Developed Countries

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The risk/reward equity market tradeoff is to the downside and we remain tactically cautious. The trade war re-escalation risks pushing out the global growth recovery to early-2020 and has shaken our confidence in our cyclically constructive equity market view. An enticing safe-haven macro backdrop, firming industry operating metrics and rock-bottom profit expectations and valuations all signal that it no longer pays to be underweight the S&P telecom services index. Waning residential investment, the recent flare up in the U.S./China trade tussle, crumbling lumber prices and adverse supply/demand dynamics warn that the S&P home improvement retail (HIR) index has ample downside. Recent Changes Lift the S&P telecom services index to neutral for a gain of 6% since inception. Early last week we got stopped out of our S&P homebuilding overweight recommendation, which is now back to neutral, and booked profits of 10% since inception relative to the SPX. Table 1 Feature Equities continued to whipsaw last week and lacked clear direction as the dust from President Trump’s May 5 tariff tweet has still not settled. While the trade talks could go either way, we are reluctant to take a stance and would rather err on the side of caution. Clearly the SPX wants to spring higher and craves a U.S./China trade deal, but our geopolitical strategists believe the trade talks have taken a turn for the worse and the odds of a positive trade resolution are falling quickly. We remain cautious on the short-term equity market outlook and are now increasingly worried that our sanguine cyclical posture is in jeopardy. Worrisomely, the stock-to-bond (S/B) ratio is sounding the alarm and is now part of the slew of indicators we track that have rolled over decisively (Chart 1). The S/B ratio has formed a bearish head and shoulders trading pattern and suggests that the SPX is at risk of a further pullback. While up to very recently falling bond yields were an undoubtedly equity market recovery pillar, any further melting in the 10-year Treasury yield would exert downward pull on the equity market. There are other signs that the U.S. equity market may be hanging by a thread. The average stock has failed to make new all-time highs using the Value Line Arithmetic Index as a gauge. The median U.S. stock is also suffering the same fate, again according to the Value Line Geometric Index (middle & bottom panels, Chart 2). Chart 1Tread Carefully Chart 2More Non-Confirming Indicators The trade-weighted U.S. dollar is also sending a deflationary impulse signal and likely reflects a continued global growth deceleration (top panel, Chart 2). This is a net negative for EPS especially for internationally exposed SPX constituents. Thus, this week we are further de-risking our portfolio by crystalizing gains in a defensive high-yielding communications services sub-index and lifting exposure to neutral from underweight. In addition, we update our bearish view on an early-cyclical subgroup and continue to protect the portfolio by adding trailing stops. Meanwhile, taking the pulse of global bourses is disconcerting. With the exception of the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ, no other stock market (in USD terms) confirms the SPX’s breakout to all-time highs. Highs were either hit in 2006-2007 or in early 2018. Now a big gulf has opened up, reminiscent of last year’s late-summer dichotomies when the SPX vaulted to fresh highs, but none of the other major global bourses confirmed the September highs (Charts 3 &  4). There are rising odds that a repeat may be unfolding. Chart 3I Know What You Did Last Summer Chart 4I Still Know What You Did Last Summer In our view, what explains the reversal of fortunes that led to a U.S. market dominating outperformance since early 2017 has been the massive fiscal injection the Trump administration undertook (Chart 5), with rising fiscal deficits three years running (an unprecedented backdrop during expansions). Chart 6 puts this easing in fiscal policy in a global perspective and shows the average fiscal balance from 2017-2020 using the IMF’s WEO April 2019 dataset that includes projections. The delta in the U.S.’s fiscal largess is quite significant. Our worry is that this is unsustainable and, similar to last fall/winter, the rest of the world may pull down the U.S. stock market until at least there are clear signs of a positive resolution in the U.S./China trade dispute. Adding it all up, the equity market’s risk/reward tradeoff is poor and we remain tactically cautious. The trade war re-escalation risks pushing out the global growth recovery to early-2020 and has shaken our confidence in our cyclically constructive equity market view. Thus, this week we are further de-risking our portfolio by crystalizing gains in a defensive high-yielding communications services sub-index and lifting exposure to neutral from underweight. In addition, we update our bearish view on an early-cyclical subgroup and continue to protect the portfolio by adding trailing stops. Chart 5Explaining U.S. Outperformance Dialing Up Profits In the context of a further de-risking of the portfolio, we are monetizing our gains of 6% since inception in our underweight recommendation in the S&P telecom services index and are upgrading this high yielding sector to neutral (bottom panel, Chart 7). Not only have bond yields plunged of late, raising the allure of fixed income equity proxies, but the recent escalation of the trade spat has caused U.S. manufacturers to pull in their horns. Markit’s flash manufacturing PMI survey that took place post the May 5 Trump tweet fell to 50.6 the lowest level since the history of the data. It is surprising that this latest reading near the 50 boom/bust line is below the late-2015/early 2016 level when global trade came to an abrupt halt. Historically, relative share price momentum has moved inversely with the annual change in this series and the current message is to expect a sustained rebound in the former (middle panel, Chart 7). Beyond this enticing macro backdrop for defensive equities, firming operating metrics also suggest that it no longer pays to be bearish telecom services stocks. Industry CEOs have shown labor restraint of late, at a time when selling prices are on the verge of expanding (middle & bottom panels, Chart 8). While the dust has yet to settle on the T-Mobile/Sprint saga, any reduction in supply should prove positive at the margin for industry selling prices. Chart 7Macro Headwinds Beneficiary Chart 8Firming Operating Metrics Tack on a tick up in consumer outlays on telecom services and this likely troughing in demand will also boost the sector’s revenue growth prospects (top panel, Chart 8). In sum, an enticing safe-haven macro backdrop, firming industry operating metrics and rock-bottom profits expectations and valuations all signal that it no longer pays to be underweight the S&P telecom services index. Meanwhile, bombed out profit expectations, suggest that the bar is set extremely low for incumbents and is likely a precursor of positive surprises. In fact, the five year out profit bearishness is unprecedented: telecom carriers are expected to trail the broad market by 13 percentage points (third panel, Chart 9). Despite this downbeat EPS message, relative share prices have fallen even faster, pushing the 12-month forward P/E multiple to multi-decade lows (bottom panel, Chart 9). Nevertheless, we refrain from bumping this niche safe haven index to overweight given some structural negative balance sheet issues. Chart 10 shows that telecom services debt burden is deteriorating. Net debt-to-EBITDA is pushing 3x versus below 2x for the broad market, and the interest coverage ratio is sinking steadily. Chart 9Bombed Out EPS Prospects And Valuations Chart 10Balance Sheet Trouble In sum, an enticing safe-haven macro backdrop, firming industry operating metrics and rock-bottom profits expectations and valuations all signal that it no longer pays to be underweight the S&P telecom services index. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P telecom services index to neutral and lock in gains of 6% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5TELSX – VZ, T, CTL. Home Improvement Retailers: Timber Alert   While our high-conviction underweight call in the S&P home improvement retail index is slightly in the red, our confidence has increased that these hard line retailers are about to get chopped. Netting it all out, waning residential investment, the recent flare up in the U.S./China trade tussle, crumbling lumber prices and adverse supply/demand dynamics warn that the S&P home improvement retailing index has ample downside. First, the latest GDP release as it pertains to housing made for grim reading: residential fixed investment is in retreat. Big Box DIY retailers are highly levered to this type of housing activity and the prognosis is negative. Residential fixed investment has subtracted from real GDP growth for five consecutive quarters, which is unprecedented outside of a recession (top panel, Chart 11). Chart 11Time To Converge Lower... Residential investment is on the verge of contracting in absolute terms, a feat already achieved compared to GDP growth (bottom panel, Chart 11). The direct link to HIR typically comes via existing home sales. In other words, when a home changes ownership, typically some renovation activity goes into that newly purchased home (second panel, Chart 12). Thus, any sustained softness in existing home sales especially given heightened competition from the newly built housing stock, will weigh on residential investment. Against such a backdrop, top line growth for building & supply stores will likely remain subdued (third panel, Chart 12). Second, the recently announced tariffs and the specter of additional tariffs on the remaining U.S./China trade balance will also weigh on home improvement retailers' margins and profits. While management teams have yet to pencil in the direct input cost increase hit to future profitability, as revealed in recent HD and LOW conference calls, if all of the cost is passed on to the consumer then sales will suffer the most. Put simply, at the margin, some remodeling projects would have to get trimmed or get postponed, warning that HIR same-store sales will remain under pressure (second panel, Chart 13). Chart 12...To Falling Residential Investment Chart 13Lumber Price Blues Third, lumber prices continue to crumble and, given that HIR makes a set margin on lumber sales, HIR profits will likely underwhelm (third panel, Chart 13). Finally, a buildup in industry inventories at a time when demand is easing has pummeled the sales-to-inventories ratio, warning that the path of least resistance for HIR profitability remains lower (bottom panel, Chart 13). Our HIR model does an excellent job in capturing most of these macro and operating headwinds, and suggests that a felling in the relative share price ratio looms (Chart 14). What is disquieting is that there is no real valuation cushion for these priced-to-perfection retailers to absorb any future profit hiccups that we anticipate in the coming quarters. Our sense is that the de-rating phase that commenced in early 2019 will gain steam in the back half of the year and a premium-to-discount valuation reversal would not surprise us at all (bottom panel, Chart 12). Netting it all out, waning residential investment, the recent flare up in the U.S./China trade tussle, crumbling lumber prices and adverse supply/demand dynamics warn that the S&P home improvement retailing index has ample downside. Bottom Line: We reiterate our high-conviction underweight status in the S&P HIR index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOMI – HD, LOW.     Anastasios Avgeriou,  U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Chart 14Model Says Shy Away Housekeeping Early last week we obeyed our stop and booked profits in the S&P homebuilding index of 10% versus the S&P 500 since inception; we also downgraded this niche consumer discretionary index from previously overweight to currently neutral. We are taking this opportunity of de-risking our portfolio to add another trailing stop at 10% to a related market-neutral trade: long S&P homebuilding/short S&P HIR that has recently cleared the 13% return mark since inception.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights Corporate Bonds: Corporate bond spreads have been slow to price-in the escalation of the U.S./China trade dispute. Nimble investors should take steps to mitigate their near-term (0-3 month) exposure to credit spreads, but remain overweight corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Duration: With 50 bps of rate cuts already priced into the market for the next 12 months, there is very little money to be made from extending duration and potentially a lot of money to be made by keeping duration low. This is especially true given that the Fed has so far done nothing to suggest that rate cuts are on the table. TIPS: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates look cheap on our model, and the core PCE deflator’s sharp drop probably overstates the deflationary pressures in the economy. Maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in U.S. bond portfolios. Feature Concerns that the ongoing U.S./China trade war will exacerbate the decline in global growth flared again last week, and our geopolitical strategists see high odds of further near-term escalation.1 For starters, China has not yet retaliated to the U.S. Commerce Department’s blacklisting of Huawei and a handful of other Chinese tech firms. Meanwhile, the U.S. stands ready to extend tariffs across the full slate of imported Chinese goods. To cap it all off, there are currently no firm plans for the resumption of talks between the countries’ respective negotiating teams, and no assurance that Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping will speak to each other at the G20 Summit in Japan on June 28-29. Credit Spreads Are Too Complacent Chart 1Corporate Bonds At Risk While Treasury yields responded to the turmoil by dropping for the second consecutive week, the spillover to corporate bond markets has been less severe. Chart 1 on page 1 shows that corporate bond excess returns have de-coupled from the CRB Raw Industrials index during the past 12 months. The CRB Raw Industrials index tracks a broad basket of commodity prices, making it an excellent real-time indicator of the market’s assessment of global growth. Like Treasury yields, the CRB index has fallen sharply during the past two weeks. The wide gulf between corporate bond and commodity returns suggests that we will soon see either a sell-off in the corporate bond market or a positive re-rating of global growth that sends the CRB index higher. Recent history provides examples of both cases (Chart 2). The CRB index rose to meet corporate bond returns in 2012, but dragged corporate bond returns lower in 2014. Given the long list of potential negative trade catalysts, some near-term downside for corporate bond excess returns appears more likely. But it’s not just political headlines that make us cautious about the near-term outlook for credit spreads. The uncertainty created by the U.S./China trade dispute is now finding its way into the economic survey data. Flash Manufacturing PMIs for the U.S., Eurozone and Japan all fell in May, with respondents quick to blame the decline on global trade tensions. Much like the CRB index, PMI readings are sending a starkly different message than credit spreads. Either trade tensions will ease during the next couple of months, sending PMIs higher, or corporate bond spreads will widen. A model of U.S. capacity utilization based on lagged junk spreads predicts that capacity utilization will rise from its current 78% to 80% during the next six months (Chart 3). However, both the Markit and ISM Manufacturing PMIs suggest a further decline is more likely. Once again, either trade tensions will ease during the next couple of months, sending the PMIs higher, or corporate bond spreads will widen. Chart 2Position For Reconvergence Chart 3Capacity Utilization & Junk Spreads   We recommend that investors take measures to limit their near-term (~3-month) exposure to corporate spread risk. Stay Positive On A Cyclical (6-12 Month) Horizon Chart 4Expect More Stimulus From China While near-term caution is warranted, we would still position for positive corporate bond excess returns (both investment grade & high-yield) on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Ultimately, the U.S. and China will navigate toward some sort of truce, and the negative impact from tariffs is unlikely to derail the U.S. economic recovery.2 What’s more, Chinese policymakers will accelerate their stimulus efforts to mitigate the negative impact of higher tariffs. Our China Investment Strategy service tracks a composite of six money and credit growth indicators that lead Chinese economic activity. This leading indicator has already bottomed, and our strategists anticipate a return to stimulus levels reminiscent of mid-2016 (Chart 4).3 As long as a U.S. recession is avoided, corporate bond spreads will eventually settle near levels seen in the late stages of previous economic cycles (Chart 5A & Chart 5B).4 Chart 5AInvestment Grade Spread Targets Chart 5BHigh-Yield Spread Targets   Bottom Line: Corporate bond spreads have been slow to price-in the escalation of the U.S./China trade dispute. Nimble investors should take steps to mitigate their near-term (0-3 month) exposure to credit spreads, but remain overweight corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Risk & Reward In The Treasury Market Unlike credit spreads, Treasury yields have responded aggressively to the negative news flow. The 10-year Treasury yield currently sits at 2.32%, 7 bps lower than at this time last week. Meanwhile, the overnight index swap curve is priced for two full 25 basis point rate cuts over the next 12 months. Interestingly, while market prices imply 50 bps of rate cuts during the next year, the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants shows that, as of the May FOMC meeting, investors didn’t actually expect rate cuts any time soon. The shaded region in Chart 6 shows the interquartile range of the surveyed investors’ fed funds rate forecasts, while the dashed black line shows the median forecast. The survey responses convey widespread consensus that the fed funds rate will remain flat until the end of the year – the 25th percentile, median and 75th percentile are all equal until the end of 2019. Then, heading into 2020, the 75th percentile of the distribution starts to forecast rate hikes. The 25th percentile doesn’t move in the direction of rate cuts until Q4 2020, and the median forecaster sees the fed funds rate staying put at least through the second half of 2021. Chart 6Market And Survey Expectations Differ Why would market prices imply a much lower path for the fed funds rate than actual investor survey responses? The most likely reason relates to assessments about the balance of risks. When responding to surveys, investors will usually provide their modal (or most likely) outcome. However, investor bets in financial markets will reflect a dollar-weighted average of different possible scenarios. It’s possible that while investors think a flat fed funds rate is the most likely outcome, they also view rate cuts as a higher probability tail risk than rate hikes. They therefore invest some of their money to hedge that risk, even if it does not reflect their base case view. The intuition that rate cuts remain a “tail risk” is confirmed by another question from the survey. This question asks investors to consider a time period between now and the end of the year, and then attach a probability to the Fed’s next move i.e. whether it will be hike, a cut, or whether there will be no change in the funds rate until the end of 2019 (Chart 7). As of the April/May survey, market participants thought the odds of a hike were 23%, odds of a cut were 17% and the odds of flat rates until the end of the year were 59%. Before the Fed meeting in March, investors saw 50% chance of a hike, 13% chance of a cut, and 37% chance of no change. The overall message is that investors continue to view a 2019 rate cut as a tail risk, but one that’s perceived probability is rising. In any event, for our purposes it doesn’t really matter how investors respond to surveys. According to our Golden Rule of Bond Investing, if the actual change in the fed funds rate over the next 12 months exceeds what is currently priced into the OIS curve for that period, then below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will pay off.5 In fact, the Golden Rule even gives us a framework for translating different rate hike/cut scenarios into expected 12-month Treasury returns (Table 1). Table 1The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Based on current prices, if the fed funds rate holds steady for the next 12 months – as the median market participant expects – we calculate that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index will lose between 1.98% and 2.41% relative to cash. Even in the scenario where the Fed delivers two rate cuts during the next 12 months, we would still expect Treasury index returns to lag cash by 12-13 bps. Negative excess returns in the “two rate cut” scenario are due to the negative carry in the Treasury index. Capital gains/losses would be close to zero in that scenario, since the change in the fed funds rate is exactly equal to the market’s expectations. Investors continue to view a 2019 rate cut as a tail risk, but one that’s perceived probability is rising. What’s evident from those figures is that there is currently very little money to be made betting on rate cuts, and quite a bit to be made betting on rate hikes. The risk/reward balance in the Treasury market clearly favors keeping portfolio duration low. But What Will The Fed Actually Do? The minutes from the last FOMC meeting show broad consensus around the Fed’s current “on hold” policy stance, though it’s notable that “a few” participants thought rate hikes would be appropriate if the economy evolved in line with their expectations. The minutes contain no mention of a possible rate cut. Our sense is that it would require a further sharp tightening of financial conditions or significantly worse economic data before the Fed seriously considers cutting rates. Our Fed Monitor – an aggregate indicator that measures economic growth, inflation and financial conditions – is currently very close to the zero line, a level consistent with the Fed’s “on hold” stance (Chart 8). The ISM Manufacturing PMI is also firmly above the 50 boom/bust line. Historically, Fed rate cuts are usually preceded by a negative reading from our Fed Monitor and a sub-50 PMI. We would be looking for those two signals before expecting the Fed to cut rates. Chart 8Sub-50 ISM Required Before The Fed Cuts Rates Bottom Line: With 50 bps of rate cuts already priced into the market for the next 12 months, there is very little money to be made from extending duration and potentially a lot of money to be made by keeping duration low. This is especially true given that the Fed has so far done nothing to suggest that rate cuts are on the table. Inflation & TIPS Chart 9Adaptive Expectations Model It’s not just nominal Treasury yields that dropped during the past two weeks. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates – the spread between nominal Treasury yields and TIPS yields – also fell precipitously. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 1.76% and the 5-year/5-year forward breakeven is only 1.9%. These figures suggest that the market does not trust the Fed to meet its inflation target in the long-run. Our main valuation tool for the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is our Adaptive Expectations Model.6 It derives a fair value for the 10-year breakeven based on: The 10-year rate of change in the core consumer price index The 12-month rate of change in the headline consumer price index The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge At present, the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is 20 bps below the model’s fair value (Chart 9). It shouldn’t be too surprising that TIPS look cheap relative to nominals. Recent inflation data have been weak and the Fed has written off the weakness as “transitory”, leading to doubts about whether it will keep rates low enough to meet its target. For our part, we think investors should take advantage of low breakevens and overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in U.S. bond portfolios. In fact, the Fed’s characterization of low inflation as “transitory” seems correct. Chart 10 shows both the core and trimmed mean PCE deflators. The dramatic fall in the core measure, which strips out food and energy prices from the headline number, is what has caught the market’s attention. But it’s important to note that trimmed mean PCE inflation has not confirmed the decline. In fact, it remains in a multi-year uptrend. Recent inflation data have been weak, but the Fed has written off the weakness as “transitory”. Chart 10Low Inflation Looks "Transitory" This is the third time during this cycle that core PCE inflation has diverged negatively from the trimmed mean. Core eventually rebounded and re-converged with the trimmed mean in both of the prior two episodes. The Fed is banking on the third time playing out the same way, and we think it would be unwise to bet against them. Recently released research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas shows that trimmed mean PCE inflation provides a less-biased real-time estimate of the headline figure than the traditional core measure. The latter tends to run too low. The trimmed mean is also more closely related to labor market slack.7 Bottom Line: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates look cheap on our model, and the core PCE deflator’s sharp drop probably overstates the deflationary pressures in the economy. Maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in U.S. bond portfolios. Ryan Swift U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Is Trump Ready For The New Long March?” dated May 24, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2      The potential economic impact from tariffs is discussed in Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Tarrified,” dated May 16, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Simple Arithmetic,” dated May 15, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4      For details on how we determine the spread targets shown in Charts 5A & 5B, please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6      For details on the model’s construction please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market,” dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7      https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/Documents/research/papers/2019/wp1903… Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification