Economy

Executive Summary China: Can The Economy Recover Without Housing Revival The rebound in China’s business activity in June reflects the release of pent-up demand from the economic reopening after lockdowns in April and May. China’s credit growth recovered meaningfully in June due to large local government (LG) bond issuance. Private sector sentiment and credit demand remain sluggish. Home sales relapsed in the first two weeks of July after a one-off improvement in June, corroborating that the housing market’s fundamentals remain gloomy. Despite posting strong growth in June, Chinese exports are facing strong headwinds from weakening external demand. A contraction in exports is very likely in the second half of this year. Chinese domestic demand remains weak. Renewed rolling lockdowns are likely in view of the escalating Covid-19 cases related to a more infectious Omicron subvariant. The RMB will probably continue to depreciate relative to the US dollar in the next few months. Bottom Line: Investors should maintain a neutral stance on Chinese onshore stocks and an underweight stance on investable stocks in a global equity portfolio. The risk-reward profile of Chinese onshore and offshore stocks in absolute terms is not yet attractive.   Chart 1High-Frequancy(Daily) Economic Indicators The recent recovery in economic activity in June mainly reflects the release of pent-up demand after reopening from lockdowns in April and May. Odds are that this rebound will fade. The relapse in house sales and slowdown in steel production during the first two weeks of July suggest that China’s economy is still struggling to gain traction (Chart 1). China’s business cycle recovery will be more U shaped rather than a repeat of the V-shaped resurgence experienced following the early 2020 lockdown. At that time, a quick and strong revival in the property market and exports shored up China’s recovery in 2H20. In contrast, the economy’s progress in the second half of this year will be dragged down by shrinking exports, weak consumption and depressed demand for housing. China’s recovery will be more U shaped than V shaped for the following reasons: New financing schemes for infrastructure investment recently announced by authorities will not lead to a surge in infrastructure investments in 2H22. The basis is that these new funding sources will largely offset a shortfall in local government (LG) revenues from this year’s land sales, as we discussed in last week’s report. Thus, there will be little new stimulus for infrastructure beyond what was already approved in the budget plan earlier this year. Rolling lockdowns will persist as long as China’s stringent dynamic zero-Covid policy remains in place. The recent flare-up of the more infectious Omicron BA.5 subvariant cases in a few cities raise the likelihood of more lockdowns. The number of cities under mobility restrictions or some form of lockdown climbed during the second week of July (Chart 2). These cities account for around 11% of China’s GDP. The rolling lockdowns will continue to disrupt the economy. Private sector sentiment remains in the doldrums. The willingness to spend or invest among households and enterprises remains very depressed (Chart 3). This will ensure that the multiplier effect of fiscal and credit stimulus will be small. Chart 2The Odds Of Renewed Lockdowns Are Rising Chart 3Sluggish Sentiment Among Chinese Households And Enterprises Chart 4China: Can The Economy Recover Without Housing Revival Since 2008 there has been no recovery in the mainland economy without buoyant real estate construction and surging property prices (Chart 4).  Chinese exports are set to contract as the demand for goods from US and European consumers continues to shrink. ​​​​​ Bottom Line: In absolute terms, the risk-reward profile of Chinese stocks is not yet attractive. We continue to recommend that investors maintain a neutral stance on China’s onshore stocks and underweight allocation on Chinese investable stocks within a global equity portfolio.   Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com   Peeling Off Credit Data Chart 5June's Credit Growth Was Largely Driven By LG Bond Issuance June’s strong credit growth was again driven by large LG bond issuance (Chart 5, top panel). Consequently, the credit impulse – calculated as a 12-month change in the flow of total social financing (TSF) as a percentage of nominal GDP – is much more muted when LG bond issuance is excluded (Chart 5, bottom panel). Medium- to long-term corporate loan growth only ticked up in June, but short-term bill financing has dropped dramatically (Chart 6). While it is difficult to quantify, it is highly likely that the modest upturn in corporate credit flow was due to (1) corporates’ pent-up demand for financing after the spring lockdowns and (2) the PBoC’s moral suasion used to boost the banks’ credit origination. Meanwhile, a PBoC survey released on June 29-30, showed that loan demand for all types of industrial enterprises plunged sharply in Q2, suggesting that sentiment is very weak among corporates (Chart 7). Chart 6Corporate Loan Growth Improved In June... Chart 7… But Corporate Loan Demand Remains Very Weak Household loan demand, which is highly correlated with home sales, remains shaky too (Chart 8, top panel). Medium- to long-term consumer loans continued to plunge, and the annual change in household loan origination remains negative (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 8Household Loan Demand Is Still Depressed Chart 9The Credit And Fiscal Impulse Will Be Moderate Overall, our projections for the combined credit and fiscal spending impulse for the rest of this year suggest that the aggregate fiscal and credit impulse will be improving but will be smaller than in 2020, 2016, 2013 and 2009 (Chart 9). Property Market: A Vicious Cycle Unfolding Home sales relapsed in the first two weeks of July after a one-off rebound in June. The weakness was broad-based across all city tiers. This implies that June’s bounce was driven by pent-up demand after lockdowns and does not represent a sustained revival (Chart 10). Sentiment among home buyers remains downbeat. The percentage of households planning to buy homes slipped further according to the PBoC’s urban household survey released on June 29 (Chart 11, top panel). Moreover, the percentage of households expecting home prices to rise has dived to the lowest level since early 2015 according to the same survey (Chart 11, bottom panel). Chart 10No Snapback In Housing Sales Chart 11Downbeat Sentiment Among Home Buyers Chart 12Real Estate Developers' Deteriorating Funding Will Further Dampen Housing Construction Property developers are caught in a vicious cycle.  Financing has not strengthened because the “three red lines” policy remains in place, and developers’ borrowing from banks shows no signs of amelioration (Chart 12, top panel). Critically, the plunge in the sector’s financing is resulting in shrinking housing completions (Chart 12, bottom panel). As property developers are suffering from liquidity shortages, they are dragging on existing construction projects. The upshot is that many Chinese cities are seeing delays in the completion of new homes. The latter is depressing buyers’ sentiment, generating a reluctance to buy properties, and curtailing deposits and advances to developers. In recent years, deposits and advances accounted for 50% of property developers’ financing. Without a substantial improvement in their financing, developers will not be in a position to service their excessive debts and deliver houses they have presold in the recent years. The latter will undermine their financing, closing the vicious cycle. In short, real estate developers’ liquidity shortfalls are evolving into solvency problems. These will continue dampening construction activity. An Export Contraction Ahead China’s exports were robust in June as supply chain and logistic disruptions faded. This was corroborated by last month’s advance in suppliers’ delivery times and production subindexes of China’s official Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) (Chart 13). Chart 13Chinese Logistics And Backlog Orders Pressures Have Eased In June Yet, China’s new exports orders remain in contractionary territory (Chart 14). Moreover, the softness of Shanghai’s export container freight index is also signaling weakness in China’s exports (Chart 15).   Chart 14External Demand For Chinese Export Goods Will Be Dwindling Chart 15Signs Of Moderation In China's Exports The shift in consumer spending in developed economies from manufactured goods to services has created headwinds for Chinese exports. US and European consumption of goods (ex-autos) is set to decline below its long-term trend (Chart 16). Given that retail inventories in the US have skyrocketed well above their pre-pandemic trend, US demand for consumer goods and, hence, Chinese exports will dwindle significantly when US retailers start to destock (Chart 17). Falling real household disposable income in the US and Europe will also fortify the downward trend in demand for consumer goods that China is a major producer of. Therefore, we expect shrinking Asian and Chinese exports in the second half of this year. Chart 16Developed Economies’ Household Demand For Goods ex-Autos Will Shrink Chart 17Well-Stocked Shelves In The US Bode Poorly For Chinese Exports Very Sluggish Domestic Demand Both consumer spending and capital expenditure remain in the doldrums. Traditional infrastructure investments picked up strongly in June, while investments in the real estate sector weakened further (Chart 18). Contracting exports will weigh on investments in manufacturing. Even as infrastructure investment recovers modestly, the downtrend in manufacturing and property fixed-asset investments will cap China’s capital spending in 2H22. Capital spending in traditional infrastructure, real estate and manufacturing account for 24%, 19% and 31% of fixed-asset investment, respectively. Chart 18Shrinking Real Estate Investment Will Remain A Drag On Chinese Investment Growth In 2H Chart 19Contracting Import Volume Reflects China's Sluggish Domestic Demand Imports for domestic consumption (excluding imports for processing and re-exports) are a good proxy for domestic demand trajectory. In June, import volumes contracted deeply at 12% on a year-on-year basis, reflecting sluggish domestic demand (Chart 19). Worryingly, import volume contraction is widespread from key commodities to semiconductors and capital goods (Chart 20A and 20B). Chart 20ABroad-Based Contraction In Imports Chart 20BBroad-Based Contraction In Imports Chart 21Rising New Covid Cases In China Will Constrain Domestic Consumption Recovery Moreover, the recent increase in Covid-19 cases and ensuing lockdowns in China will curb household consumption and the service sector’s activities in the next few months (Chart 21). Newly released labor market data show a mixed picture. The nationwide urban survey-based unemployment rate fell in June, but the unemployment rate among younger workers surged to the highest point since data collection began in 2018 (Chart 22, top panel). Reflecting weak employment conditions, new urban job creation in the first half of the year withered compared with the same period last year (Chart 22, bottom panel). Rapidly deteriorating income prospects are reinforcing households’ downbeat sentiment. A PBoC survey released on June 29 shows that confidence of future income in Q2 plummeted to its lowest level during the past two decades, while the preference for more saving deposits soared to the highest level since data collection began in 2002 (Chart 23). The latter entails that households’ consumption recovery will be gradual and halting, at best, in the second half of this year.  Chart 22Skyrocketed Unemployment Rate Among Young Workers Is A Big Problem Of Chinese Labor Market Chart 23Low Confidence In Future Income Contributes To Households' Unwillingness To Consume The RMB Is Facing Downside Risks In The Near Term Chart 24RMB Is Still Vulnerable The RMB has depreciated by about 6% against the US dollar since March, and we believe this trend will continue in the next few months. China’s interest rate differential versus the US dollar has fallen deeper into negative territory, and the gap may widen even more given that the inflation and monetary policy cycles in China and the US will continue to diverge (Chart 24, top panel). Thus, Chinese fixed-income market outflow pressures could endure this year (Chart 24, bottom panel). Moreover, as discussed in the section above, Chinese exports are set to shrink in the second half of the year. This will also weigh on the RMB. Notably, Chinese companies have started to increase their demand for USD. The net FX settlement rate by banks on behalf of clients has fallen below zero, albeit only marginally (Chart 25). This means more non-financial enterprises (such as exporters and investors) bought from than sold foreign currency to banks (Chart 25, bottom panel). Furthermore, foreign outflows from the onshore equity market have resumed and will likely be sustained, at least through the next few months (Chart 26). Foreign investors will likely flee from Chinese onshore stocks as global stocks continue selling off and China’s economic recovery disappoints in the second half of this year. Chart 25Contracting Exports Will Weigh On The RMB Chart 26Onshore Equity Market Foreign Outflow Pressures Remain, At Least In The Near Term Chinese Equity Market Technicals: Tell-Tale Signs Chart 27A-Shares Has Not Broken Above 200-Day Moving Average The rebound in China’s onshore CSI 300 stock index had been obstructed at its 200-day moving average (Chart 27). A failure to break above this technical resistance would imply non-trivial downside – a retest of its recent lows, at least. The relative performance of the MSCI China All-Share Index – which includes all onshore- and offshore-listed stocks – versus the global equity index has petered off at its previous troughs (Chart 28). This is a tell-tale sign of a major relapse. Chart 28A Tell-Sign Of Major Downtrend Chart 29Chinese Tech Stocks Still Appear Fragile The Hang Seng Tech index – which tracks Chinese offshore tech stocks/platform companies – has also failed to break above its 200-day moving average (Chart 29). This entails that the bear market in these share prices might not be yet over. Chart 30Two Large-Cap Chinese Stocks China’s two largest stocks (by market capitalization) – Tencent and Alibaba – may not be out of the woods:  Alibaba has failed at its 200-day moving average (Chart 30, top panel). Tencent has failed to rebound at all (Chart 30, bottom panel). Odds are it will likely drop more.   Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Footnotes Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations

Executive Summary We posit three conjectures about the US economy: Inflation has an easy path back to 4%, but a move to 2% will require a higher unemployment rate. It will be more difficult to raise the unemployment rate than many anticipate. The Fed will tolerate a higher unemployment rate than many anticipate. Taken together, these conjectures point to a higher fed funds rate in 2023 than is currently discounted in the market. This suggests that investors should be bearish bonds on a 12-18 month investment horizon. While we are bearish bonds in the medium-to-long term, we retain an ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration stance for the time being because numerous indicators point to lower bond yields during the next few months. We also recommend an underweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, though we highlight the potential for solid near-term junk bond returns. Rate Expectations: Market Versus Fed Bottom Line: Maintain an ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration stance. We will recommend reducing portfolio duration if the 10-year Treasury yield falls to 2.5% or if core inflation converges with our 4%-5% estimate of its underlying trend. Feature Uncertainty in bond markets remains elevated as investors seemingly can’t decide whether the US economy is in the midst of an inflationary boom or hurtling towards recession. This week’s report details our view of the current macroeconomic environment by offering three conjectures about the state of the US economy and monetary policy. We conclude by explaining how these conjectures shape our recommended investment strategy. Conjecture #1: Inflation Has An Easy Path Back To 4%, The Path To 2% Will Be More Difficult At 5.9%, core CPI inflation is running well above the Fed’s 2% target. However, we know that some portion of that 5.9% reflects supply side constraints related to the pandemic and some portion reflects an overheating of the demand side of the US economy. This distinction is important because the pandemic-related inflation will eventually subside on its own, without the need for materially slower economic growth. In contrast, a significant economic slowdown and a higher unemployment rate will be required to tame any inflation driven by strong US demand. Chart 1Estimating Trend Inflation In a recent report we looked at three different techniques for distinguishing between these two types of inflation.1First, we considered the Atlanta Fed’s decomposition of core inflation into flexible and sticky components. At present, the volatile core flexible CPI is running at an 8.4% annual rate and the core sticky CPI stands at 5.4% (Chart 1). Second, we noted that the New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge is running at 4.8% (Chart 1, bottom panel). Finally, we used wage growth net of trend productivity growth as an estimate of inflation’s underlying trend and calculated that to be 3.7% (Chart 1, bottom panel). From this analysis, our general conclusion is that core CPI inflation can fall into a range of 4%-5% just from the unwinding of pandemic-induced supply-side effects. After that, the Fed will be forced to engineer an economic slowdown to bring inflation from the stickier 4% level back down to its 2% target. Inflation Progress Report Last week’s June CPI report shows that even progress back to our 4%-5% estimate of inflation’s underlying trend is proving difficult. Core CPI rose 0.71% in June, well above expectations, and monthly trimmed mean CPI was an even stronger 0.80% (Chart 2A). Base effects led to a small drop in the annual core CPI number – from 6.0% to 5.9% - but annual trimmed mean CPI moved up to 6.9% (Chart 2B). The strong CPI print has led to increased speculation that the Fed will raise rates by 100 bps this month (see Box). Chart 2AMonthly Inflation Chart 2BYearly Inflation Turning to the three major components of core inflation, we see that shelter, goods, and services ex. shelter contributed roughly equal amounts to the June core CPI reading (Chart 3). The elevated reading from core goods inflation is particularly notable because this is one area where we have been anticipating that easing supply-side constraints will send prices lower. Car prices, specifically, have been one of the principal drivers of high inflation and they remained stubbornly high in June (Chart 4). Chart 3Monthly Core CPI Inflation By Major Component Chart 4Contribution To Month-Over-Month Core Goods CPI Chart 5Supply-Side Constraints Are Easing While it has taken much longer than expected for core goods and other pandemic-driven components of inflation to turn down, leading indicators still suggest that these prices are more likely to fall than rise during the next few months. The New York Fed’s Global Supply Chain Pressure Index has clearly rolled over and supplier delivery times, as measured by both the ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing surveys, have shortened (Chart 5). While core goods and autos are representative of the sort of inflation that will ease naturally as supply chain constraints abate, shelter inflation is representative of the sort of inflation that will be stickier. That is, a higher unemployment rate will be required to significantly lower shelter inflation. Chart 6Shelter CPI Model Shelter inflation, currently running at 5.6%, can be modeled using the unemployment rate, rental vacancies and home prices (Chart 6). Given that shelter is such a large component of core inflation, it must fall if the Fed is going to achieve its 2% inflation target. That will certainly require a higher unemployment rate and very likely a recession. Bottom Line: Core inflation will move down in the second half of this year, as easing supply-side constraints lead to lower goods prices. Inflation’s downtrend will subside once it reaches its trend level of 4%-5%, at which point a higher unemployment rate and economic recession will be required to move it even lower, back to the Fed’s 2% target. BOX 75 bps Or 100 bps At The Next FOMC Meeting? Guidance provided by Fed Chair Jay Powell at the last meeting FOMC meeting suggested that the committee will choose between lifting rates by 50 bps or 75 bps when it meets later this month. The implication was that any negative inflation surprise would push the committee towards 75 bps. Certainly, last month’s strong employment report and hot CPI print justify a 75 bps move within Powell’s framework. But is it possible that Powell’s guidance from the June FOMC meeting is already stale? Chart B1July FOMC Expectations Investors are increasingly betting that it is, and the market is now discounting some chance of a 100 bps rate hike this month (Chart B1). The reason for this pricing is that the Fed has already backtracked on its guidance once before. Powell ruled out 75 bps rate hikes at the May FOMC press conference. Then, the committee delivered a 75 bps increase in June after core CPI came in hot. Kansas City Fed President Esther George dissented from the June decision because she objected to the Fed flip-flopping on its guidance so quickly. George explained her dissent in a recent speech by saying that “communicating the path for interest rates is likely far more consequential than the speed with which we get there.”2 Where does this leave us for the July meeting? Our expectation is that the Fed will stick to its guidance and deliver a 75 bps increase this month. However, if the market moves to fully price-in a 100 bps move then the committee may be tempted to deliver on those expectations. In other words, the Fed’s recent track record of abandoning its forward rate guidance means that both a 75 bps rate hike and a 100 bps rate hike are in play for July. Conjecture #2: The Labor Market Will Be More Resilient Than Is Widely Believed Chart 7An Extremely Tight Labor Market Our second conjecture is that it will be more difficult to lift the unemployment rate than many people think. This view stems from the fact that the labor market is incredibly tight. As Fed officials have often pointed out, there are currently almost two job openings for every unemployed worker in the country (Chart 7). Further, we noted in last week’s report that while the employment readings from both ISM surveys are in contractionary territory, respondents to those surveys were much more likely to cite concerns about the supply side of the labor market than they were to cite concerns about hiring demand.3 In other words, an economy where there are twice as many job openings as unemployed workers and where firms are complaining about a shortage of labor is not one where we are likely to see an immediate surge in layoffs, even as demand starts to soften. Conjecture #3: The Fed Will Tolerate A Higher Unemployment Rate Than Is Widely Believed Chart 8Optimal Control Monetary Policy Our final conjecture is that the Fed will persistently run a much more restrictive monetary policy than many investors anticipate. We detailed our logic in a recent report where we argued that the Fed will adopt an optimal control approach to monetary policy.4 An optimal control strategy is employed when the Fed is unlikely to perfectly hit both its full employment goal and its 2% inflation target. In such environments, Janet Yellen has argued that the Fed should set monetary policy to minimize the joint deviations of inflation from target and of the unemployment rate from estimates of its full employment level.5 Chart 8 presents an example of an optimal control loss function that consists of adding together the squared deviations of inflation from 2% and of the unemployment rate from the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of NAIRU. Using this framework, the Fed’s goal is to minimize the output of the loss function shown in the top panel. The dashed lines in Chart 8 illustrate a scenario where core PCE inflation falls to 4% but where the output from the loss function is held flat. That scenario implies an increase in the unemployment rate from its current level of 3.6% all the way up to 6.7%! This exercise demonstrates that, under an optimal control framework, the Fed would be willing to tolerate an unemployment rate of 6.7% or lower in order to move core inflation back to 4%. We don’t see the unemployment rate hitting 6.7% any time soon. The main point of this analysis is to illustrate that Fed policy is likely to retain a restrictive bias until inflation returns to 2% or lower. It won’t move toward easing policy at the first sign of a higher unemployment rate, as has been the pattern in recent years when inflation was much more contained. Investment Implications To summarize, our three conjectures about the US economy are that: (i) a higher unemployment rate will be required to move inflation from 4% to the Fed’s 2% target, (ii) a lot of demand destruction will be required before we see a significant rise in the unemployment rate and (iii) in its pursuit of lower inflation, the Fed will tolerate a higher unemployment rate than many people expect. Taken together, these three conjectures imply that the fed funds rate will be higher in 2023 than what is currently priced in the curve. At present, the market is priced for the fed funds to peak at 3.67% in March 2023 and then fall back to 3.13% by the end of the year (Chart 9). If our three conjectures pan out, then we think it’s likely that the fed funds rate will move above 4% next year and that it will be higher than 3.13% by the end of 2023. Chart 9Rate Expectations: Market Versus Fed Portfolio Duration Chart 10High-Frequency Bond Yield Indicators Obviously, this view makes us inclined toward a ‘below-benchmark’ portfolio duration stance on a 12-18 month investment horizon. That said, we recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark for now because many indicators suggest that bond yields could fall during the next few months (Chart 10). More specifically, with core CPI still above our 4%-5% estimate of its underlying trend, we see inflation as more likely to fall than rise during the next six months. At the same time, aggregate demand will be slowing as the Fed tightens policy and the unemployment rate is more likely to rise than fall. These factors will keep bond yields contained between now and the end of the year. While we recommend an ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon, we will reduce portfolio duration if the 10-year Treasury yield moves back to 2.5% or once core inflation converges to our 4%-5% estimate of trend. At that point, we think inflation will be stickier and it will make sense to position for higher bond yields. Spread Product Our three conjectures also imply a negative environment for spread product. Monetary policy will become increasingly restrictive, and it will be a long time before the Fed moves toward interest rate cuts – the traditional signal to pile into spread product. We therefore advocate an underweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries in US bond portfolios. One exception to our underweight spread product allocation is that we retain a neutral allocation to high-yield. Our reasoning is that high-yield spreads are elevated and they have the potential to tighten during the next few months as inflation converges toward our estimate of trend. As inflation falls and fears of immediate recession abate, it’s conceivable that junk spreads could revert to their 2017-19 average, the level that prevailed during the previous tightening cycle (Chart 11), and such a move would lead to roughly 8.4% of excess return.6 If such a move were to occur within the next six months, then we would be inclined to reduce our junk bond exposure to underweight. A Quick Note On 2-Year TIPS Chart 11Junk Spreads Are Elevated Chart 122-Year TIPS Yield Is Positive In last week’s report we recommended upgrading TIPS from underweight to neutral relative to duration-matched nominal Treasuries. However, given that the 2-year TIPS yield was still negative, we did not close our recommendation to short 2-year TIPS or our recommended 2/10 real yield curve flattener and 2/10 inflation curve steepener positions. The 2-year real yield has continued to rise during the past week and, at +9 bps, it is now in positive territory (Chart 12). We were confident that the 2-year TIPS yield would turn positive because the Fed has implied that it is targeting positive real yields across the entire curve. But now that the yield is positive, we are no longer confident in the trade’s upside. Bottom Line: Investors should close out their short 2-year TIPS positions, as well as their 2/10 real yield curve flatteners and 2/10 inflation curve steepeners. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “No End In Sight For Fed Tightening”, dated June 21, 2022. 2     https://www.kansascityfed.org/Speeches/documents/8875/2022-George-MidAm… 3    Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Low Conviction US Bond Market”, dated July 12, 2022. 4    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Dual Mandates Clash”, dated June 28, 2022. 5    https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20120606a.htm 6    Return estimate assumes default losses of 1.8% and that the spread tightening occurs over a six month period.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns