncertainty currently dogging global markets could unleash pent-up demand that would sharply rally commodities generally, and oil in particular. This could take the form of a broad trade agreement that ends the Sino-US trade war – an unlikely, but not impossible,  turn of events – or an unexpected reduction in tensions in the Persian Gulf, again, unlikely but not impossible. Bottom Line: Resolution of global policy uncertainty would revive commodity demand, as safe-haven USD demand gives way to higher consumer spending, renewed growth in global trade and investment. Until then, uncertainty will continue to hamper commodity demand growth, particularly for oil.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the moniker we coined for the producer coalition formed at the end of 2016 to regain control of production following the disastrous market-share war launched by OPEC in 2014, which took Brent prices from above $100/bbl to $26/bbl by early 2016.  The coalition is led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. 2      Please see Venezuelan oil output could be halved without Chevron waiver extension: analysts, posted by S&P Global Platts October 14, 2019.  3      Please see our report entitle Central Bank Easing Key To Oil Prices, published September 5, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4      This GEPU is a monthly GDP-weighted index of newspaper headlines containing a list of words related to three categories – “economy,” “policy” and “uncertainty.”  Newspapers from 20 countries representing almost 80% of global GDP (on an exchange-weighted basis) are scoured monthly to create the index.  Please see GEPU and Baker-Bloom-Davis for additional information. 5      Both series are plotted as percent changes y/y in Chart 2. For the 2017 - 2019 period, the coefficient of determination for this model is 0.81 using a regression of the USD on the GEPU.  There was no statistically significant relationship between them either from 2000 to 2016, or from 2010 to 2016.  Insert SOFTS text here Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q3 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights New structural recommendation: long GBP/USD. The substantial Brexit discount in the pound makes it a long-term buy for investors who can tolerate near-term volatility. The most powerful equity play on a fading Brexit discount would be the U.K. homebuilders. Specifically, Persimmon still has a further 25 percent of upside. Take profits in long Euro Stoxx 50 versus Shanghai Composite. Within Europe, close the overweight to Switzerland and the underweight to the Netherlands. Stay overweight banks versus industrials. Stay overweight the Euro Stoxx 50 versus the Nikkei 225. Fractal trade: long NZD/JPY. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Pound Has Substantial Upside If The Brexit Discount Fades Carnival Says The Pound Is Cheap Carnival, the world’s largest cruise liner company, lists its shares on both the London and New York stock exchanges. But there is an apparent riddle: in London the shares trade on a forward PE of 8.8, while in New York they trade on 9.4. How can Carnival trade at different valuations on the two sides of the Atlantic when the market should instantly arbitrage the difference away? The answer to the riddle is that the London listing is quoted in pounds, the New York listing is quoted in dollars, while Carnival’s sales and profits are denominated in a mix of international currencies. Neither Brexit developments nor a potential Jeremy Corbyn led government will prevent the pound from rallying in the longer term.  Carnival is trading on a higher valuation in New York versus London because the market is expecting its mixed currency earnings to appreciate more in dollar terms than in pound terms. Put another way, the valuation differential is expecting the pound to appreciate versus the dollar to a ‘fair value’ of around $1.40 (Chart I-2). Likewise, BHP Billiton shares are trading on a higher valuation in their Sydney listing compared to their London listing. This valuation differential is expecting the pound to appreciate versus the Australian dollar to around A$2.00 (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Carnival Says The Pound Is Cheap Chart I-3BHP Billiton Says The Pound Is Cheap In other words, the market believes that neither Brexit developments nor a potential Jeremy Corbyn led government will prevent the pound from rallying in the longer term. We tend to agree. The Wrong Way To Pick Stock Markets… And The Right Way Before continuing with the pound’s prospects, let’s wander into the wider investment landscape. One important lesson from dual-listed companies like Carnival and BHP Billiton is that a multinational’s valuation will appear attractive in a market where the currency is structurally cheap.1 This lesson has deep ramifications. Today, multinationals dominate all the major stock markets, meaning that the entire stock market will appear cheap if its currency is cheap. The stock market will also appear cheap if it is skewed towards lower-valued sectors. But sectors trade on a low valuation for a reason – poor long-term growth prospects. Through the past decade, Japanese banks seemed a relative bargain, trading on a forward PE of less than half of that on personal products companies (Chart I-4). Yet Japanese banks were not a relative bargain. Quite the contrary. Through the past decade Japanese personal products have outperformed the banks by 500 percent! (Chart I-5) Chart I-4Japanese Banks Seemed A Relative Bargain... Chart I-5...But Japanese Banks Were Not A Relative Bargain Hence, beware of picking stock markets on the basis of observations such as ‘European stocks are cheaper than U.S. stocks’. Given that a stock market valuation is the result of its currency valuation and its sector composition, assessing relative value across major stock markets is extremely difficult, if not impossible. To repeat, Carnival appears to be trading at a valuation discount in London versus New York, but the cheapness is illusory. Here’s the right way to pick major stock markets. Identify your preferred sectors and currencies, and then pick the regional and country stock markets that are skewed to these preferred sectors and currencies. In this regard, large underweight sector skews also matter. For example, China and EM have a near-zero exposure to healthcare equities, so their performances tend to correlate negatively with that of the global healthcare sector – albeit the causality could run in either direction. Identify your preferred sectors and currencies, and then pick the regional and country stock markets that are skewed to these preferred sectors and currencies. In early May, we noticed that the extreme outperformance of technology versus healthcare was at a critical technical point at which there was a high probability of a trend reversal. This high conviction sector view implied overweight Europe versus China, as well as overweight Switzerland and underweight Netherlands within Europe (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6When Tech Underperforms Healthcare, China Underperforms Switzerland Chart I-7When Tech Underperforms Healthcare, The Netherlands Underperforms Switzerland   Given that this sector trend reversal has played out exactly as anticipated, it is time to bank the profits:   Close long Euro Stoxx 50 versus Shanghai Composite. And within Europe, close the overweight to Switzerland and the underweight to the Netherlands. Right now, it is appropriate to overweight banks versus industrials. It is the pace of the bond yield’s decline that has weighed on bank performance this year. But if the sharpest decline in bond yields is behind us, as seems likely, then banks should fare better versus other cyclicals (Chart I-8). Chart I-8If The Sharpest Decline In Bond Yields Is Over, Banks Will Outperform Industrials Once again, this sector view carries an equity market implication: stay overweight the Euro Stoxx 50 versus the Nikkei 225 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Banks In Euros Vs. Global Industrials In Yen The Pound Is A Long-Term Buy Back to the pound. The message from the dual listings of Carnival and BHP Billiton is that the pound is cheap, and this is neatly corroborated by the relationship between relative interest rates and the pound versus the euro and dollar. Based on the pre-Brexit relationship between relative real interest rates and the pound’s exchange rate, we can quantify the ‘Brexit discount’. Absent this discount, the pound would now be trading close to €1.30 and well north of $1.40 (Chart of the Week and Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Pound Has Substantial Upside If The Brexit Discount Fades In the Brexit psychodrama, we do not claim to know exactly how the next few days or weeks will play out. In the short term, Brexit is a classic non-linear system, and non-linear systems are inherently unpredictable. However, in the longer term we expect the Brexit discount to fade in any sort of transitioned resolution that allows the U.K. to adapt to a new trading relationship with the world, or alternatively to stay in a relationship broadly similar to the current one. Whatever the eventual endpoint is, the key requirement to remove the Brexit discount is to avoid a cliff-edge. We expect the Brexit discount to fade in any sort of transitioned resolution. The stumbling block to a resolution is that the three key actors – the EU, the U.K. government, and the U.K. parliament – have conflicting red lines, so the Brexit ‘Venn diagram’ has had no overlap. The EU will not countenance a customs border that divides Ireland; the current U.K. government wants a Free Trade Agreement, which implies casting away Northern Ireland into the EU customs union; and the current U.K. parliament – unless its intentions suddenly change – wants the whole of the U.K., including Northern Ireland, to remain in the EU customs union.   Given that the EU will not budge its red line, the only way to a lasting resolution is for the government and parliament red lines to realign, This could happen via parliament being willing to sacrifice Northern Ireland, via a second referendum, or via a general election in which the government’s intentions and/or the composition of parliament changed. Given a long enough investment horizon – 2 years or more – it is likely that the government and parliament will realign their red lines to a Free Trade Agreement or to a customs union, one way or another. On this basis, the substantial Brexit discount in the pound makes it a long-term buy for investors who can tolerate near-term volatility. Accordingly, today we are initiating a new structural recommendation: long GBP/USD.  For equity investors, the most powerful play on a fading Brexit discount would be the U.K. homebuilders (Chart I-11). Specifically, if the pound reached $1.40, Persimmon still has a further 25 percent of upside. Chart I-11U.K. Homebuilders Have Substantial Upside If The Brexit Discount Fades Fractal Trading System*  Based on its collapsed fractal structure, we anticipate a countertrend rally in NZD/JPY within the next 130 days. Accordingly, go long NZD/JPY setting a profit target of 3 percent and a symmetrical stop-loss. Chart I-12 For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions.   * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 There are also several companies with dual listings in the U.K. and the euro area. Unfortunately, these valuation differentials have been temporarily distorted by the risk of a no-deal Brexit, in which EU27 investors may have been forbidden from trading in the U.K. listed shares. Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Fractal Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

A more speculative and higher octane vehicle to explore the trade war-related mispricing from Part I of this Insight is via a long S&P machinery/short S&P semiconductors pair trade. Most of the drivers mentioned in Part I also hold true in this subsector market-neutral trade, but we have to introduce another key driver: China. Encouragingly, China’s fiscal and credit impulse signals that a bottom in relative share prices is likely already in place. If this leading indicator proves accurate in the coming months, then relative share prices can spike 20%, near the late-2018 highs (top panel). Moreover, Chinese money supply growth is showing some signs of life and capital committed to infrastructure spending is coming out of hibernation (second & bottom panels). Goldman Sachs’ China current activity indicator is on a similar upward trajectory, underscoring that the path of least resistance is higher for relative share prices (third panel). Bottom Line: We have initiated a long S&P industrials/short S&P tech pair trade and a long S&P machinery/short S&P semiconductors pair trade in yesterday’s Weekly Report. ​​​​​​​

In this Monday’s Weekly Report we initiated a new long/short trade idea that will generate alpha regardless of the pair trade war outcome: long industrials/short tech. If the U.S. and China manage to iron out their differences and strike a deal, industrials should benefit from a greater catch-up phase because they have been depressed over the past two years, while tech stocks are near relative all-time highs. In contrast, a “no deal” scenario, should also re-concentrate investors’ minds and lead to relative selling in tech stocks versus their already beaten-down deep cyclical peers: industrials. Three key macro forces will be driving the rebound in the price ratio. First, were the deal to get struck, growth expectations will pick up pushing rates higher, which are a boon for industrials and a bane for high P/E tech stocks (top panel). Second, we expect the ISM manufacturing survey to outshine the San Francisco Fed’s Tech Pulse Index (middle panel). Finally, relative capital expenditure outlays should also veer in favor of industrials as previously mothballed infrastructure projects will come out of hibernation (bottom panel). On the other hand, should a “no-deal” scenario occur, we doubt that these three macro forces that we identified would sink further (please see the next Insight). ​​​​​​​

Highlights Duration & Fed: Our late-1990s & 2015/16 roadmap for the economy still holds, but risks are mounting. Despite the risks, we expect that trade tensions will calm enough for the economic data to improve during the next few months. The result will be one more Fed rate cut this month, followed by an extended on-hold period. Investors should keep portfolio duration low in that environment. Junk Quality Spreads: This year’s divergence between the Caa/Ba quality spread and the high-yield index spread is highly unusual, but has more to do with movements in Treasury yields and changing index duration than with broader concerns about corporate credit quality. Investment Grade Risk & Reward: We present a novel approach for assessing the risk/reward trade-off among investment grade corporate bond sectors. We note that Saudi Arabian and Mexican Sovereign bonds, Foreign Agency bonds and Conventional 30-year Agency MBS look particularly attractive in risk-adjusted terms. Feature Contagion? This publication has repeatedly pointed to the late-1990s and the 2015/16 periods as appropriate comparables for today’s global growth slowdown. That is, we expect that the current spate of weakness will stay confined within the manufacturing sector and will not spread into the broader economy, leading the U.S. into recession. This call is important from an investment perspective because it implies that the Fed is not currently engaged in an easing cycle that will bring the funds rate back to zero. Rather, we anticipate only three rate cuts this year (we’ve already seen two), followed by the eventual resumption of hikes. Bond yields will not make new lows in that environment. Chart 1Manufacturing Weakness Spreading? Chart 2"Hard" Data Still Firm But some data received this month challenge our economic narrative. Specifically, September’s drop in the ISM Non-Manufacturing PMI from 56.4 to 52.6 and the year-over-year decline in the Conference Board’s survey of consumer confidence (Chart 1). Both are sending tentative signals that economic weakness might be spreading from the manufacturing sector into the broader U.S. economy. The Fed is worried about the same thing, as evidenced by this passage from the September FOMC minutes: One risk that the economy faced was that the softness recorded of late in firms’ capital formation, manufacturing, and exporting activities might spread to their hiring decisions, with adverse implications for household income and spending. Participants observed that such an eventuality was not embedded in their baseline outlook; however, a couple of them indicated that this was partly because they assumed that an appropriate adjustment to the policy rate path would help forestall that eventuality. This passage makes two important points. First, it stresses the risk of contagion from manufacturing into services and consumer spending as a precondition for recession. This risk has clearly increased, but we are not yet ready to abandon our base case outlook. For one thing, Chart 1 shows that the ISM Non-Manufacturing survey printed at 51.8 for one month in 2016, before rebounding sharply. Second, the “hard” economic data paint a much rosier picture that the “soft” survey data (Chart 2). Industrial production has already bounced off its lows and, unlike the ISM Manufacturing PMI, has not yet approached 2015/16 levels. Similarly, new orders for capital goods are much stronger than during the 2015/16 period. As for consumer spending, it continues to grow at a rapid pace despite the drop in confidence. Chart 3Expect One Rate Cut In October The most logical explanation for the divergence between “hard” and “soft” data is that business and consumer sentiment are being pulled down by concerns about the ongoing trade war. Our sense is that some positive news on that front is now required to bring the survey data back into line with the “hard” numbers. On that note, we anticipate that the looming 2020 election will provide enough incentive for President Trump to reach some sort of détente with China. In fact, as we go to press, optimism about a potential trade deal has pushed the 10-year Treasury yield up above 1.70%. If this optimism is not vindicated, then weak survey data will eventually drag the “hard” data lower. The economy is at a critical and highly uncertain juncture. Amidst so much uncertainty, and with so much hinging on near-term political decisions, how should we expect the Fed to respond? The above passage from the September FOMC minutes gives us a strong clue. It illustrates that the Fed believes that sufficiently accommodative monetary policy will help mitigate the risk of contagion from manufacturing into services and consumer spending. In other words, the Fed must help weather the current storm by ensuring that financial conditions remain supportive. This means refraining from delivering hawkish surprises to market expectations.1 The Fed believes that sufficiently accommodative monetary policy will help mitigate the risk of contagion from manufacturing into services and consumer spending. With that in mind, we note that the market has mostly priced-in an October rate cut (Chart 3), and we expect the Fed to deliver on that expectation. Assuming an October cut, the market is only pricing-in a 28% chance of another cut in December. Overall, the market is priced for 59 basis points of rate cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate a 25 bps cut this month, followed by an improvement in the economic data that will make further cuts unnecessary. Bottom Line: Our late-1990s & 2015/16 roadmap for the economy still holds, but risks are mounting. Despite the risks, we expect that trade tensions will calm enough for the economic data to improve during the next few months. The result will be one more Fed rate cut this month, followed by an extended on-hold period. Investors should keep portfolio duration low in that environment. High-Yield Quality Spreads: Less Than Meets The Eye Corporate bonds have generally performed quite well this year, but oddly, the lowest tier of junk has not kept pace (Chart 4). Investment grade excess returns have followed a typical risk-on pattern. That is, the lowest rated / riskiest credit tiers have performed best in a bull market. However, in the high-yield space, Caa-rated debt has bucked the trend and actually underperformed the duration-matched Treasury index by 33 bps. Chart 4Caa-Rated Junk Is Not Keeping Pace Is this a potentially worrying sign for corporate spreads more generally? To consider the question, we looked at the historical relationships between quality spreads – the spread differential between low-rated and high-rated credit tiers – and the overall index spreads for both investment grade and high-yield. We found a strong positive correlation in both cases, but no leading or lagging properties. That is, quality spreads tend to follow the same trend as the overall index spread, but do not flag signs of trouble before the overall index. Nonetheless, the current divergence between the Caa/Ba quality spread and the high-yield index spread is highly unusual (Chart 5). Our sense, however, is that the divergence has less to do with concerns about credit quality and more to do with this year’s large moves in Treasury yields and changes to bond index duration. Chart 5De-Coupling In Quality Spreads... Chart 6...Is Due To Duration   Specifically, we note that this year’s large decline in Treasury yields has caused junk index duration to plunge, but the drop has been greater for the Ba credit tier than the Caa credit tier (Chart 6). Ba index duration has fallen by 0.8 this year (from 4.4 to 3.5), while Caa index duration has fallen by 0.6 (3.4 to 2.8). The result is that if we control for changes in duration by looking at a 12-month breakeven spread instead of the average index option-adjusted spread (OAS), we see that the quality spread widening is roughly consistent with the overall index (Chart 6, panel 3).2 In other words, the steep drop in Treasury yields has not led to the same reduction in risk in the Caa credit tier as it has in the other junk credit tiers. Caa spreads have widened on a relative basis, as a result. This year’s large decline in Treasury yields has caused junk index duration to plunge. It’s also interesting to note that the opposite dynamic is afoot within the investment grade corporate space. The Baa/Aa quality spread is more or less consistent with the overall index spread in OAS terms (Chart 5, top panel), but the quality spread widening is exacerbated when the impact of changing duration is considered (Chart 6, panels 1 & 2). That is, index duration has lengthened by more for the upper credit tiers than it has for the Baa credit tier. This makes Baa corporates look particularly attractive in risk-adjusted terms, as we have noted in prior research.3 From a big picture perspective, it is unusual for Treasury yields to fall so much without a concurrent widening in credit risk premiums. Eventually, this anomaly will be resolved by either: Higher Treasury yields in the event that recession is avoided, or Wider credit spreads in the event of a contraction in U.S. economic activity But in the meantime, negatively convex sectors such as high-yield corporates and Agency MBS look particularly attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. These sectors have benefited from the drop in Treasury yields by seeing their durations fall. They should perform well as long as the current environment of low Treasury yields and stable credit spreads persists. We take a more detailed look at the prospects for risk-adjusted performance within the different investment grade bond sectors in the next section. Risk And Reward In Investment Grade Bond Sectors As mentioned above, in this week’s report we present a novel approach for considering the risk/reward trade-off between different investment grade sectors of the U.S. bond market. We consider 23 sectors in total: 4 corporate credit tiers Conventional 30-year Agency MBS and Agency CMBS Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS, credit card ABS and auto loan ABS Domestic and Foreign Agency bonds Supranationals Local Authority bonds (mostly taxable munis and USD-denominated Canadian provincial debt) USD-denominated Sovereign bonds for 10 different emerging markets Reward First, we consider the reward side of the equation. We do not impose any macro view, but instead, use the average index OAS as the best estimate for each sector’s 12-month expected excess returns relative to a duration-matched position in Treasuries. Chart 7 shows the expected excess returns for each sector. Right away, the attractiveness of Mexican sovereign debt is apparent. Mexico carries an A rating, but offers a greater spread than the Baa corporate index. Chart 7Expected Returns Risk We decided to assess risk using a breakeven spread framework. We calculate a 12-month breakeven spread for each sector. This spread represents the basis point spread widening required for each sector to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasury securities on a 12-month horizon. We calculate the breakeven spread using the following equation: 0 = OAS – D(B) + 0.5*CVXs*(dYs)2 - 0.5*CVXT*(dYT)2 Where: OAS = the sector’s option-adjusted spread D = the sector’s duration B = the breakeven spread CVXs = the sector’s convexity CVXT = the convexity of a duration-matched Treasury security dYs = trailing 1-year volatility of the sector’s yield dYT = trailing 1-year volatility of the duration-matched Treasury yield Chart 8 shows each sector’s 12-month breakeven spread, and it illustrates that the breakeven spread is a sub-optimal measure of risk. In theory, the highest breakeven spreads should be the least likely to see losses, but this is obviously not the case. Baa-rated South African Sovereign debt carries the largest breakeven spread, but it should be among the riskiest of the sectors. Chart 812-Month Breakeven Spreads The missing piece of the puzzle is spread volatility. South African sovereign spreads need to widen by 39 bps before losses are incurred, while Aaa-rated credit card ABS spreads only need to widen by 13 bps. However, if spread volatility is much higher for South African sovereigns than for credit card ABS, then the sovereign sector still might be more likely to see losses. To control for this difference we calculate the standard deviation of annual spread changes for each sector, starting from May 2014 when all sectors have available data. We then divide each sector’s breakeven spread by the result. This calculation gives us a volatility-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread. In other words, it is the number of standard deviations of spread widening required for each sector to see losses on a 12-month horizon (Chart 9). Chart 912-Month Volatility-Adjusted Breakeven Spreads Risk & Reward We bring risk and reward together in Charts 10-12. Chart 10 shows expected returns on the y-axis and the vol-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread on the x-axis. Sectors plotting near the top-right of the chart give the best returns and lowest risk of losses, while sectors plotting near the bottom-left provide low expected returns and high risk of losses. Immediately, Saudi Arabian sovereigns and Foreign Agency debt stand out as offering high expected returns for their risk levels. Note that South African sovereigns plot off the charts, toward the top-left of Charts 10-12, as indicated by the arrows. Chart 10Expected Returns Vs. Risk Of Negative Excess Returns Chart 11Expected Returns Vs. Risk Of Losing 100 BPs Chart 12Expected Returns Vs. Risk Of Losing 200 BPs In Charts 11 and 12 we make one further refinement to our risk measure. In these charts, instead of calculating 12-month breakeven spreads, we calculate the spread change necessary for each sector to underperform Treasuries by 100 bps and 200 bps, respectively. Saudi Arabian sovereigns and Foreign Agency debt stand out as offering high expected returns for their risk levels. This adjustment arguably gives a more useful perspective on risk. For example, because spreads are quite narrow in the Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors, the risk of negative returns versus Treasuries is quite elevated. However, these sectors also carry high credit ratings and low spread volatility, making it exceedingly unlikely that they would deliver losses of 100 bps or more. Considering Charts 11 and 12, we look for sectors that clearly dominate other ones, i.e. plotting both higher and further to the right. Once again, Foreign Agencies and Saudi Arabian sovereigns both look very appealing. Mexican sovereign debt also offers very high expected return, and less risk that the Baa corporate sector. We would also like to point out the attractiveness of Agency MBS. As we noted in a recent report, Agency MBS offer considerably less risk than high-rated corporate debt, and similar expected returns. Note that this analysis doesn’t impose any macroeconomic view, and our sense is that the macro back-drop is more favorable for MBS spreads than for corporates.4 All in all, we reiterate our recommendation to favor Agency MBS over Aaa-, Aa- and A-rated corporate bonds. We will continue to refine this approach to measuring the risk/reward trade-off in the coming weeks, including incorporating high-yield debt into our analysis. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For further discussion on this topic please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Act As Appropriate”, dated August 27, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. It can be approximated by dividing the option-adjusted spread by duration, as is done in Chart 6. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification