Developed Countries

Special Report

Highlights We update our long-range forecasts of returns from a range of asset classes – equities, bonds, alternatives, and currencies – and make some refinements to the methodologies we used in our last report in November 2017. We add coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, and include Emerging Markets debt, gold, and global Real Estate in our analysis for the first time. Generally, our forecasts are slightly higher than 18 months ago: we expect an annual return in nominal terms over the next 10-year years of 1.7% from global bonds, and 5.9% from global equities – up from 1.5% and 4.6% respectively in the last edition. Cheaper valuations in a number of equity markets, especially Japan, the euro zone, and Emerging Markets explain the higher return assumptions. Nonetheless, a balanced global portfolio is likely to return only 4.7% a year in the long run, compared to 6.3% over the past 20 years. That is lower than many investors are banking on. Feature Since we published our first attempt at projecting long-term returns for a range of asset classes in November 2017, clients have shown enormous interest in this work. They have also made numerous suggestions on how we could improve our methodologies and asked us to include additional asset classes. This Special Report updates the data, refines some of our assumptions, and adds coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, as well as gold, global Real Estate, and global REITs. Our basic philosophy has not changed. Many of the methodologies are carried over from the November 2017 edition, and clients interested in more detailed explanations should also refer to that report.1 Our forecast time horizon is 10-15 years. We deliberately keep this vague, and avoid trying to forecast over a 3-7 year time horizon, as is common in many capital market assumptions reports. The reason is that we want to avoid predicting the timing and gravity of the next recession, but rather aim to forecast long-term trend growth irrespective of cycles. This type of analysis is, by nature, as much art as science. We start from the basis that historical returns, at least those from the past 10 or 20 years, are not very useful. Asset allocators should not use historical returns data in mean variance optimizers and other portfolio-construction models. For example, over the past 20 years global bonds have returned 5.3% a year. With many long-term government bonds currently yielding zero or less, it is mathematically almost impossible that returns will be this high over the coming decade or so. Our analysis points to a likely annual return from global bonds of only 1.7%. Our approach is based on building-blocks. There are some factors we know with a high degree of certainly: such as the return on U.S. 10-year Treasury yields over the next 10 years (to all intents and purposes, it is the current yield). Many fundamental drivers of return (credit spreads, the small-cap premium, the shape of the yield curve, profit margins, stock price multiples etc.) are either steady on average over the cycle, or mean revert. For less certain factors, such as economic growth, inflation, or equilibrium short-term interest rates, we can make sensible assumptions. Most of the analysis in this report is based on the 20-year history of these factors. We used 20 years because data is available for almost all the asset classes we cover for this length of time (there are some exceptions, for example corporate bond data for Australia and Emerging Markets go back only to 2004-5, and global REITs start only in 2008). The period from May 1999 to April 2019 is also reasonable since it covers two recessions and two expansions, and started at a point in the cycle that is arguably similar to where we are today. Some will argue that it includes the Technology bubble of 1999-2000, when stock valuations were high, and that we should use a longer period. But the lack of data for many assets classes before the 1990s (though admittedly not for equities) makes this problematic. Also, note that the historical returns data for the 20 years starting in May 1999 are quite low – 5.8% for U.S. equities, for example. This is because the starting-point was quite late in the cycle, as we probably also are now.   We make the following additions and refinements to our analysis: Add coverage of the U.K., Australia, and Canada for both fixed income and equities. Add coverage of Emerging Markets debt: U.S. dollar and local-currency sovereign bonds, and dollar-denominated corporate credit. Among alternative assets, add coverage of gold, global Direct Real Estate, and global REITs. Improve the methodology for many alt asset classes, shifting from reliance on historical returns to an approach based on building blocks – for example, current yield plus an estimation of future capital appreciation – similar to our analysis of other asset classes. In our discussion of currencies, add for easy reference of readers a table of assumed returns for all the main asset classes expressed in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD (using our forecasts of long-run movements in these currencies). Added Sharpe ratios to our main table of assumptions. The summary of our results is shown in Table 1. The results are all average annual nominal total returns, in local currency terms (except for global indexes, which are in U.S. dollars). Table 1BCA Assumed Returns Unsurprisingly, given the long-term nature of this exercise, our return projections have in general not moved much compared to those in November 2017. Indeed, markets look rather similar today to 18 months ago: the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield was 2.4% at end-April (our data cut-off point), compared to 2.3%, and the trailing PE for U.S. stocks 21.0, compared to 21.6. If anything, the overall assumption for a balanced portfolio (of 50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% equal-weighted alts) has risen slightly compared to the 2017 edition: to 4.7% from 4.1% for a global portfolio, and to 4.9% from 4.6% for a purely U.S. one. That is partly because we include specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia, and Canada, where returns are expected to be slightly higher than for the markets we limited our forecasts to previously, the U.S, euro zone, Japan, and Emerging Markets (EM). Equity returns are also forecast to be higher than 18 months ago, mainly because several markets now are cheaper: trailing PE for Japan has fallen to 13.1x from 17.6x, for the euro zone to 15.5x from 18.0x, and for Emerging Markets to 13.6x from 15.4x (and more sophisticated valuation measures show the same trend). The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, based on our analysis, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. We include Sharpe ratios in Table 1 for the first time. We calculate them as expected return/expected volatility to allow for comparison between different asset classes, rather than as excess return over cash/volatility as is strictly correct, and as should be used in mean variance optimizers. Chart 1Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns For volatility assumptions, we mostly use the 20-year average volatility of each asset class. As discussed above, historical returns should not be used to forecast future returns. But volatility does not trend much over the long-term (Chart 1). We looked carefully at volatility trends for all the asset classes we cover, but did not find a strong example of a trend decline or rise in any. We do, however, adjust the historic volatility of the illiquid, appraisal-based alternative assets, such as Private Equity, Real Estate, and Farmland. The reported volatility is too low, for example 2.6% in the case of U.S. Direct Real Estate. Even using statistical techniques to desmooth the return produces a volatility of only around 7%. We choose, therefore, to be conservative, and use the historic volatility on REITs (21%) and apply this to Direct Real Estate too. For Private Equity (historic volatility 5.9%), we use the volatility on U.S. listed small-cap stocks (18.6%). Looking at the forecast Sharpe ratios, the risk-adjusted return on global bonds (0.55) is somewhat higher than that of global equities (0.33). Credit continues to look better than equities: Sharpe ratio of 0.70 for U.S. investment grade debt and 0.62 for high-yield bonds. Nonetheless, our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. Over the past 20 years a global balanced portfolio (defined as above) returned 6.3% and a similar U.S. portfolio 7.0%. We expect 4.7% and 4.9% respectively in future. Investors working on the assumption of a 7-8% nominal return – as is typical among U.S. pension funds, for example – need to become realistic. Below follow detailed descriptions of how we came up with our assumptions for each asset class (fixed income, equities, and alternatives), followed by our forecasts of long-term currency movements, and a brief discussion of correlations. 1. Fixed Income We carry over from the previous edition our building-block approach to estimating returns from fixed income. One element we know with a relatively high degree of certainty is the return over the next 10 years from 10-year government bonds in developed economies: one can safely assume that it will be the same as the current 10-year yield. It is not mathematical identical, of course, since this calculation does not take into account reinvestment of coupons, or default risk, but it is a fair assumption. We can make some reasonable assumptions for returns from cash, based on likely inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate in different countries. After this, our methodology is to assume that other historic relationships (corporate bond spreads, default and recovery rates, the shape of the yield curve etc.) hold over the long run and that, therefore, the current level reverts to its historic mean. The results of our analysis, and the assumptions we use, are shown in Table 2. Full details of the methodology follow below. Table 2Fixed Income Return Calculations Projected returns have not changed significantly from the 2017 edition of this report. In the U.S., for the current 10-year Treasury bond yield we used 2.4% (the three-month average to end-April), very similar to the 2.3% on which we based our analysis in 2017. In the euro zone and Japan, yields have fallen a little since then, with the 10-year German Bund now yielding roughly 0%, compared to 0.5% in 2017, and the Japanese Government Bond -0.1% compared to zero. Overall, we expect the Bloomberg Barclays Global Index to give an annual nominal return of 1.7% over the coming 10-15 years, slightly up from the assumption of 1.5% in the previous edition. This small rise is due to the slight increase in the U.S. long-term risk-free rate, and to the inclusion for the first time of specific estimates for returns in the U.K., Australia, and Canada. Fixed Income Methodologies Cash. We forecast the long-run rate on 3-month government bills by generating assumptions for inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate. For inflation, in most countries we use the 20-year average of CPI inflation, for example 2.2% in the U.S. and 1.7% in the euro zone. This suggests that both the Fed and the ECB will slightly miss their inflation targets on the downside over the coming decade (the Fed targets 2% PCE inflation, but the PCE measure is on average about 0.5% below CPI inflation). Of course, this assumes that the current inflation environment will continue. BCA’s view is that inflation risks are significantly higher than this, driven by structural factors such as demographics, populism, and the advent of ultra-unorthodox monetary policy.2 But we see this as an alternative scenario rather than one that we should use in our return assumptions for now. Japan’s inflation has averaged 0.1% over the past 20 years, but we used 1% on the grounds that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) should eventually see some success from its quantitative easing. For the equilibrium real rate we use the New York Fed’s calculation based on the Laubach-Williams model for the U.S., euro zone, U.K., and Canada. For Japan, we use the BoJ’s estimate, and for Australia (in the absence of an official forecast of the equilibrium rate) we take the average real cash rate over the past 20 years. Finally, we assume that the cash yield will move from its current level to the equilibrium over 10 years. Government Bonds. Using the 10-year bond yield as an anchor, we calculate the return for the government bond index by assuming that the spread between 7- and 10-year bonds, and between 3-month bills and 10-year bonds will average the same over the next 10 years as over the past 20. While the shape of the yield curve swings around significantly over the cycle, there is no sign that is has trended in either direction (Chart 2). The average maturity of government bonds included in the index varies between countries: we use the five-year historic average for each, for example, 5.8 years for the U.S., and 10.2 years for Japan. Spread Product. Like government bonds, spreads and default rates are highly cyclical, but fairly stable in the long run (Chart 3). We use the 20-year average of these to derive the returns for investment-grade bonds, high-yield (HY) bonds, government-related securities (e.g. bonds issued by state-owned entities, or provincial governments), and securitized bonds (e.g. asset-backed or mortgage-backed securities). For example, for U.S. high-yield we use the average spread of 550 basis points over Treasuries, default rate of 3.8%, and recovery rate of 45%. For many countries, default and recovery rates are not available and so we, for example, use the data from the U.S. (but local spreads) to calculate the return for high-yield bonds in the euro zone and the U.K. Inflation-Linked Bonds. We use the average yield over the past 10 years (not 20, since for many countries data does not go back that far and, moreover, TIPs and their equivalents have been widely used for only a relatively short period.) We calculate the return as the average real yield plus forecast inflation. Chart 2Yield Curves Chart 3Credit Spreads & Default Rates     Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Bond Indexes. We use the weights of each category and country (from among those we forecast) to derive the likely return from the index. The composition of each country’s index varies widely: for example, in the euro zone (27% of the global bond index), government bonds comprise 66% of the index, but in the U.S. only 37%. Only the U.S. and Canada have significant weightings in corporate bonds: 29% and 50% respectively. This can influence the overall return for each country’s index. Table 3Emerging Market Debt Emerging Market Debt. We add coverage of EMD: sovereign bonds in both local currency and U.S. dollars, and USD-denominated EM corporate debt. Again, we take the 20-year average spread over 10-year U.S. Treasuries for each category. A detailed history of default and recovery is not available, so for EM corporate debt we assume similar rates to those for U.S. HY bonds. For sovereign bonds, we make a simple assumption of 0.5% of losses per year – although in practice this is likely to be very lumpy, with few defaults for years, followed by a rush during an EM crisis. For EM local currency debt, we assume that EM currencies will depreciate on average each year in line with the difference between U.S. inflation and EM inflation (using the IMF forecast for both – please see the Currency section below for further discussion on this). After these calculations, we conclude that EM USD sovereign bonds will produce an annual return of 4.7%, and EM USD corporate bonds 4.5% – in both cases a little below the 5.6% return assumption we have for U.S. high-yield debt (Table 3).   2. Equities Our equity methodologies are largely unchanged from the previous edition. We continue to use the return forecast from six different methodologies to produce an average assumed return. Table 4 shows the results and a summary of the calculation for each methodology. The explanation for the six methodologies follows below. Table 4Equity Return Calculations The results suggest slightly higher returns than our projections in 2017. We forecast global equities to produce a nominal annual total return in USD of 5.9%, compared to 4.6% previously. The difference is partly due to the inclusion for the first time of specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia and Canada, which are projected to see 8.0%, 7.4% and 6.0% returns respectively. The projection for the U.S. is fairly similar to 2017, rising slightly to 5.6% from 5.0% (mainly due to a slightly higher assumption for productivity growth in future, which boosts the nominal GDP growth assumption). Japan, however, does come out looking significantly more attractive than previously, with an assumed return of 6.2%, compared to 3.5% previously. This is mostly due to cheaper valuations, since the growth outlook has not improved meaningfully. Japan now trades on a trailing PE of 13.1x, compared to 17.6x in 2017. This helps improve the return indicated by a number of the methodologies, including earnings yield and Shiller PE. The forecast for euro zone equities remains stable at 4.7%. EM assumptions range more widely, depending on the methodology used, than do those for DM. On valuation-based measures (Shiller PE, earnings yield etc.), EM generally shows strong return assumptions. However, on a growth-based model it looks less attractive. We continue to use two different assumptions for GDP growth in EM. Growth Model (1) is based on structural reform taking place in Emerging Markets, which would allow productivity growth to rebound from its current level of 3.2% to the 20-year average of 4.1%; Growth Model (2) assumes no reform and that productivity growth will continue to decline, converging with the DM average, 1.1%, over the next 10 years. In both cases, the return assumption is dragged down by net issuance, which we assume will continue at the 10-year average of 4.9% a year. Our composite projection for EM equity returns (in local currencies) comes out at 6.6%, a touch higher than 6.0% in 2017. Equity Methodologies Equity Risk Premium (ERP). This is the simplest methodology, based on the concept that equities in the long run outperform the long-term risk-free rate (we use the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield) by a margin that is fairly stable over time. We continue to use 3.5% as the ERP for the U.S., based on analysis by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton of the average ERP for developed markets since 1900. We have, however, tweaked the methodology this time to take into account the differing volatility of equity markets, which should translate into higher returns over time. Thus we use a beta of 1.2 for the euro zone, 0.8 for Japan, 0.9 for the U.K., 1.1 for both Australia and Canada, and 1.3 for Emerging Markets. The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. Growth Model. This is based on a Gordon growth model framework that postulates that equity returns are a function of dividend yield at the starting point, plus the growth of earnings in future (we assume that the dividend payout ratio stays constant). We base earnings growth off assumptions of nominal GDP growth (see Box 1 for how we calculate these). But historically there is strong evidence that large listed company earnings underperform nominal GDP growth by around 1 percentage point a year (largely because small, unlisted companies tend to show stronger growth than the mature companies that dominate the index) and so we deduct this 1% to reach the earnings growth forecast. We also need to adjust dividend yield for share buybacks which in the U.S., for tax reasons, have added 0.5% to shareholder returns over the past 10 years (net of new share issuance). In other countries, however, equity issuance is significantly larger than buybacks; this directly impacts shareholders’ returns via dilution. For developed markets, the impact of net equity issuance deducts 0.7%-2.7% from shareholder returns annually. But the impact is much bigger in Emerging Markets, where dilution has reduced returns by an average of 4.9% over the past 10 years. Table 5 shows that China is by far the biggest culprit, especially Chinese banks. Table 5Dilution In Emerging Markets BOX 1 Estimating GDP Growth We estimate nominal GDP growth for the countries and regions in our analysis as the sum of: annual growth in the working-age population, productivity growth, and inflation (we assume that capital deepening remains stable over the period). Results are shown in Table 6. Table 6Calculations Of Trend GDP Growth For population growth, we use the United Nations’ median scenario for annual growth in the population aged 25-64 between 2015 and 2030. This shows that the euro zone and Japan will see significant declines in the working population. The U.S. and U.K. look slightly better, with the working population projected to grow by 0.3% and 0.1% respectively. There are some uncertainties in these estimates. Stricter immigration policies would reduce the growth. Conversely, greater female participation, a later retirement age, longer working hours, or a rise in the participation rate would increase it. For emerging markets we used the UN estimate for “less developed regions, excluding least developed countries”. These countries have, on average, better demographics. However, the average number hides the decline in the working-age population in a number of important EM countries, for example China (where the working-age population is set to shrink by 0.2% a year), Korea (-0.4%), and Russia (-1.1%). By contrast, working population will grow by 1.7% a year in Mexico and 1.6% in India. For productivity growth, we assume – perhaps somewhat optimistically – that the decline in productivity since the Global Financial Crisis will reverse and that each country will return to the average annual productivity growth of the past 20 years (Chart 4). Our argument is that the cyclical factors that depressed productivity since the GFC (for example, companies’ reluctance to spend on capex, and shareholders’ preference for companies to pay out profits rather than to invest) should eventually fade, and that structural and technical factors (tight labor markets, increasing automation, technological breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, big data, and robotics) should boost productivity. Based on this assumption, U.S. productivity growth would average 2.0% over the next 10-15 years, compared to 0.5% since 1999. Note that this is a little higher than the Congressional Budgetary Office’s assumption for labor productivity growth of 1.8% a year. Chart 4AProductivity Growth (I) Chart 4BProductivity Growth (II) Our assumptions for inflation are as described above in the section on Fixed Income. The overall results suggest that Japan will see the lowest nominal GDP growth, at 0.9% a year, with the U.S. growing at 4.4%. The U.K. and Australia come out only a little lower than the U.S. For emerging markets, as described in the main text, we use two scenarios: one where productivity grow continues to slow in the absence of reforms, especially in China, from the current 3.2% to converge with the average in DM (1.1%) over the next 10-15 years; and an alternative scenario where reforms boost productivity back to the 20-year average of 4.1%.   Growth Plus Reversion To Mean For Margins And Profits. There is logic in arguing that profit margins and multiples tend to revert to the mean over the long term. If margins are particularly high currently, profit growth will be significantly lower than the above methodology would suggest; multiple contraction would also lower returns. Here we add to the Growth Model above an assumption that net profit margin and trailing PE will steadily revert to the 20-year average for each country over the 10-15 years. For most countries, margins are quite high currently compared to history: 9.2% in the U.S., for example, compared to a 20-year average of 7.7%. Multiples, however, are not especially high. Even in the U.S. the trailing PE of 21.0x, compares to a 20-year average of 20.8x (although that admittedly is skewed by the ultra-high valuations in 1999-2000, and coming out of the 2007-9 recession – we would get a rather lower number if we used the 40-year average). Indeed, in all the other countries and regions, the PE is currently lower than the 20-year average. Note that for Japan, we assumed that the PE would revert to the 20-year average of the U.S. and the euro zone (19.2), rather than that of Japan itself (distorted by long periods of negative earnings, and periods of PE above 50x in the 1990s and 2000s).  Earnings Yield. This is intuitively a neat way of thinking about future returns. Investors are rewarded for owning equity, either by the company paying a dividend, or by reinvesting its earnings and paying a dividend in future. If one assumes that future return on capital will be similar to ROC today (admittedly a rash assumption in the case of fast-growing companies which might be tempted to invest too aggressively in the belief that they can continue to generate rapid growth) it should be immaterial to the investor which the company chooses. Historically, there has been a strong correlation between the earnings yield (the inverse of the trailing PE) and subsequent equity returns, although in the past two decades the return has been somewhat higher that the EY suggested, and so in future might be somewhat lower. This methodology produces an assumed return for U.S. equities of 4.8% a year. Shiller PE. BCA’s longstanding view is that valuation is not a good timing tool for equity investment, but that it is crucial to forecasting long-term returns. Chart 5 shows that there is a good correlation in most markets between the Shiller PE (current share price divided by 10-year average inflation-adjusted earnings) and subsequent 10-year equity returns. We use a regression of these two series to derive the assumptions. This points to returns ranging from 5.4% in the case of the U.S. to 12.5% for the U.K. Composite Valuation Indicator. There are some issues that make the Shiller PE problematical. It uses a fixed 10-year period, whereas cycles vary in length. It tends to make countries look cheap when they have experienced a trend decline in earnings (which may continue, and not mean revert) and vice versa. So we also use a proprietary valuation indicator comprising a range of standard parameters (including price/book, price/cash, market cap/GDP, Tobin’s Q etc.), and regress this against 10-year returns. The results are generally similar to those using the Shiller PE, except that Japan shows significantly higher assumed returns, and the U.K. and EM significantly lower ones (Chart 6). Chart 5Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Chart 6Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return     3. Alternative Investments We continue to forecast each illiquid alternative investment separately, but we have made a number of changes to our methodologies. Mostly these involve moving away from using historical returns as a basis for our forecasts, and shifting to an approach based on current yield plus projected future capital appreciation. In direct real estate, for example, in 2017 we relied on a regression of historical returns against U.S. nominal GDP growth. We move in this edition to an approach based on the current cap rate, plus capital appreciation (based on forecasts of nominal GDP growth), and taking into account maintenance costs (details below). We also add coverage of some additional asset classes: global ex-U.S. direct real estate, global ex-U.S. REITs, and gold. Table 7 summarizes our assumptions, and provides details of historic returns and volatility. Table 7Alternatives Return Calculations It is worth emphasizing here that manager selection is far more important for many alternative investment classes than it is for public securities (Chart 7). There is likely to be, therefore, much greater dispersion of returns around our assumptions than would be the case for, say, large-cap U.S. equities. Chart 7For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key Hedge Funds Chart 8Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge fund returns have trended down over time (Chart 8). Long gone is the period when hedge funds returned over 20% per year (as they did in the early 1990s). Over the past 10 years, the Composite Hedge Fund Index has returned annually 3.3% more than 3-month U.S. Treasury bills. But that was entirely during an economic expansion and so we think it is prudent to cut last edition’s assumption of future returns of cash-plus-3.5%, to cash-plus-3% going forward. Direct Real Estate Our new methodology for real estate breaks down the return, in a similar way to equities, into the current cash yield (cap rate) plus an assumption of future capital growth. For the cap rate, we use the average, weighted by transaction volumes, of the cap rates for apartments, office buildings, retail, industrial real estate, and hotels in major cities (for example, Chicago, Los Angeles, Manhattan, and San Francisco for the U.S., or Osaka and Tokyo for Japan). We assume that capital values grow in line with each’s country’s nominal GDP growth (using the IMF’s five-year forecasts for this). We deduct a 0.5% annual charge for maintenance, in line with industry practice. Results are shown in Table 8. Our assumptions point to better returns from real estate in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Not only is the cap rate in the U.S. higher, but nominal GDP growth is projected to be higher too. Table 8Direct Real Estate Return Calculations REITs We switch to a similar approach for REITs. Previously we used a regression of REITs against U.S. equity returns (since REITs tend to be more closely correlated with equities than with direct real estate). This produced a rather high assumption for U.S. REITs of 10.1%. We now use the current dividend yield on REITs plus an assumption that capital values will grow in line with nominal GDP growth forecasts. REITs’ dividend yields range fairly narrowly from 2.9% in Japan to 4.7% in Canada. We do not exclude maintenance costs since these should already be subtracted from dividends. The result of using this methodology is that the assumed return for U.S. REITs falls to a more plausible 8.5%, and for global REITs is 6.2%. Private Equity & Venture Capital Chart 9Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around It makes sense that Private Equity returns are correlated with returns from listed equities. Most academic studies have shown a premium over time for PE of 5-6 percentage points (due to leverage, a tilt towards small-cap stocks, management intervention, and other factors). However, this premium has swung around dramatically over time (Chart 9). Over the past 10 years, for example, annual returns from Private Equity and listed U.S. equities have been identical: 12%. However, there appears to be no constant downtrend and so we think it advisable to use the 30-year average premium: 3.4%. This produces a return assumption for U.S. Private Equity of 8.9% per year. Over the same period, Venture Capital has returned around 0.5% more than PE (albeit with much higher volatility) and we assume the same will happen going forward.   Structured Products In the context of alternative asset classes, Structured Products refers to mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securities. We use the projected return on U.S. Treasuries plus the average 20-year spread of 60 basis points. Assumed return is 2.7%. Farmland & Timberland Chart 10Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP As with Real Estate and REITs, we move to a methodology using current cash yield (after costs) plus an assumption for capital appreciation linked to nominal GDP forecasts. The yield on U.S. Farmland is currently 4.4% and on Timberland 3.2%. Both have seen long-run prices grow significantly more slowly than nominal GDP growth. Since 1980, for example, farm prices have risen at a compound rate of 3.9% per acre, compared to U.S. nominal GDP growth of 5.2% and global GDP growth of 5.5% (Chart 10). We assume that this trend will continue, and so project farm prices to grow 1.5 percentage points a year more slowly than global GDP (using global, not U.S., economic growth makes sense since demand for food is driven by global factors). This produces a total return assumption of 6%. For timberland, we did not find a consistent relationship with nominal GDP growth and so assumed that prices would continue to grow at their historic rate over the past 20 years (the longest period for which data is available). We project timberland to produce an annual return of 4.8%. Commodities & Gold For commodities we use a very different methodology (which we also used in the previous edition): the concept that commodities prices consistently over time have gone through supercycles, lasting around 10 years, followed by bear markets that have lasted an average of 17 years (Chart 11). The most recent super-cycle was 2002-2012. In the period since the supercycle ended, the CRB Index has fallen by 42%. Comparing that to the average drop in the past three bear markets, we conclude that there is about 8% left to fall over the next nine years, implying an annual decline of about 1%. Our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. We add gold to our assumptions, since it is an asset often held by investors. However, it is not easy to project long-term returns for the metal. Since the U.S. dollar was depegged from gold in 1968, gold too has gone through supercycles, in the 1970s and 2002-11 (Chart 12). We find that change in real long-term interest rates negatively affects gold (logically since higher rates increase the opportunity cost of owning a non-income-generating asset). We use, therefore, a regression incorporating global nominal GDP growth and a projection of the annual change in real 10-year U.S. Treasury yields (based on the equilibrium cash rate plus the average spread between 10-year yields and cash). This produces an assumption of an annual return from gold of 4.7% a year. We continue to see this asset class more as a hedge in a portfolio (it has historically had a correlation of only 0.1 with global equities and 0.24 with global bonds) rather than a source of return per se.  Chart 11Commodities Still In A Bear Market Chart 12Gold Also Has Supercycles   4. Currencies Chart 13Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP All the return projections in this report are in local currency terms. That is a problem for investors who need an assumption for returns in their home currency. It is also close to impossible to hedge FX exposure over as long a period as 10-15 years. Even for investors capable of putting in place rolling currency hedges, GAA has shown previously that the optimal hedge ratio varies enormously depending on the home currency, and that dynamic hedges (i.e. using a simple currency forecasting model) produce better risk-adjust returns than a static hedge.3  Fortunately, there is an answer: it turns out that long-term currency forecasting is relatively easy due to the consistent tendency of currencies, in developed economies at least, to revert to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) over the long-run, even though they can diverge from it for periods as long as five years or more (Chart 13). We calculate likely currency movements relative to the U.S. dollar based on: 1) the current divergence of the currency from PPP, using IMF estimates of the latter; 2) the likely change in PPP over the next 10 years, based on inflation differentials between the country and the U.S. going forward (using IMF estimates of average CPI inflation for 2019-2024 and assuming the same for the rest of the period). The results are shown in Table 9. All DM currencies, except the Australian dollar, look cheap relative to the U.S. dollar, and all of them, again excluding Australia, are forecast to run lower inflation that the U.S. implying that their PPPs will rise further. This means that both the euro and Japanese yen would be expected to appreciate by a little more than 1% a year against the U.S. dollar over the next 10 years or so. Table 9Currency Return Calculations PPP does not work, however, for EM currencies. They are all very cheap relative to PPP, but show no clear trend of moving towards it. The example of Japan in the 1970s and 1980s suggests that reversion to PPP happens only when an economy becomes fully developed (and is pressured by trading partners to allow its currency to appreciate). One could imagine that happening to China over the next 10-20 years, but the RMB is currently 48% undervalued relative to PPP, not so different from its undervaluation 15 years ago. For EM currencies, therefore, we use a different methodology: a regression of inflation relative to the U.S. against historic currency movements. This implies that EM currencies are driven by the relative inflation, but that they do not trend towards PPP. Based on IMF inflation forecasts, many Emerging Markets are expected to experience higher inflation than the U.S. (Table 10). On this basis, the Turkish lira would be expected to decline by 7% a year against the U.S. dollar and the Brazilian real by 2% a year. However, the average for EM, which we calculated based on weights in the MSCI EM equity index, is pulled down by China (29% of that index), Korea (15%) and Taiwan (12%). China’s inflation is forecast to be barely above that in the U.S, and Korean and Taiwanese inflation significantly below it. MSCI-weighted EM currencies, consequently, are forecast to move roughly in line with the USD over the forecast horizon. One warning, though: the IMF’s inflation forecasts in some Emerging Markets look rather optimistic compared to history: will Mexico, for example, see only 3.2% inflation in future, compared to an average of 5.7% over the past 20 years? Higher inflation than the IMF forecasts would translate into weaker currency performance. Table 10EM Currencies In Table 11, we have restated the main return assumptions from this report in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD terms for the convenience of clients with different home currencies. As one would expect from covered interest-rate parity theory, the returns cluster more closely together when expressed in the individual currencies. For example, U.S. government bonds are expected to return only 0.8% a year in EUR terms (versus 2.1% in USD terms) bringing their return closer to that expected from euro zone government bonds, -0.4%. Convergence to PPP does not, however, explain all the difference between the yields in different countries. Table 11Returns In Different Base Currencies 5. Correlations Chart 14Correlations Are Hard To Forecast We have not tried to forecast correlations in this Special Report. As discussed, historical returns from different asset classes are not a reliable guide to future returns, but it is possible to come up with sensible assumptions about the likely long-run returns going forward. Volatility does not trend much over the long term, so we think it is not unreasonable to use historic volatility data in an optimizer. But correlation is a different matter. As is well known, the correlation of equities and bonds has moved from positive to negative over the past 40 years (mainly driven by a shift in the inflation environment). But the correlation between major equity markets has also swung around (Chart 14). Asset allocators should preferably use rough, conservative assumptions for correlations – for example, 0.1 or 0.2 for the equity/bond correlation, rather than the average -0.1 of the past 20 years. We plan to do further work to forecast correlations in a future edition of this report.  But for readers who would like to see – and perhaps use – historic correlation data, we publish below a simplified correlation matrix of the main asset classes that we cover in this report (Table 12). We would be happy to provide any client with the full spreadsheet of all asset classes . Table 12Correlation Matrix Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “What Returns Can You Expect?”, dated 15 November 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated 22 May 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see GAA Special Report, “Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors,” dated 29 September 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com  

Highlights Fed: The Fed will cut rates in July, and possibly once more this year. This extra stimulus will help boost global growth in the second half of 2019. Credit: With inflation expectations low, the Fed will not risk upsetting financial markets by striking a hawkish tone. This will be a boon for corporate bonds. We no longer advocate a cautious near-term allocation to corporate credit. Spreads have likely peaked. Duration: The economic environment bears a greater resemblance to prior mid-cycle slowdowns than to prior pre-recession periods. As such, the Fed will not deliver more than the 89 basis points of rate cuts that are already discounted for the next 12 months. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Feature More Houdini Than Bullwinkle When Fed Chair Jay Powell reached into his hat at last week’s FOMC meeting, most – including us – thought he might emerge looking like Bullwinkle the cartoon moose.1 Instead, he pulled a rabbit, delivering a dovish surprise to markets that already expected a lot. The yield curve was discounting 80 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months heading into last Wednesday’s announcement. Then, the Fed’s statement and Powell’s press conference pushed our 12-month discounter all the way down to -94 bps (Chart 1). The 10-year Treasury yield also dropped 8 bps post-FOMC, while the 2-year yield fell a whopping 14 bps. The Fed will go to great lengths to signal that monetary conditions remain accommodative. The Fed communicated its dovish pivot through both the post-meeting statement and its interest rate projections. In the post-meeting statement, the Fed replaced its pledge to be “patient” with a promise to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion”. A re-phrasing that is clearly designed to signal a rate cut in July. FOMC participants also revised their interest rate projections sharply lower (Chart 2). In March, 11 out of 17 participants expected the Fed to stay on hold for the balance of 2019, while 4 participants called for one rate hike and 2 called for two rate hikes. Now, 8 out of 17 participants continue to expect a steady fed funds rate, but 7 are calling for two rate cuts this year. Only one participant is still looking for a 2019 hike. Chart 1A Dovish Magic Show Chart 2Dots Revised Lower   In his press conference, Chair Powell explicitly linked the Fed’s dovish pivot to “trade developments” and “concerns about global growth”. Bond investors will undoubtedly heed this message, and Treasury yields will be extra sensitive to any trade-related news that comes out of this weekend’s G20 summit, as well as to any fluctuations in the global growth data (see section titled “No PMI Recovery Yet” below). Ultimately, our baseline expectation is that there will be enough progress in trade negotiations at the G20 summit to keep the U.S. from imposing a further $300 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports. However, an all-encompassing deal, which rolls back existing tariffs, is not in the cards. Table 1Fed Funds Futures: What's Priced In? But even such a muddle-though scenario, when combined with a Fed rate cut in July and continued credit easing out of China, will be sufficient to support global growth in the second half of this year. This will prevent the Fed from delivering the 79 bps of rate cuts that are priced-in for between now and next February (Table 1). We remain short the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. And Now Here’s Something We Hope You’ll Really Like Our main takeaway from the FOMC meeting is that the Fed will go to great lengths to signal that monetary conditions remain accommodative. We posited back in March that the new battleground for monetary policy is between inflation expectations and financial conditions.2 That is, the Fed will only move to a restrictive policy stance in response to above-target inflation expectations or “bubbly” financial asset prices. While the Fed’s reflationary efforts will cause corporate bond spreads to tighten in the coming months, they will not immediately translate into a higher 10-year Treasury yield. At present, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain well below target levels and financial markets are far from “bubbly” (Chart 3): The Financial Conditions component of our Fed Monitor is close to neutral (Chart 3, panel 2). The S&P 500 12-month forward P/E ratio has rebounded this year, but is not close to the highs seen in late-2017/early-2018 (Chart 3, panel 3). The GZ measure of the excess premium in corporate bond spreads after accounting for expected default losses is low, but above where it traded throughout most of the 2000s (Chart 3, bottom panel). The upshot is that the Fed will continue to act as a tailwind for risk assets, and we therefore remove our prior recommendation to stay cautious on credit spreads in the near-term. It is now likely that credit spreads have peaked, a message confirmed by our list of “peak credit spread” indicators (Chart 4): Chart 3No Rush For Fed To Tighten Chart 4Credit Spreads Have Likely Peaked   The price of gold has decisively broken-out to the upside, a sign that the market views monetary policy as reflationary (Chart 4, panel 2). Such a breakout has preceded the last two peaks in corporate bond spreads. The dollar’s uptrend has abated, signaling that the market views U.S. monetary policy as less out of step with the rest of the world (Chart 4, panel 3). Global industrial mining stocks have rebounded (Chart 4, panel 4). The CRB Raw Industrials index is the sole holdout (Chart 4, bottom panel). A rebound in this index would confirm our intuition that credit spreads have peaked. Chart 5Waiting For Improving Global Growth While the Fed’s reflationary efforts will cause corporate bond spreads to tighten in the coming months, they will not immediately translate into a higher 10-year Treasury yield. The ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials index and Gold correlates very tightly with the 10-year yield, and it continues to plummet (Chart 5). The CRB/Gold ratio will only rise when gains in the CRB index start to outpace gains in Gold. In other words, the Fed’s reflationary policy stance needs to translate into an improving global growth outlook. This could take a few months, though we ultimately continue to think that Treasury yields will be higher on a 6-12 month horizon. As explained in the next section, as long as the U.S. economy avoids recession, mid-cycle rate cuts tend to be followed by higher Treasury yields. A History Of Rate Cuts Part 2 In last week’s report we looked at every Fed rate cut since 1995 and showed how the 10-year Treasury yield reacted during the subsequent 21-day, 65-day, 130-day and 261-day periods.3 Our main conclusion was that the 10-year Treasury yield tended to rise following mid-cycle rate cuts, such as those that occurred in 1995-98 and 2003, and decline following rate cuts that led into a U.S. recession. For reference, we have attached last week’s analysis as an Appendix to this report, along with a new table showing how the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master index performed relative to cash following each post-1995 rate cut. The 2/10 Treasury slope tends to steepen quite sharply in the immediate aftermath of a mid-cycle rate cut, before starting to flatten after a few months have passed. This week, we delve a little deeper and look at the market’s interest rate expectations around each prior cut, and also at how the 2/10 Treasury slope responded in each case. Rate Expectations At The Time Of Fed Rate Cuts Table 2 shows the 12-month change in the fed funds rate that the market was discounting prior to each Fed rate cut announcement since 1995. It also shows the actual change in the fed funds rate that occurred over the subsequent 12-month period, and the difference between what occurred and what was expected – the 12-month fed funds surprise. Table 2A History Of Rate Cuts: Rate Expectations According to our Golden Rule of Bond Investing, a dovish surprise (actual change < expectations) should coincide with a falling 10-year Treasury yield, and a hawkish surprise (actual change > expectations) should coincide with a rising 10-year yield.4 The table shows that this indeed occurred in 26 out of 29 episodes. As was the case last week, the mid-1990s rate cuts immediately capture our attention. We have previously noted the resemblance between today’s economic environment and that of the mid-1990s.5 It’s interesting that the market is currently priced for a similar number of rate cuts as at that time. Once again, we expect those expectations will be disappointed. The Global Manufacturing PMI is the measure of global growth that lines up best with the 10-year Treasury yield. Yield Curve: Steeper Now = Flatter Later Another interesting trend is that the 2/10 Treasury slope steepened dramatically in the run-up to, and following, last week’s FOMC meeting. It is now back up to 29 bps after having troughed at 11 bps near the end of last year (Chart 6). It is also worth noting that the 2/10 Treasury slope has yet to invert this cycle. Such an inversion has occurred prior to every U.S. recession since at least 1960. Table 3 shows how the 2/10 Treasury slope has responded to Fed rate cuts in the past, and it reveals an interesting pattern. The slope tends to steepen quite sharply in the immediate aftermath of a mid-cycle rate cut, before starting to flatten after a few months have passed. The 2003 episode is a prime example. The 2/10 slope steepened by 62 bps in the month following the rate cut, but a year later it was 14 bps below where it started. Chart 6The Fed Steepens The Curve Table 3A History Of Rate Cuts: 2/10 Treasury Slope   In contrast, the 2/10 steepening that immediately follows a “pre-recession” rate cut tends to be milder, but the steepening then accelerates as time passes and the Fed eases further.  The observed yield curve patterns line up well with theory. We would expect rapid curve steepening immediately following a mid-cycle rate cut, as the market prices in a quick return to tighter policy settings. Then, the curve should eventually flatten as the Fed reverses its initial cuts. In contrast, a rate cut that precedes a recession should not lead to much initial steepening, because the market would not be expecting a quick recovery. The steepening would then accelerate as more rate cuts are eventually delivered. The fact that the 2/10 slope has steepened a lot in recent weeks is another datapoint in favor of “mid-cycle” rather than “pre-recession” market behavior. No PMI Recovery Yet We remain confident that the combination of a July Fed rate cut and Chinese credit stimulus will put a floor under global growth in the second half of the year. However, no such global growth rebound is yet evident in the crucial manufacturing PMI data. The Global Manufacturing PMI is the measure of global growth that lines up best with the 10-year Treasury yield, and it remains in a free-fall, even breaking below the 50 boom/bust line in May (Chart 7). Flash PMI data paint an equally dim picture for June: The Euro Area Manufacturing PMI is expected to tick up in June, but only to 47.8 from 47.7 in May (Chart 7, panel 2). The U.S. Manufacturing PMI is expected to fall to 50.1 in June, from 50.5 in May (Chart 7, panel 3). The Japanese Manufacturing PMI is expected to fall to 49.5 in June, from 49.8 in May (Chart 7, bottom panel). There is no Flash PMI data for China, but the Chinese index stood at 50.2 in May, only a hair above the 50 boom/bust line. On the bright side, financial markets are starting to price-in the beginnings of a reflation trade. Gold is rallying strongly, as we noted above, and an index of high-beta currency pairs (RUB/USD, ZAR/USD and BRL/USD) is off its lows. Both of these moves signal that the policy backdrop is becoming more supportive, and both have led upswings in the Global Manufacturing PMI in the past (Chart 8). Chart 7No Rebound In Sight Yet... Chart 8...But Financial Markets Are Already Looking Ahead   Bottom Line: Treasury yields will probably need to see a rebound in the Global Manufacturing PMI before moving higher, but a few reflationary indicators suggest that such a rebound will occur in the second half of the year. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com     Appendix Table 4A History Of Rate Cuts: 10-Year Treasury Yield Table 5A History Of Rate Cuts: Treasury Excess Returns   Footnotes 1      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx3sOqW5zj4 2      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Track Records”, dated June 18, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Tracking The Mid-1990s”, dated June 11, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Melting inflation expectations, widening relative indebtedness, expensive adjusted relative valuations, high odds of a further drop in relative profit margins and the high-octane small cap status all signal that large caps continue to have the upper hand versus small caps. Modest deterioration in credit quality, weakening prospects for loan growth and falling inflation expectations, compel us to put the S&P bank index on downgrade alert. Recent Changes We got stopped out on the long S&P managed health care/short S&P semis trade on June 10 for a gain of 10% since inception. We got stopped out on the long S&P homebuilders/short S&P home improvement retailers trade on June 14 for a gain of 10% since inception. Table 1 Feature Equities surged to all-time highs last week, as investors cheered the Fed’s dovish stance and increasing likelihood of a late-July interest rate cut. The addiction to low interest rates and global dependence on QE are evident and simultaneously very worrisome signs. We are nervous that the U.S. economy is in a soft-patch, thus vulnerable to a shock (maybe sustained trade hawkishness is the negative catalyst) that can tilt the economy in recession. The risk/reward tradeoff on the overall equity market remains to the downside on a cyclical (3-12 month) time horizon as we first posited two weeks ago (this is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view and is going against BCA’s cyclically constructive equity market House View). In fact, using the NY Fed’s probability of a recession in the coming 12 months data series signals that there’s ample downside for stocks from current levels (recession probability shown inverted, Chart 1).1 We heed this message and reiterate our cautious equity market stance. Chart 1Watch Out Down Below Importantly, drilling deeper with regard to the excesses we are witnessing this cycle, Chart 2 is instructive and an unintended consequence of QE and zero interest rate policy. In previous research we highlighted the cumulative equity buybacks corporations have completed this cycle near the $5tn mark. Chart 2Financial Engineering What is worrying is that this “accomplishment” has come about at a great cost: a massive change in the capital structure of the firm. In other words, all of the buybacks are reflected in debt origination from the non-financial business sector (using the Fed’s flow of funds data), confirming our claim that the excesses this cycle are not in the financial or household sectors, but rather in the non-financial business sector (please refer to Chart 4A from the June 10 Weekly Report). One likely trigger of a jumpstart to a default cycle, other than a U.S./China trade dispute re-escalation, is dwindling demand. On that front, we are bemused on how much weight market participants place on the Fed’s shoulders bailing out the economy and the stock market. Chart 3 is a vivid reminder of this narrative. On the one side of the seesaw is the mighty Fed with its forecast interest rate cuts and on the other a slew of slipping indicators. Our sense is that these eighteen indicators will more than offset the Fed’s about-to-commence easing cycle and eventually tilt the U.S. economy in recession, especially if the Sino-American trade talks falter. S&P 500 quarterly earnings are contracting on a year-over-year basis and the semi down-cycle points to additional profit pain for the rest of the year (top panel, Chart 4). On the trade front, exports are below the zero line and imports are flirting with the boom/bust line (second panel, Chart 4). Overall rail freight, including intermodal (retail segment) freight is plunging and so is the CASS freight shipments index at a time when the broad commodity complex is also deflating (third & bottom panels, Chart 4). The latest Q2 update of CEO confidence was disconcerting, weighing on the broad equity market’s prospects (top panel, Chart 5). Non-residential capital outlays have petered out and private construction is sinking like a stone. In fact, the latter have never contracted at such a steep rate during expansions over the past five decades (second panel, Chart 5). Real residential investment has clocked its fifth consecutive quarter of negative growth during an expansion, for the first time since the mid-1950s. Single family housing starts and permits are contracting (third panel, Chart 5). Chart 4Cracks… Chart 5…Are… Light vehicle sales are ailing (bottom panel, Chart 5) and the latest senior loan officer survey continued to show that there is feeble demand for credit across nearly all the categories the Fed tracks (bottom panel, Chart 6). Non-farm payrolls fell to 75K on a month-over-month basis last month and layoff announcements are gaining steam signaling that the labor market, a notoriously lagging indicator, is also showing some signs of strain (layoffs shown inverted, third panel, Chart 6). The latest update of the U.S. Equity Strategy’s corporate pricing power gauge is contracting (please look forward to reading a more in-depth analysis on our quarterly update on July 2) following down the path of the market’s dwindling inflation expectations. Finally, the yield curve remains inverted (top and second panels, Chart 6). Chart 6…Forming Chart 7The “Hope" RallyAdding it all up, we deem that the equity market remains divorced from the economic reality and too much faith is placed on the Fed’s shoulders to save the day. Thus, we refrain from positioning the portfolio on “three hopes”: first that the Fed will engineer a soft landing, second that the U.S./China trade tussle will get resolved swiftly, and finally that the Chinese authorities will inject massive amounts of liquidity and reflate their economy (Chart 7). This week we are putting a key financials sub-sector on downgrade alert and update our view on the size bias. Large Cap Refuge While small caps shielded investors from the U.S./China trade dispute that heated up in 2018 (owing to their domestic focus), this year small caps have failed to live up to their trade war-proof expectations and have lagged their large cap brethren by the widest of margins. In fact, the relative share price ratio sits at multi-year lows giving back all the gains since the Trump election, and then some (Chart 8). Chart 8Stick With A Large Cap Bias As a reminder, our large cap preference has netted our portfolio 14% gains since the May 10 2018 cyclical inception and this size bias is also up 9% since our high-conviction call inclusion in early December 2018. Five key reasons underpin our large/mega cap preference in the size bias. Bearishness toward small vs. large caps has been pervasive raising the question: does it still pay to prefer large caps to small caps? The short answer is yes. Five key reasons underpin our large/mega cap preference in the size bias. First, melting inflation expectations have been positively correlated with the relative share price ratio, and the current message is to expect more downside (Chart 8). While the SPX has a higher energy weight than the S&P 600, financials and industrials dominate small cap indexes and likely explain the tight positive correlation with inflation expectations (Table 2). Table 2S&P 600/S&P 500 Sector Comparison Table Second, relative indebtedness has been widening. Debt saddled small caps have been issuing debt at an accelerating pace at a time when cash flow growth has not been forthcoming. Small cap net debt-to-EBITDA is now almost three times as high as large cap net debt-to-EBITDA. Investors have finally realized that rising indebtedness is worrisome, especially at the late stages of the business cycle, and that is why small caps have failed to insulate investors from the re-escalating trade dispute (top & middle panels, Chart 9). Third, a large number of small cap companies (100 in the S&P 600 and 600 in the Russell 2000) have no forward EPS. Very few S&P 500 companies have negative projected profits. Thus, while, relative valuations have been receding, the relative forward P/E trading at par is masking the relative value proposition of the indexes. Were the S&P or Russell to adjust for this, small caps would trade at a significant forward P/E premium to large caps (bottom panel, Chart 9). Chart 9Mind The Debt Gap Fourth, a small cap margin squeeze has been underway since the 2012 cyclical peak and the relative margin outlook is even grimmer. Simply put, small business labor costs are rising at a faster clip than overall wage inflation, warning that small cap profit margins have further to fall compared with large caps margins (Chart 10). Finally, small cap stocks are higher beta stocks and typically rise when volatility gets suppressed. As such, they also tend to outperform large caps when emerging markets outperform the SPX and vice versa. Tack on the recent yield curve inversion, and the odds are high that the size bias has entered a prolonged period of sustained small cap underperformance. Netting it all out, melting inflation expectations, widening relative indebtedness, expensive adjusted relative valuations, high odds of a further drop in relative profit margins and the high-octane small cap status all signal that large caps continue to have the upper hand versus small caps (Chart 11). Chart 10Relative Margin Trouble Chart 11Shay Away From Small Caps Bottom Line: Small cap underperformance has staying power. Continue to prefer large/mega caps to their small cap brethren. Put Banks On Downgrade Alert In the context of de-risking our portfolio we are taking the step and adding the S&P banks index on our downgrade watch list. The Fed’s signal of a cut in the upcoming July meeting steepened the yield curve last week. While the yield curve has put in higher lows in the past eight months, relative bank performance has been facing stiff resistance and has failed to follow the yield curve’s lead (Chart 12). One of the reasons for the Fed’s dovishness is melting inflation expectations. The latter are joined at the hip with relative bank performance and signal that downside risks are rising especially if the Fed fails to arrest the lower anchoring of inflation expectations (Chart 13). Chart 12Banks Are Not Participating Chart 13Melting Inflation Expectations Are Anchoring Banks With regard to credit demand, the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer survey remained subdued confirming the anemic reading from our Economic Impulse Indicator (a second derivative gauge of six parts of the U.S. economy, bottom panel, Chart 14). Lack of credit demand translates into lack of credit growth, despite the fact that bankers are, for the most part, willing extenders of credit. U.S. Equity Strategy’s overall loans & leases growth model has crested (second panel, Chart 15). Chart 14Anemic Loan Demand… Chart 15…Will Weigh On Loan Origination Similarly, the recent softness in a number of manufacturing surveys signal that C&I loan growth in particular – the largest credit category in bank loan books – is at risk of flirting with the contraction zone (third panel, Chart 15). Worrisomely, not only is the overall U.S. credit impulse contracting, but also U.S. Equity Strategy’s bank credit diffusion index is collapsing (second panel, Chart 16). Such broad breadth of loan growth deterioration warns that loan growth and thus bank earnings are at risk of underwhelming still optimistic sell-side analysts’ expectations (not shown). On the credit quality front there are now two loan categories that are starting to show some modest signs of stress. Credit card net chargeoffs and non-current loans are spiking and now C&I delinquent loans have ticked up for the first time since the manufacturing recession (third & bottom panel, Chart 16). Our bank EPS growth model does an excellent job in capturing all these forces and signals that bank EPS euphoria is misplaced (bottom panel, Chart 15). Nevertheless, despite these softening bank sector drivers there are four significant offsets. First the drubbing in the 10-year yield has been reflected nearly one-to-one on the 30-year fixed mortgage rate and the recent surge in mortgage applications signals that residential real estate loans (second largest bank loan category) may reaccelerate in the back half of the year (top panel, Chart 17). Chart 16Deteriorating Credit Quality Chart 17Some Significant… Second, while there have been credit card and C&I loan credit quality issues, as a percentage of total loans they just ticked higher and remain near cyclical lows, at a time when banks have been putting more money aside to cover for these potential loan losses (bottom panel, Chart 17). Third, bank source of funding remains very cheap as depositors have not been enjoying higher short term interest rates, at least not at the big money center banks. In other words, banks have not been passing higher interest rates to depositors sustaining relatively high NIMs (not shown). Finally, banks are one of the few sectors with pent up equity buyback demand. The upcoming release of the Fed’s stress test will likely continue to allow banks to pursue shareholder friendly activities, that they have been deprived from for so long, and raise dividend payments and increase share buybacks (Chart 18). Chart 18…Offsets In sum, melting inflation expectations, modest deterioration in credit quality, and weakening prospects for loan growth compel us to put the S&P bank index on downgrade alert. Bottom Line: We remain overweight the S&P banks index, but have put it on downgrade alert and are looking for an opportunity to downgrade to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX – WFC, JPM, BaAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB, FRC.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/capital_markets/ycfaq.html Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights We are searching for evidence of an imminent end to this business cycle, … : Investors who recognize the onset of the recession in a timely fashion will have a leg up on the competition all the way through the intermediate term. … but the data do not support the increasingly popular conclusion that it is nearly at hand, … : The U.S. economy is doing quite well and contradicts the message from the inverted yield curve, which may well be a less powerful signal than it has been in the past. … and it’s hard to see the end of the expansion when the Fed’s trying its utmost to sustain it: Restrictive monetary policy is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for a recession. Last week’s FOMC meeting pushed that eventuality beyond the visible horizon. Maintain a pro-risk portfolio positioning. Feature What if you gave a party and nobody came? The U.S. economy is finding out as we speak. The expansion that began in July 2009 turns ten years old at the end of the week, and no one seems to care. An expansion and bull market that have been derided from the get-go as “artificial,” “manufactured,” and “propped up by money printing” continue to be unloved, yet manage to keep chugging along like the Energizer bunny. The expansion has been no more pleasing to the eye than the famous toy in the battery commercials, plodding along at an often sluggish pace, but that may be the secret to its longevity. It has never been able to achieve a high enough rate of speed to give rise to unsustainable activity in the most cyclical segments of the economy. Ditto the bull markets in equities and spread product. Held in check by a deficiency of animal spirits, they have failed to breed valuation excesses. In the absence of a clearly approaching catalyst for reversal, internal or external, there is no reason to expect that the U.S. economy cannot continue to expand at its meandering post-crisis pace. An increasing number of market participants, including some within BCA, cite the inverted yield curve, disappointing May employment report, and weakening manufacturing activity at home and abroad as ill portents for the economy. On the face of it, these factors are surely inauspicious. Upon further examination, though, they aren’t as bad as they’ve been made out to be. An investor who sniffs out the next recession, and shifts asset allocation aggressively in line with that recognition, will have a very good chance of outperforming over both the near and intermediate term. Timely recognition of inflection points is how macro analysis most clearly benefits money managers. Since equity bull markets tend to be highly potent in their final stages, however, crying wolf can be especially damaging to relative performance. In our view, the available evidence does not support the conclusion that the end of the cycle is at hand and that investors should de-risk their portfolios. The Yield Curve Isn’t What It Used To Be We do not know how many basis points can dance on the head of a pin, and neither do the battalions of central bank economists who have been unable to settle exactly how large-scale asset purchases hold down interest rates. Those purchases’ flow effect (the share of newly-issued bonds purchased by a central bank), stock effect (the share of outstanding bonds held by a central bank), and forward guidance’s muzzling of bond and inflation volatility may all play a role. At the end of the day, it appears quite likely that QE has depressed the term premium on the 10-year Treasury bond, which recently made 50-year lows. The term premium is the compensation investors receive for tying up their money in a longer-maturity instrument, and it is a whopping 250 basis points below its long-run mean (Chart 1). Chart 1The Bombed-Out Term Premium ... Yield curve has been a reliable, if often early, leading indicator of recessions for the last 50 years. The unprecedentedly low 10-year term premium renders the definitive 3-month/10-year segment of the yield curve considerably more prone to invert. The only sustained yield-curve inversion that issued a false recession signal in the 57-year history of the Adrian, Crump and Moench term-premium estimate occurred in late 1966/early 1967,1 when the term premium skittered around both sides of the zero bound (Chart 2). If investors had received no additional compensation for holding the 10-year Treasury over the last five decades, an inverted curve would be a regular feature of the investment landscape (Chart 3). Chart 2... Is Distorting The Signal From The Yield Curve, ... Chart 3... Which Wouldn't Slope Upward Without It Leading Data Do Not Confirm The Yield Curve’s Signal Chart 4Only Manufacturing Looks Recession-ish Investors ignore the yield curve at their own risk. It has been a reliable, if often early, leading indicator of recessions for the last 50 years. We view its current inversion as a yellow light, and it is making us more vigilant about seeking out evidence of a slowdown. Given that the negative term premium weighs heavily on long-dated yields, however, investors should not de-risk portfolios unless the flow of data corroborates its signal. Our Global Fixed Income Strategy colleagues sought that corroboration by performing a cycle-on-cycle analysis of a selection of data series with leading properties – the Conference Board’s LEI, initial unemployment claims, the manufacturing ISM’s new-orders-to-inventories ratio and the Conference Board’s consumer confidence index. The analysis compares the current position of each indicator with its average position in the run-up to the last five recessions (January-July ’80 through December ’07-June ’09). With the exception of the weak new-orders-to-inventories ratio (Chart 4, third panel), none of the indicators are in a position that suggests trouble lies ahead (Chart 4). For the time being, the incoming data flow only confirms the concerns about the weak manufacturing outlook. Is Economic Activity Really Slowing? The course of GDP growth makes it appear as if the U.S. is slowing pretty quickly. After the first quarter’s surprisingly strong 3.1% growth, consensus second-quarter estimates are hovering around 1.75%. Viewed alongside the sizable shortfall in May payroll gains, uninspiring housing activity and a sharp global manufacturing downturn, the deceleration in GDP growth seems to confirm the notion that the U.S. economy is weakening fast. We are not overly concerned about the labor market, housing or manufacturing, however, and the GDP trend is not what it appears to be at first blush. Real final domestic demand growth at 3% is well above the economy’s long-run potential and is hardly the sign of an economy that’s gasping for air, or staggering under the weight of an overly high fed funds rate. To get the best read on the underlying state of the domestic economy, we adjust GDP data to back out net exports and inventory adjustments. Backing out net exports puts the focus on domestic conditions, while removing inventory adjustments isolates sales to end consumers. The result is real final domestic demand, and according to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model, it accelerated sharply between the first and second quarters. The first quarter was flattered by a 60-basis-point (“bps”) inventory build and a highly-unlikely-to-be-repeated 100-bps contribution from net exports. After backing those components out of the headline 3.1% gain, first quarter growth slips to 1.5%. That may not look like much against 2-2.25% trend growth, but it was not at all bad given the body blows the economy sustained in the first quarter: the federal government shutdown that stretched across nearly all of January, and the severe tightening in financial conditions resulting from the fourth quarter’s sharp sell-offs in equities and risky bonds. Following last week’s stronger-than-expected May retail sales report (and upwardly revised April data), the GDPNow model is projecting 2% growth in the second quarter. Per the model’s detailed projections, the headline gain is being held back by a 100-bps inventory runoff. Removing the inventory adjustment, real final domestic demand is projected to grow at 3% (net exports are projected to make zero contribution). 3% growth is well above the economy’s long-run potential and is hardly the sign of an economy that’s gasping for air, or staggering under the weight of an overly high fed funds rate. Per the current GDPNow projections, real final domestic demand growth is above the expansion’s mean growth rate, casting some doubt on whether the yield curve’s signal has been overwhelmed by a pickup in risk aversion and the factors that have flipped the term premium on its head. 3% real final domestic demand represents a quickening in the pace of growth that has prevailed across the 40 quarters of the expansion (Chart 5), and is incompatible with the message from the New York Fed’s yield curve-based recession probability indicator (“RPI”). To evaluate the current warning, we compared the standardized value of real final domestic demand growth during the previous quarters of the expansion when the New York Fed’s RPI was above the 33% level that has accurately foretold every recession over the last 50 years (Chart 6). When all of the previous RPI warning signals were issued, real final domestic demand growth was slower than its expansion average (z-score less than zero), and in all but one case considerably slower, clustering around one standard deviation below the mean (Table 1). Per the current GDPNow projections, real final domestic demand growth is above the expansion’s mean growth rate, casting some doubt on whether the yield curve’s signal has been overwhelmed by a pickup in risk aversion and the factors that have flipped the term premium on its head. Chart 5Real Final Domestic Demand Is Still Vigorous Chart 6The New York Fed's Yield-Curve-Based Recession Model Is Flashing Red The Labor Market Is Still Roaring Table 1New York Fed Recession Warnings And Economic Conditions Consumption plays an outsized role in the U.S. economy, accounting for over two-thirds of GDP. As macro analysts are well aware, if you have an accurate read on consumption, you’ll know where the U.S. economy is headed. Extending the relationship to encompass household income’s impact on spending, and employment’s impact on income, the expression can be rewritten as: If you get the labor market right, you’ll get consumption right. The May employment situation report was roundly disappointing, as May net hirings fell short of expectations by about 100,000 and March and April gains were revised down by 75,000. Chart 7Employees Are Gaining The Upper Hand     The three-month moving average of net payroll additions slipped to just over 150,000. 110,000 monthly net additions is all it takes to keep the unemployment rate at a steady state, however, and there is some evidence that Midwestern flooding held down the May figure. With the job openings rate at a series high well above the 2006-07 peak and (most likely) above the peak in 1999-2000 (Chart 7, top panel), there is quite a lot of demand for new workers, as confirmed by the sizable margin of consumers who report that jobs are plentiful over those who report they’re hard to get (Chart 7, middle panel). The elevated quits rate (Chart 7, bottom panel) indicates that employers are competing fiercely to fill that demand. Given that almost no one quits a job unless s/he already has another one lined up, the quits rate reveals that employers are poaching employees from each other. When Employer A, after losing an employee to Employer B, plucks a replacement away from Employer C or Employer D, a self-reinforcing cycle quickly springs up that endows employees with some bargaining power. The budding dynamic is good for household income and good for consumption. Manufacturing’s Softness Isn’t Such A Big Deal The weakness in manufacturing PMI surveys around the world reveals that there has clearly been a significant global manufacturing slowdown, if not a full-on global manufacturing recession. The steep slide in the U.S. manufacturing PMI shows that it has not been immune. Manufacturing only accounts for about one-sixth of U.S. output and employment, however, and the level of the PMI series, which has simply returned to its mean level across the last three complete cycles, is not a cause for concern (Chart 8). The trend is worrisome, though, and we are watching to see if it breaks through the 50 boom-bust line. Manufacturing is weakening, but it’s not in dire straits yet. Chart 8Manufacturing Is Weakening, But It's Not In Dire Straits Yet Refilling The Punch Bowl This week’s FOMC meeting delivered on the change in tone intimated by Fed speakers at the beginning of the month. It appears that a couple of rate cuts may be forthcoming, whether the economy needs them or not. We had advised clients that the chances of a July rate cut were slightly more than fifty-fifty, but the probability now appears to be much higher. A follow-up cut in September also seems likely. The Fed’s move to insure against an economic shock pushes out our recession timetable yet again. If the fed funds rate is headed to 2% from its current 2.5%, the road to a restrictive policy setting in the mid-3s just got longer. The good news for our recommendations is that they were already decidedly risk friendly, on the grounds that there’s no need to de-risk until a recession is around six months away. Assuming no exogenous event intrudes on U.S. economic activity, neither the expansion nor the bull markets in risk assets will end until the Fed takes away the punch bowl. Right now, it seems intent on refilling it. As a client in Western Canada put it in a meeting with us last week, “Game on!” Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 On the basis of monthly rate/yield data, the 1998 false positive comprised just one observation (September).

​​​​​​​Overweight, High-Conviction On June 10th we tightened our stops on the overweight call in the S&P software index, as a risk management measure in the context of our cautious broad equity market stance. Our bullish software thesis has not changed, and we reiterate that the only way to monetize gains in these highflying stocks is via tightening stops. Yesterday’s ultra-dovish Fed meeting boosted the appeal of high growth stocks, including software, as the Fed is seriously considering a cut in the late-July meeting. Moreover, software investment is the last pillar keeping overall U.S. capital outlays in positive territory. Not only is software investment rising, but it is also garnering a larger slice of the overall capex pie (middle & bottom panels). Another source of support is that software is a service-based industry and, at the margin, mostly insulated from the U.S./China trade dispute, so investors have been finding refuge in these equities. Adobe’s and Oracle’s recent healthy earnings reports and upbeat guidance confirm that software profits will remain upbeat and will likely continue to outpace the broad market (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We remain cyclically overweight the S&P software index (it is also a high-conviction overweight), but we will obey our stops in case a riot point materializes in the broad equity market. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT – MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, INTU, ADSK, RHT, CDNS, SNPS, ANSS, SYMC, CTXS, FTNT.