Fixed Income

Highlights Duration: Only 2 of the 5 items on our Checklist For Increasing Portfolio Duration have been checked. We will heed this message and stick with below-benchmark portfolio duration for the time being. We will have an opportunity to re-assess the items on our Checklist after the March FOMC meeting when the Fed’s interest rate forecasts will be updated. The Fed & Financial Conditions: The recent dip in the stock market is not the result of investors pricing-in worse economic outcomes. Rather, it is a sector rotation driven by extreme economic optimism. It is certainly not a concern for the Fed. The Fed & The Labor Market: We need to see monthly nonfarm payroll growth coming in consistently above 419 thousand before we can be confident that the Fed will hike rates by the end of 2022. Feature Chart 1Bearish Trend Intact The bond bear market rages on. The Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Index returned -1.8% in February, its worst monthly performance since 2016. The sell-off then continued through the first week of March, culminating with the 10-year Treasury yield touching 1.56% as of Friday’s close (Chart 1). The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield ended the week at 2.41%, near the top-end of primary dealer estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate (Chart 1, bottom panel). We don’t want to catch a falling knife, but eventually, yields will look attractive enough for us to increase our recommended portfolio duration. To help us make that decision, we unveiled a Checklist For Increasing Portfolio Duration in our February Webcast (Table 1).1 Table 1Checklist For Increasing Portfolio Duration This week, we check-in with our Checklist, concluding that it is still too early to increase portfolio duration. Checking-In With Our Duration Checklist Chart 2Cyclical & Valuation Indicators The first item on our Checklist is the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reaching levels consistent with survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate. As noted above, this condition has been met. Second, we would like to see survey-derived measures of the 10-year term premium reach extended levels. Specifically, we’d like to see them approach their 2018 peaks (Chart 2). Currently, our two measures are sending diverging signals. The term premium derived from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants is 60 bps, only 15 bps off its 2018 peak. However, the term premium derived from the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers is only 22 bps, 53 bps off its 2018 peak. For now, our assessment is that this condition has not been met. It’s important to note that the surveys used to construct our two term premium measures and to obtain our fair value range for the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield have not been updated since January, and that they will be revised ahead of this month’s FOMC meeting. If primary dealers and market participants revise up their fed funds rate expectations, then our valuation measures will give the 10-year yield more room to rise. Third, we continue to track high-frequency cyclical economic indicators like the CRB/Gold ratio (Chart 2, panel 3) and the relative performance of cyclical versus defensive equity sectors (see section titled “The Fed’s Approach To Financial Conditions” below). These measures have yet to show any signs of deterioration, consistent with an environment where bond yields should be rising. Fourth, if current trends continue, we are concerned that US yields may rise too far compared to yields in the rest of the world. This could entice foreign inflows into the US bond market, sending yields back down. Historically, bullish sentiment toward the US dollar is a good indicator of when US yields have risen too far. At present, dollar sentiment remains extremely bearish (Chart 2, bottom panel). This suggests that we are not yet close to the point when foreign purchases will push US yields lower. Finally, we consider the market’s fed funds rate expectations relative to the Fed’s most recent forecast, as inferred from its quarterly “dot plot”. Currently, the market is priced for Fed liftoff to occur in January 2023, with a second rate hike delivered in May 2023 and a third in October 2023 (Chart 3). This is considerably more hawkish than the Fed’s median forecast from December, which called for no rate hikes until at least 2024! Chart 3Market Expects Liftoff In January 2023 We think it’s conceivable that economic conditions could warrant Fed liftoff in late-2022 (see section titled “Tracking Payrolls And The Countdown To Fed Liftoff” below), but the Fed will probably be more cautious about how quickly it brings its expected liftoff date forward. FOMC participants will have an opportunity to push back against the market when they update their funds rate forecasts at this month’s meeting. The Fed will likely bring forward its anticipated liftoff date, but probably not all the way to January 2023. This could halt the uptrend in bond yields, at least for a while. Bottom Line: Only 2 of the 5 items on our Checklist For Increasing Portfolio Duration have been checked. We will heed this message and stick with below-benchmark portfolio duration for the time being. We will have an opportunity to re-assess the items on our Checklist after the March FOMC meeting when the Fed’s interest rate forecasts will be updated. Other surveys used in the construction of our term premium estimates and 5-year/5-year yield targets will also be updated around this time. The Fed’s Approach To Financial Conditions Chart 4Financial Conditions Are Easy Remarks from Fed Chair Jay Powell were a catalyst for higher bond yields last week. Apparently, there had been some expectation in the market that Powell would use his platform to express concern about the recent increase in long-maturity bond yields. In fact, many expected him to foreshadow changes to the Fed’s balance sheet policy, either extending the maturity of its ongoing asset purchases or initiating an Operation Twist, where the Fed sells short-dated securities and buys long-dated ones.2 Powell didn’t announce any of these things. In fact, he didn’t even express concern about the recent rise in long-dated yields despite being given several opportunities to do so. To understand why, we need to understand how the Fed thinks about financial conditions. The Fed only cares about conditions in financial markets to the extent that they are expected to influence the real economy. This means that the Fed takes a broad view of financial conditions, including bond yields, credit spreads and equity prices. From this perspective, financial markets do not currently pose a risk to the economy (Chart 4). Yes, long-dated bond yields have risen, but short-dated yields remain low. Credit spreads also remain very tight and equity prices have only dipped modestly from high levels. The Chicago Fed’s broad index of financial conditions shows that they are extremely accommodative (Chart 4), and thus support continued economic recovery. This financial market back-drop is not one that will cause the Fed to take additional actions to ease policy. Even the recent drop in the stock market appears to be more a reflection of economic optimism than a cause for concern. Looking at the performance of different equity sectors, we find that the sectors that stand to benefit from the end of the pandemic and economic re-opening are surging. Meanwhile, the sectors that are performing poorly are simply giving back some of the huge gains that were realized when the pandemic was raging last year. For example, cyclical sectors (Industrials, Energy and Materials) are soaring while defensive sectors (Healthcare, Communications, Consumer Staples and Utilities) have hooked down (Chart 5A). The ratio between the two remains tightly correlated with the 10-year Treasury yield. Similarly, Bank stocks have exploded higher since bond yields troughed last fall while the Technology sector has had difficulty making further gains (Chart 5B). Last year, the Tech sector benefited from low bond yields and surging demand. This year, Banks stand to profit from higher yields and an improving labor market. Finally, our US Equity Strategy team put together a basket of “COVID-19 Winners” designed to profit from the pandemic and a basket of “Back To Work” stocks designed to benefit from economic re-opening. Not surprisingly, the former is dragging the S&P 500 lower while the latter is on a tear (Chart 5C). Chart 5ASector Rotation: Cyclicals Vs. Defensives Chart 5BSector Rotation: Banks Vs. Tech Chart 5CSector Rotation: COVID Winners Vs. Re-Open Winners The bottom line is that the recent dip in the stock market is not the result of investors pricing-in worse economic outcomes. Rather, it is a sector rotation driven by extreme economic optimism. It is certainly not a concern for the Fed. Other Reasons For The Fed To Change Its Balance Sheet Policy In addition to concerns about a drop in the stock market, several other reasons have been given for why the Fed might consider either increasing its asset purchases or shifting them toward the long end of the curve. 1) Treasury Market Liquidity Chart 6Treasury Market Liquidity First, there is an ongoing tension in the Treasury market between imposing stricter capital regulations on dealer banks and ensuring that they have enough balance sheet capacity to maintain Treasury market liquidity during periods of stress.3 This delicate equilibrium broke down last March when Treasury market liquidity evaporated at a time when both equities and bonds were crashing. The Fed was forced to step into the Treasury market to sustain market functioning. Last week’s Treasury sell-off had a whiff of illiquidity about it as well. One liquidity index that measures the average curve fitting error across all government bond yields increased slightly, but not nearly as much as it did last March (Chart 6). Treasury bid/ask spreads also widened a touch, but unlike last March, Treasury ETFs continued to trade close to their net asset values. A significant deterioration in Treasury liquidity would prompt a quick response from the Fed. That is, the Fed would quickly ramp up purchases to restore market functioning. However, last week’s blip was not nearly severe enough to raise alarm bells. Other periods of Treasury market stress that have prompted the Fed to step in have occurred during periods of extreme economic deterioration and market panic, such as in March 2020 and 2008. With economic growth accelerating rapidly, we place low odds on a major Treasury market liquidity event occurring this year. 2) Expiry Of The SLR Exemption Chart 7Reserve Supply Is Massive A second possible reason for the Fed to change its balance sheet policy is the upcoming expiry of the exemption to the Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR). The SLR is a regulation that requires large banks to hold common equity capital totaling at least 5% of assets. Assets are not risk-weighted for the purposes of the SLR. A problem arose with the SLR last March when the Fed bought massive amounts of bonds, flooding the banking system with reserves (Chart 7). The problem is that banks are forced to hold those reserves, and this makes it more difficult for them to meet their SLR requirement. To alleviate the problem, the Fed announced that reserves and Treasury securities would be exempted from the SLR calculation. Today, the issue is that this exemption is scheduled to expire at the end of March and the Fed has yet to announce whether it will be extended or allowed to lapse. Table 2US Bank Supplementary Leverage Ratios If the exemption lapses, then banks may try to unload Treasury securities to remain compliant with the SLR. In theory, this could lead to upward pressure on Treasury yields that the Fed could mitigate by ramping up its asset purchases. However, it’s unclear how much of an impact a lapsing of the SLR exemption would actually have on the Treasury market. Even adjusting for a lapsing of the exemption, all major US banks remain compliant with the 5% SLR (Table 2). Also, banks could always decide to increase their SLRs by reducing share buybacks rather than by shedding Treasuries.   In any event, an increase in Fed asset purchases to lean against rising Treasury yields driven by bank selling would be counterproductive. It would only flood the banking system with more reserves, making the SLR even more difficult to meet. Our view is that a fair compromise would be for the Fed to continue the SLR exemption for bank reserves, but to allow the Treasury security exemption to lapse. But even if the SLR exemption is allowed to lapse completely, we doubt that it will lead to enough market turmoil to prompt a change in the Fed’s balance sheet strategy. 3) Supply/Demand Imbalance In Money Markets Finally, some have noted that the large and growing supply of bank reserves could lead to problems in money markets. Specifically, with the Treasury Department now in the process of paying down its cash account (Chart 7, bottom panel), there is a lot of cash flooding into money markets and coming up against limited T-bill supply. In theory, the Fed could try to mitigate this problem by engaging in an Operation Twist – selling some T-bills and buying some coupon bonds. But we doubt this will occur. The Fed already has tools in place to maintain control over short rates in such circumstances. For example, the same situation arose in 2013 when an over-supply of bank reserves pushed short rates down toward the bottom of the Fed’s target range (Chart 8A). The Fed’s response was to create the Overnight Reverse Repo Facility (ON RRP). This facility allows counterparties to park excess cash at the Fed in exchange for a security off the Fed’s balance sheet. This proved to be an effective floor on repo rates and the fed funds rate, and we expect it will be again (Chart 8B). Chart 8AFed Created ON RRP In 2013... Chart 8B... It Remains A Firm Floor On Rates T-bill yields remained below the ON RRP rate for some time in 2014 and 2015, and the same thing could happen again this year. But this will not be a major concern for the Fed as long as it maintains control over the fed funds rate and the overnight repo rate. Eventually, the Treasury Department can deal with the lack of bill supply by increasing the amount of T-bill issuance. Bottom Line: Treasury market liquidity remains an ongoing concern for the Fed, and the possible expiry of the SLR exemption and lack of T-bill supply present additional near-term technical challenges. We think it’s unlikely that any of these things will prompt the Fed to deviate from its current pace and composition of asset purchases in 2021. Tracking Payrolls And The Countdown To Fed Liftoff Chart 9The Fed's Maximum Employment Targets Employment growth surprised to the upside in February as 379 thousand jobs were added to nonfarm payrolls. This sent bond yields higher, but we caution that even stronger employment growth will be required to keep bond yields rising going forward. The Fed needs to see a return to “maximum employment” before it will lift rates off the zero bound. This means not only that the unemployment rate will have to fall to a range of 3.5% to 4.5%, but also that the labor force participation rate must make a full recovery to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 9). We calculate that average monthly employment growth of 419 thousand will be required to achieve this goal by the end of 2022 (Table 3). In other words, to justify the market’s January 2023 expected liftoff date, we will need to see average monthly payroll growth of at least 419 thousand going forward.   Table 3Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date This number seems high, but it may be attainable. With vaccine distribution kicking into high gear, many service sectors of the economy will soon be able to re-open. This already started to happen last month when the Leisure & Hospitality sector added 355 thousand jobs. Even after last month’s gains, Leisure & Hospitality still accounts for 36% of the net job loss since last February (Table 4). This means that there is scope for extremely large employment gains this year if the coronavirus can be contained. Table 4Employment By Industry Bottom Line: We need to see monthly nonfarm payroll growth coming in consistently above 419 thousand before we can be confident that the Fed will hike rates by the end of 2022. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.bcaresearch.com/webcasts/detail/387 2 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-01/treasury-curve-dysfunction-ignites-talk-of-federal-reserve-twist?sref=Ij5V3tFi 3 For more details please see US Investment Strategy / US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Alphabet Soup, Part 2: Shocked And Awed”, dated July 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The recent backup in bond yields could cause stocks to fall further in the near term. However, history suggests that as long as yields remain low in absolute terms, as they are now, equities will recover. Market angst that the Fed is about to turn more hawkish is unwarranted. Central banks around the world have both the tools and the inclination to keep bond yields from rising excessively. Despite the jump in bond yields, the forward earnings yield is 540 basis points above the real bond yield in the US. Outside the US, the forward earnings yield is 615 basis points above the real bond yield. In 2000, the earnings yield was below the real bond yield. Just as value stocks began to outperform growth stocks in mid-2000, the end of the pandemic will herald a similar period of value-oriented outperformance. Commodity producers and banks will lead the way. Some Parallels Between Today And 2000… Stock prices have buckled in recent weeks, raising concerns that global bourses are at risk of a major crash, just like they were in early 2000. There are certainly some notable similarities between 2000 and the present: In both cases, the preceding rise in stock prices was fueled by the Federal Reserve’s desire to prevent an exogenous shock from causing a major recession (Chart 1). Last year, the shock was the pandemic. In 1998, it was the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM). The Connecticut-based hedge fund imploded shortly after Russia defaulted on its debt, leading to a gut-wrenching 22% decline in the S&P 500. The brewing crisis prompted the Fed to cut rates by a total of 75 basis points. Spurred on by fears of Y2K, the Fed also injected vast amounts of liquidity into the financial system. Tech stocks led the market higher both in the late 1990s and last year. The NASDAQ Composite rose 68% between its intra-day low in October 1998 and March 2000. In 2020, the NASDAQ outperformed the S&P 500 by 24% and returned 44% overall. Chart 1The NASDAQ's 1999 Surge Followed The 1998 “Insurance Cuts” And Coincided With The Fed’s Balance-Sheet Expansion Chart 2Low-Priced Stocks Have Been The Winners In The First Quarter The speculative mania in the 1990s spread from large-cap tech stocks to small-cap companies. We saw the same pattern earlier this year, with prices and trading volumes exploding among smaller, low-priced stocks (Chart 2). As was the case in the late 1990s, retail investors – this time armed with “stimmy” checks and access to zero-commission trading accounts – plowed into the market. Chart 3Some Pockets Of Bullish Equity Sentiment Chart 4Some Pockets Of Bullish Equity Sentiment Bullish equity investor sentiment was rampant at the peak of the stock market in 2000. Although not quite to the same extent as back then, most measures of investor sentiment turned bullish prior to the recent selloff (Chart 3). Like most investors, analysts were wildly optimistic on stocks in the late 1990s (Chart 4). Long-term earnings growth projections are very optimistic today, a potentially ominous signal given that (unlike in the late 1990s), productivity growth is now more anemic. Rising stock prices in the late 1990s allowed corporate insiders to cash in their options, while enabling new companies to go public. Recently, we have seen a flurry of companies list their shares, in some cases through dubious SPAC vehicles (Chart 5). Valuations reached nosebleed levels in 2000. While the forward P/E ratio on the S&P 500 is somewhat below its 2000 peak, other valuation measures such as price-to-sales, Tobin’s Q, and enterprise value-to-EBITDA are above where they were in 2000 (Chart 6). Chart 5Renewed Interest In Listing Stocks Chart 6Stretched Valuations, Then And Now … But One Important Difference Despite the parallels between today and 2000, there is an important difference: The Federal Reserve. Having cut rates in 1998, the Fed reversed course in mid-1999, eventually taking the fed funds rate up to 6.5% in May 2000. The yield curve inverted in February of that year, shortly after the 10-year yield reached a high of 6.79%. Chart 7What Happens To Equities When Treasury Yields Rise? Bond yields have risen briskly over the past six months. However, they remain very low in absolute terms. While rising yields can produce a temporary stock market correction, they need to move into restrictive territory in order to trigger a recession and an accompanying bear market in equities. Chart 7 highlights some research that Garry Evans and BCA’s Global Asset Allocation team recently produced. It shows eight episodes since 1990 of a sharp rise in the 10-year Treasury yield. On every occasion (except in 1993-94, when the Fed unexpectedly raised rates in February 1994), equities performed strongly while rates were rising (Table 1). Today, the forward earnings yield on the S&P 500 is 540 basis points above the real yield. In 2000, the real bond yield was higher than the earnings yield (Chart 8). The gap between earnings yields and real bond yields is even greater outside the US, where valuations are generally more attractive. By the same token, the S&P 500 dividend yield was well below the bond yield in 2000. Today, they are roughly the same. Even if one were to pessimistically assume that US companies are unable to raise nominal dividend payments at all for the next decade, the S&P 500 would need to fall by 21% in real terms for equities to underperform bonds. Many other stock markets would have to decline by more than that (Chart 9). Table 1As Long As Bond Yields Don't Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover Chart 8Relative To Bonds, Stocks Are More Favorably Valued Now Than in 2000 Chart 9Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Central Banks Will Lean Against Rising Bond Yields Stocks sold off earlier today on the perception that Jay Powell had failed to push back forcefully against the recent increase in bond yields. We think this angst is unwarranted. As Powell noted, most of the rise in bond yields reflected economic optimism. If yields were to continue rising in the absence of further economic improvements, the Fed would dial up the rhetoric, stressing its ability to buy bonds in unlimited quantities in order to support the economy. Despite all the fiscal stimulus, the unemployment rate remains elevated – perhaps as high as 10% according to some Fed measures. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio is four percentage points below where it was before the pandemic (Chart 10). Moreover, many stimulus measures will expire towards the end of the year. With the prospect of a “fiscal cliff” in 2022, we expect the Fed to want to tread carefully in withdrawing monetary support. What would really rattle investors is if long-term inflation expectations were to rise above the Fed’s comfort zone. However, considering the 5-year/5-year forward inflation breakevens are still below where they were in 2012-13, this is not an imminent risk (Chart 11). Chart 10The Fed Will Remain Accommodative To Aid The Labor Market Recovery Chart 11Inflation Expectations Have Recovered But Are Still Low Like the Fed, the ECB wants to keep financial conditions highly accommodative. On Tuesday, ECB Executive Board member Fabio Panetta, echoing comments made by other senior ECB officials, said that higher yields were “unwelcome and must be resisted.” He noted that “We are already seeing undesirable contagion from rising US yields into the euro area yield curve,” adding that the ECB “should not hesitate” to increase the pace of bond purchases. The ECB’s threat is credible. Already, its purchases have deviated significantly from its capital key, revealing Frankfurt’s willingness to act where and when it is needed. In the same spirit, the Reserve Bank of Australia boosted its government bond purchases earlier this week after the 10-year yield backed up from 0.7% last October to over 1.9% late last week. The RBA also reaffirmed its intent to maintain the current 3-year Yield Curve Control target at 0.1%, stating that “The Board will not increase the cash rate until actual inflation is sustainably within the 2-to-3 percent target range. For this to occur, wages growth will have to be materially higher than it is currently. This will require significant gains in employment and a return to a tight labour market. The Board does not expect these conditions to be met until 2024 at the earliest.” The RBA’s determination to keep bond yields down is noteworthy given that the neutral rate of interest is higher in Australia than in most other developed economies.1  If the RBA does not intend to raise rates for the next three years, it may take even longer for other central banks to take away the punch bowl. Will Value Stocks Begin To Outperform As They Did Starting In Mid-2000? There is another potential parallel with 2000 that is worth mentioning. This was the year that the outperformance of growth stocks came to a halt and value stocks began to shine. In fact, outside of the tech sector, the S&P 500 did not peak until May 2001 (Chart 12). Value continued to outperform right through to 2007. Since February 12th of this year, the price of the highly liquid Vanguard Growth ETF (VUG, market cap of $143 billion) has fallen by 8.9% while the price of the Vanguard Value ETF (VTV, market cap of $97 billion) has risen 0.5%. Despite the nascent outperformance of value names, they still remain relatively cheap. According to a simple valuation measure that combines price-to-earnings, price-to-book, and dividend yields, value stocks are more than three standard deviations cheap relative to growth stocks – a bigger valuation gap than seen at the height of the dotcom bubble (Chart 13). Chart 12The Non-Tech Portion Of The Stock Market Peaked More Than A Year After The Tech Bubble Burst Chart 13The Tech Bust Of 2000 Also Marked The Start Of A Multi-Year Outperformance By Value The Outlook For Commodity Stocks And Bank Shares Commodity producers are overrepresented in value indices. Strong global growth against a backdrop of tight supply should heat up the commodity complex over the next 12-to-18 months. Chart 14 shows that capital investment in the oil and gas sector has fallen by more than 50% since 2014. BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service, led by Robert Ryan, expects crude oil demand to outstrip supply over the remainder of this year (Chart 15). Chart 14Oil + Gas Capex Collapses In COVID-19’s Wake Chart 15Crude Oil Demand To Outstrip Supply Over The Remainder Of This Year A physical deficit in the metals markets – particularly for copper and aluminum – should also persist this year (Charts 16A & 16B). While the boom in electric vehicle (EV) production represents a long-term threat to oil, it is manna from heaven for many metals. A battery-powered EV can contain more than 180 pounds of copper compared with 50 pounds for conventional autos. By 2030, the demand from EVs alone should amount to close to 4mm tonnes of copper per year, a big slug of demand in a market that consumes about 26mm tonnes per year. Chart 16ACopper Will Be In Physical Deficit... Chart 16B...As Will Aluminum Ongoing strong demand for metals from China should also buoy metals prices. While trend GDP growth in China has slowed, the economy is much bigger than it was in the 2000s. China’s annual aggregate consumption of metals is five times as high as it was back then. The incremental increase in China’s metal consumption, as measured by the volume of commodities consumed, is also double what it was 20 years ago (Chart 17). As we discussed in our report To Deleverage Its Economy, China Needs MORE Debt, the Chinese government has no choice but to continue to recycle persistently elevated household savings into commodity-intensive capital investment. This will ensure ample commodity demand from China for years to come. Chart 17China Keeps Buying More And More Commodities Chart 18Credit Growth Has Been Recovering Along with commodity producers, financials helped propel value indices during the 2000s. While credit growth is unlikely to revert to its pre-GFC days, it has been trending higher in both the US and Europe (Chart 18).   Analysts are starting to take note of improving bank earnings prospects. EPS estimates for banks are rising more quickly than for tech companies on both sides of the Atlantic (Chart 19). Not only is the “E” in the P/E ratio for banks likely to rise, the ratio itself will increase. Currently, US and European banks are trading at 14 and 10-times forward earnings, respectively, a huge discount to the broad market in general, and tech stocks in particular (Chart 20).  Chart 19EPS Estimates For Banks Are Rising More Quickly Than For Tech Companies (I) Chart 19EPS Estimates For Banks Are Rising More Quickly Than For Tech Companies (II) Chart 20Banks Are Cheap   Bottom Line: Despite near-term uncertainty, investors should overweight stocks on a 12-month horizon, while pivoting away from last year’s winners (growth stocks) towards last year’s losers (value stocks).   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  According to RBA’s estimates, the neutral rate of interest in Australia is at the high end of developed market estimates. Specifically, Australia’s R-star is higher than the average of the US and euro area R-stars and is slightly lower than the average of the Canadian and UK neutral rates. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Dear client, In addition to this week’s abbreviated report, we are also sending you a Special Report on currency hedging, authored by my colleague Xiaoli Tang. Xiaoli’s previous work mapped out a dynamic hedging strategy for developed market equity investors in various home currencies. In this report, she extends the work to emerging market exposure. I hope you will find the report insightful. Next week, in lieu of our weekly report on Friday, we will be sending you a joint Special Report on the UK on Tuesday, together with our Global Fixed Income colleagues. Kind regards, Chester Highlights The DXY index is up for the year, but further gains will be capped at 2-3% from current levels. Long yen positions are offside amid the dollar rally. This should wash out stale longs, and underpin the bull case. Lower the limit-sell on the gold/silver ratio to 68. We were stopped out of our short AUD/MXN position amidst a broad-based selloff in EM currencies. We are reinitiating the trade this week. Feature Chart I-1The Dollar Has Been Strong In 2021 The DXY index has once again kissed off the 90 level and is gaining momentum in March. Year-to-date, the DXY index is up 1.1%. This performance has been particularly pronounced against other safe haven currencies, such as the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen. GBP and AUD have fared rather well in this environment (Chart I-1). As the “anti-dollar,” the euro has also suffered.  Our technical indicators continue to warn that the dollar still has upside. Net speculative positions are at very depressed levels, consistent with many sentiment indicators that are bearish USD. However, this time around, any dollar rally could be capped at 2-3%, in sharp contrast to the bounce we witnessed in March 2020.  The Message From Dollar Technical Indicators Our dollar capitulation index has bounced from very oversold levels, and is now sitting above neutral territory (Chart I-2). The index comprises a standardized measure of sentiment, net speculative positioning and momentum. It is very rare that a drop in this index below the -1.5 level does not trigger a rebound in the dollar. This time around, the bounce has been rather muted. Chart I-2BCA Dollar Capitulation Index Suggests Some Upside Part of the reason has been concentration around dollar short positions. Investors throughout most of the pandemic executed their bearish dollar bets through the euro, yen and the Swiss franc (countries that already had negative interest rates). Positioning on risk on currencies such as the Australian dollar and the Mexican peso were neutral. This also explains the underperformance of the yen, as the dollar rises. From a sizing standpoint, ever since the dollar peaked in March 2020, counter-trend moves have been in the order of 2-3%. We expect this time to be no different. What To Do About The Yen The yen has been one of our core holdings on three fundamental pillars: it is cheap, it tends to rise during dollar bear markets and the economy in Japan is more hostage to deflation than the US. This bodes well for real rates in Japan, relative to the US. Over the last month, our long yen position has been put offside. First, demand for safe havens has ebbed as US interest rates have gapped higher (Chart I-3, panel 1). King dollar has once again become the safe haven of choice. As Chart I-1 illustrates, low beta currencies such as the Swiss franc and yen, that tend to do relatively well when the dollar is rallying, have underperformed.  Yield curve control (YCC) in Japan is also negative for the yen as interest rates rise (panel 2). Economic momentum in Japan is also rolling over (panel 3). Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s mulling to extend the state of emergency in the Tokyo region could further cripple any Japanese economic recovery. Chart I-3A Healthy Reset In The Yen Chart I-4USD/JPY Support Should Hold For short-term investors, USD/JPY is very overbought and is approaching strong resistance (Chart I-4). In our view, a washing out of stale shorts would provide a healthy reset for the bear market to resume. Meanwhile, USD/JPY and the DXY change correlations during risk-off periods, where the yen appreciates versus the dollar.  Therefore, a market reset is also positive for the yen.     Housekeeping Chart I-5Remain Short AUD/MXN We were stopped out of our short AUD/MXN trade last week for a loss of 6.1%. We are reinitiating the trade this week. The case for the trade, made a month ago, remains intact. A short-term recovery in the US economy, relative to the rest of the world, argues for an AUD/MXN short. In fact, a divergence has occurred between the BRL/MXN and the AUD/MXN exchange rate (Chart I-5). Domestic factors have certainly tempered the Brazilian real, but the underperformance of metal prices relative to oil in recent months is also a factor. We expect some convergence to occur, with MXN appreciating much faster than the AUD.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the US have stepped up: Personal income rose by 10% in January, while personal spending rose by 2.4% month-on-month. The ISM report was stellar. The manufacturing PMI improved from 58.7 to 60.8 in February. Prices paid rose to 86. Factory orders were slightly above expectations at 2.6% month-on-month in January.   The DXY index rose by 165 bps this week.  The narrative of a counter-trend reversal in the DXY index isn playing out. As the story unfolds, it will be important to establish targets. Our bias is that the DXY stalls before 93-94 is reached.  Report Links: Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Sizing A Potential Dollar Bounce - January 15, 2021 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data from the euro area remain weak: Core CPI in the Eurozone came in at 1.1%, in line with expectations. The unemployment rate declined from 8.3% to 8.1% in January. January retail sales were weak at -6.4% year-on-year. The euro fell by 1.7%% against the US dollar this week. It will be almost impossible for the euro to rise in an environment where the dollar is in a broad-based decline. Given elevated sentiment on the euro, a healthy reset is necessary for the bull market to resume. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 The Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data from Japan has been marginally positive: The employment report was positive, with the unemployment rate dipping to 2.9% and an improvement in the jobs-to-applicants ratio in January. Consumer confidence in February is rebounding from very low levels. The Japanese yen fell by 1.5% against the US dollar this week. The recovery in the Japanese economy is fragile, and tentative signs of a renewed lockdown will knock down confidence. In this transition phase, yen long positions could be hostage to losses. Longer-term, the yen is cheap and will benefit from a broad-based dollar decline. Report Links: On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 The Near-Term Bull Case For The Dollar - February 28, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data out of the UK have been in line: Mortgage approvals rose 99K in January, in line with expectations. The construction PMI rose from 49.2 to 53.3 in February. Nationwide house prices are soaring, rising 6.9% in February on a year-on-year basis. The pound fell by 0.8% against the dollar this week. It is however the best performing currency this year. Our short EUR/GBP trade has benefited from faster vaccination in the UK (that could give way to a faster reopening of the economy) and a nice valuation starting point. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia was robust: Home lending remained in an uptrend. Owner-occupied loans increased by 11% in January, while investor loans increased by 9.4%. Terms of trade are soaring, rising 24% year-on-year in February. The current account surplus came in near a record A$14.5 billion in Q4. GDP grew by 3.1% QoQ in Q4. The Aussie fell by 1.8% his week. Terms of trade will continue being a tailwind for the AUD/USD. We also like the AUD/NZD cross, as a valuation and terms-of-trade bet. However, we expect that any positive surprises in the US will hurt AUD relative to the Americas. One way to play this is by shorting AUD/MXN. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021 An Update On The Australian Dollar - September 18, 2020 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 There was scant data out of New Zealand this week: Terms of trade rose by 1.3% in Q4. CoreLogic home prices rose 14.5% in February. The New Zealand dollar fell by 2.4% against the US dollar this week. The kiwi ranks as the most unattractive currency in our FX framework. For one, it has catapulted itself to the most expensive currency in our PPP models. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data from Canada was positive: The Nanos confidence index rose from 58.2 to 59.4 in February. Annualized 4Q GDP came in at 9.6%, above expectations. Building permits rose 8.2% month-on-month in January. The Canadian dollar fell 0.4% against the US dollar this week. Oil prices remain very much in an uptrend, which is underpinning the loonie. Better US economic performance in the near term should also help the CAD. Report Links: Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 More On Competitive Devaluations, The CAD And The SEK - May 1, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data out of Switzerland have been improving: Swiss GDP rose by 0.3%  quarter-on-quarter in 4Q. The KOF leading indicator rose from 96.5 to 102.7 in February. The February manufacturing PMI rose from 59.4 to 61.3. Switzerland remains in deflation, with the core CPI that came in at -0.3% year-on-year in February. The Swiss franc fell by 2.6% against the US dollar this week. Safe -haven currencies continue to be laggards, as rates rise and gold falls to the wayside. This is bullish on  procyclical currencies, and negative the Swiss franc. We are long EUR/CHF on this basis, but short USD/JPY purely as portfolio insurance. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 The data out of Norway has been robust: The unemployment rate fell from 4.4% to 4.3% The manufacturing PMI increased from 51.8 to 56.1 in February. The current account balance was robust in Q4. It should increase significantly in Q1 this year given the large trade balance in January. Being long the Norwegian krone is one of our high-conviction bets in the FX portfolio. The Norwegian krone fell by 1% against the US dollar this week, but outperformed the euro, amongst other currencies. The NOK ticks all the boxes of an attractive currency – cheap valuations, a liquidity discount, and primed to benefit from a global growth rebound. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Most Swedish data releases were in line with expectations: GDP came in at -0.2% quarter-on-quarter, below expectations. Retail sales rose 3.1% year-on-year, above expectations. The trade balance came in at a surplus of SEK 5.2 billion  in January. The manufacturing PMI remained elevated at 61.6 in February. The Swedish krona fell by 2.4% against the US dollar this week. Manufacturing data is improving in Sweden but the economy remains hostage to COVID-19, compared to Norway. That is weighing on the krona. That said, Sweden is a highly levered play on the global cycle. Therefore, once the pandemic is behind us, the SEK will outperform. Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights We use a correlation-hedge approach to manage emerging market (EM) currency exposure for global investors with nine different home currencies. For USD-based investors, EM debt volatility is driven by the EM spot exchange rate vs. USD. Hedged EM debt has better absolute and risk-adjusted returns than US Treasurys. Investing in EM equities, on the other hand, makes sense only when the expected absolute return is positive on a sustained basis. During these episodes, hedging is not necessary. If USD-based investors choose to manage EM currency exposure directly, then a 12-month momentum-based dynamic hedging strategy could add value in terms of risk-adjusted returns for both EM stocks and bonds. USD-based investors could also diversify the source of funding by selling closely correlated DM currencies using an overlay of currency forwards. For non-USD-based investors, EM currency volatility is low and there is no need to fully hedge EM exposure. Domestic bonds have very low volatility, therefore these investors should avoid EM debt if their objective is to maximize risk-adjusted returns. To enhance returns, unhedged EM equities are a much better choice than EM debt. Currency overlay, in line with our long-held view on the total portfolio approach, should be managed at the total fund level. Feature How to manage EM currency exposure when investing in EM local currency debt and equities has been a frequently asked question since our reports on managing developed market (DM) currency exposure when investing in DM equities 1,2 and government bonds.3 According to the BIS Triennial Central Bank Survey, EM currency exchange markets have evolved rapidly since 2001. The daily turnover reached 1.65 trillion dollars in April 2019, which is about 25% of the global currency daily turnover.4 While it is becoming increasingly easy to trade EM currencies, compared with DM currencies it is still more costly and operationally more challenging to hedge EM currency exposure, especially the currencies with non-deliverable forwards (NDFs) that require collateral management. In this report, we identify the return and volatility drivers of EM local currency government bonds (represented by JP Morgan’s GBI-EM Global Diversified Local Currency Index) and EM equities (represented by MSCI’s EM Net Return Index). We briefly touch on a momentum-based dynamic hedging strategy to hedge EM exposure directly for USD-based investors. Our main focus is to test a correlation-hedge approach, both static and dynamic, for nine home currencies: the US dollar (USD), the euro (EUR), the Japanese yen (JPY), the British pound (GBP), the Canadian dollar (CAD), the Australian dollar (AUD), the New Zealand dollar (NZD), the Swedish krona (SEK), and the Norwegian krone (NOK). We want to determine if a USD-based investor’s return/risk profile would be improved when investing in EM assets by using unfunded overlays of DM currency forwards. Finally, we present solutions for non-USD investors, which vary based on the correlations between the home currencies and the EM currency aggregates. Part 1: The USD Perspective 1.1 EM Asset Return Drivers In general, unhedged USD returns for US investors from investing in foreign assets can be decomposed into three parts as shown in the following equation (1): (1+Rd) = (1+Rh) (1+Rc) (1+Rs) ..…..(1) Where, Rd is the unhedged return in USD. Rh is the hedged return in USD using currency forwards. Rc is the carry return resulting from the short-term rate differential between a foreign country and the US. Rs is the spot exchange rate return of a foreign currency vs. the USD (quoted as how many USD per 1 unit of foreign currency). Chart 1A and Chart 1B show the return decompositions of JP Morgan’s (JPM) EM local currency government bonds and MSCI’s EM equities based on equation (1). Chart 1AEM Local Debt USD Return Decomposition Chart 1BEM Equities USD Return Decomposition Hedging reduces both the volatility and returns for both EM local currency bonds and equities; however, the return and volatility reductions are more significant in bonds than in stocks (panel 1 in Chart 1A and Chart 1B). EM currency aggregate indexes implied from JPM and MSCI are different because of the different country compositions. The currency component has been very volatile for both indexes and has generated negative returns during the 18 years from January 2003 to January 2021 (panel 3 in Chart 1A and Chart 1B). The carry component from JPM is sharply higher than that from MSCI, which is also the result of different country compositions (panel 2, Chart 1A and Chart 1B). The carry components from both indexes have very low volatility with positive returns over the 18-year period. Many EM countries had much higher interest rates than the US, therefore a US investor had to be exposed to EM currencies to capture this carry gain. Thus, from a return-enhancing perspective, an investor should hedge only if he/she expects the EM currency spot exchange rate to depreciate more than the implied carry (panel 3, Chart 1A and Chart 1B). The answer may be different from a volatility-reducing perspective, especially for EM debt where currency volatility dominates bond volatility. We plot the return-risk profiles of EM local currency bonds and equities (hedged and unhedged) in Charts 2A, 2B and 2C to show how they behave in different environments compared to US equities, US Treasurys and hedged non-US global government bonds. Table 1 further lists the detailed statistics of all the above-mentioned assets, in addition to the spot currency and carry components implied from JPM’s EM local currency bond index and MSCI’s EM index, ranked by risk-adjusted return. The entire 18-year period (Chart 2A) is also separated into the period with steadily rising EM currencies (1/2003 – 7/2008, Chart 2B) and the period with declining EM currencies (8/2008-1/2021, Chart 2C). Chart 2AUSD Asset Return-Risk Profile For The Entire Period (1/2003-1/2021) Chart 2BUSD Asset Return-Risk Profile When EM Currencies Were Strong (1/2003-7/2008) Chart 2CUSD Asset Return-Risk Profile When EM Currencies Were Weak (8/2008-1/2021) Both EM debt and equities had impressive unhedged returns in the period from January 2003 to July 2008 when the EM currency index rose steadily against the USD. Even on a hedged basis, EM bonds still delivered better absolute returns (5.1%) than US Treasurys (4.3%) with lower volatility. In terms of EM equities, although hedged return of 22.8% significantly outpaced US equities (9.7%), the volatility of EM equities (16.8%) was much higher than US equities (9.8%). Interestingly, in the period with declining EM FX from August 2008 to January 2021, hedged EM equities (5.6%) significantly underperformed US equities (11.5%) with comparable volatility, but hedged EM bonds (4.2%) outperformed US Treasurys (3.6%) with comparable volatility, despite the negative carry. It is easy to make the case for EM equities: US investors should not touch EM equities unless they are convinced that EM is entering a sustainably strong absolute return period. There is no need to hedge the currency exposure because the risk reduction is relatively small. In the case of EM local currency debt, the three components of total returns in USD based on equation (1) have distinct characteristics as follows: First, the carry component generated an annualized return of 3.4% with only 0.7% volatility in the entire period, making it the best performer among all the assets in terms of risk-adjusted return, as shown in Table 1. Table 1USD Asset Return-Risk Profile In Different Time Periods Chart 3What Drives The Hedged Return Of EM Local Debt? Second, the hedged return or the EM duration return (i.e. the compensation for a US investor to take on EM interest rate and term premia risks), had a better return/risk profile than US Treasurys in terms of both absolute return and risk-adjusted return, regardless of whether the EM currency index rose or fell against the USD. From January 2003 to January 2021, hedged EM debt returned 4.5% with a volatility of 4.1%, giving a 1.1 return per unit of risk, while US Treasurys returned 3.8% with a volatility of 4.3%, resulting in a 0.9 return per unit of risk. This component is mainly driven by the direction of government bonds in the developed markets as shown in Chart 3. Third, from January 2003 to January 2021, the JPM-implied EM currency had the worst return/risk profile with an annualized loss of 1.7% and annualized volatility of 9.1% (Table 1). However, this component was also the most regime-dependent. Between January 2003 and July 2008 it registered an annualized gain of 7.0% and an annualized volatility of 6.2%, in contrast with the annualized loss of 5.2% and annualized volatility of 9.9% from August 2008 to January 2021. Historically, the EM currency as an aggregate, no matter how the aggregate is calculated, closely correlates to commodities as shown in Chart 4. This is because many EM countries are either commodity producers or have significant trading exposure to China, the dominant player influencing commodity prices as shown in Chart 5. Chart 4EM FX Largely Driven By Commodities Chart 5The Commodities-China Link It is a challenge to build a systematic EM currency model due to the complex nature of EM economies. BCA’s FX Strategy team is working on EM currency models by applying the same approach they used for their DM models. BCA’s EMS Strategy team takes a more discretionary approach to forecasting currencies. Below we will explore two options: one for investors who choose to manage an EM FX hedging program directly and another for investors who cannot manage a direct EM currency hedging program but want to improve their return-risk profile in EM assets. 1.2 Momentum-Based Dynamic Hedging Of EM Currencies Price momentum is a useful tool for dynamic hedging as shown in our previous work on DM currency exposure management. A simple rule of hedging back to the home currency when the 12-month price momentum of a foreign currency turns negative adds value for investors with several DM home currencies. Given that the USD is a strong momentum currency, it makes sense to test if a simple 12-month price momentum rule for the EM FX aggregate vs. USD adds any value. The results are encouraging as shown in Chart 6A and Chart 6B and Chart 7A and Chart 7B. Chart 6AMomentum-Based Dynamic Hedging For EM Bonds Chart 6BMomentum-Based Dynamic Hedging For EM Stocks In the case of EM local debt, dynamic hedging reduced volatility to 8.4% from an unhedged volatility of 11.7%, while only trimming return slightly compared with the unhedged index (Charts 6A, 7A). For EM equities, dynamic hedging cut volatility to 18.6% from the unhedged volatility of 21.1%, while increasing the return by 25 bps, compared to the unhedged index. (Charts 6B, 7B). Chart 7AEM Local Debt Return-Risk Profiles: Static Hedging* Vs. Dynamic Hedging** Chart 7BEM Equities Return-Risk Profiles: Static Hedging* Vs. Dynamic Hedging** These results are directionally encouraging, but this method still requires hedging all EM currencies. The approach may operationally challenge investors who are not equipped to manage EM currency overlays. Bottom Line: Using only price momentum to hedge EM currency aggregates could improve the return-risk profile of both EM debt and equities, even though the improvements would be limited. This is encouraging for our eventual systematic approach for direct EM currency hedging. 1.3 Correlation Hedge Using DM Currencies EM FX is closely correlated with DM commodity currencies, such as the NOK, CAD, AUD, and NZD. As shown in Charts 8A and 8B, even the euro has an average correlation greater than 60% with EM currency aggregates. Only the JPY has an unstable correlation with the EM currencies of less than 25%, while the GBP also has a relative lower correlation. Chart 8AJPM-Implied EM FX* Correlation** With DM FX Chart 8BMSCI-Implied EM FX* Correlation** With DM FX Therefore, a USD-based investor, instead of hedging out EM currency exposure directly, should be able to eliminate part of EM currency volatility by selling lower-yielding DM currencies. This move would diversify his/her source of funding from USD to other DM currencies with high correlations with EM currencies. To test the effect on the return-risk profile, we use an unfunded overlay of 1-month DM currency forwards and rebalance monthly. To begin, we test a static correlation hedge where each of the eight DM currencies is sold individually. Then we test a dynamic correlation hedge where each one is dynamically sold based on the BCA Forex Strategy Team’s Intermediate-Term Timing Model (ITTM), which uses the same indicators described in our DM currency hedging report. To avoid subjective selection bias among the currencies, we also test an equally- weighted basket of eight currencies (AUD, NZD, JPY, GBP, EUR, CAD, NOK, and SEK) for dynamic hedging and an equally- weighted basket of five currencies (GBP, EUR, CAD, NOK, and SEK) for static hedging. The AUD, NZD, and JPY were excluded in the static hedging basket because in general, AUD and NZD had very high carries and JPY had an unstable correlation with EM currencies. The combined results are shown in Chart 9A and Chart 9B. Additionally, Table 2A and Table 2B list the return-risk profiles together with the fully hedged and unhedged EM indexes for equities and local debt. Chart 9AStatic Correlation Hedge For US Investors Chart 9BDynamic Correlation Hedge For US Investors Table 2AEM Debt Funding Source Diversification For USD-Based Investors (2/2003-1/2021) Table 2BEM Equity Funding Source Diversification For USD-Based Investors (2/2003-1/2021) For US investors investing in EM local currency bonds, the best risk-adjusted return of 1.08 would come from fully hedging all the EM currencies as shown in Table 2A. Fully-hedged EM debt has the lowest volatility (4.12%), but also the lowest return (4.45%). To achieve a comparable return of unhedged EM debt (6.18%) without incurring the same high volatility (11.71%), however, a USD-based investor could either statically sell the five DM currencies or dynamically sell the eight DM currencies. The resulting risk-adjusted return of 0.8 would still be comparable to US Treasurys as shown in Table 1. US investors investing in EM equities may improve their return-risk profile by funding their positions in DM currencies. If the aim is to maximize risk-adjusted returns, then the choice would be to fund the position by selling the basket of equally weighted five DM currencies using currency forwards (i.e. using a static correlation hedge). In this way, they would achieve a comparable volatility (16.25%) as if all the EM currencies were fully hedged to USD (16.29%), while also achieving a higher return (12.29%) than when all the EM currencies were not hedged (11.71%). The return per unit of risk of 0.76 would be the highest among all the cases as shown in Table 2B and be on par with US equities as shown in Table 1. If investors prefer even higher returns without significantly higher volatility, then dynamically selling an equally weighted basket of eight currencies would achieve an annualized return of 13.03% with a higher volatility of 18.71%, resulting in a risk-adjusted return of 0.7. Bottom Line: USD-based asset allocators should use the hedged EM debt index and the unhedged EM equities index as benchmarks to measure the performance of their asset-class managers. The EM currency exposure should be managed in a currency overlay at the total fund level by either statically or dynamically selling DM currencies using a correlation hedge, depending on the return-risk preferences. Part 2: Non-USD-Perspective Six out of the eight non-USD DM currencies have strong positive correlations with EM currencies as shown in Chart 8A and Chart 8B. Therefore, non-USD investors investing in EM assets should naturally experience less spot-currency volatility (Chart 10A and Chart 10B). Consequently, they do not need to hedge EM currency exposure from a volatility perspective. But what about return enhancement? Should they consider an allocation to EM assets in place of domestic assets? If they do, would the correlation-hedge approach used by USD-based investors benefit them too? Chart 10ADM Currency Per Unit Of EM Currency Chart 10BDM Currency Per Unit Of EM Currency To find answers to those questions, we compare the return-risk profiles of domestic assets, unhedged EM assets, and correlation-hedged EM assets in Table 3A and Table 3B. For the correlation-hedged results for non-USD investors, we simply use the results for the US investors converted into the non-USD home currencies at spot exchange rates. This way, the return enhancements from the correlation-hedged EM assets compared to the unhedged EM assets would be similar for all nine currencies. Chart 3AEM-Debt* For Non USD-Based Investors Table 3BEM-Stocks* For Non USD-Based Investors We find that non-USD investors would do better to avoid local-currency EM debt if their objective is to maximize risk-adjusted returns because domestic government bonds had unbeatably low volatility, resulting in the highest risk-adjusted returns, as shown in Table 3A. But domestic government bonds had lower returns than unhedged EM bonds for all but AUD- and NZD-based investors. To further enhance the return-risk profile, non-USD investors could follow their US counterparts by dynamically diversifying their funding sources, then converting their USD returns into their home currency at spot exchange rates (i.e. not hedging the USD exposure). GBP- and JPY-based investors would benefit the most from a dynamic correlation hedge with higher returns and lower volatility compared with the unhedged case. In the case of EM equities, other than SEK- and NZD-based investors, unhedged EM equities have higher returns on an absolute and risk-adjusted basis compared with domestic equities, with GBP-, JPY- and euro-based investors benefiting the most (Table 3B). Even though NOK-based investors increased their returns by only 1% by putting funds into unhedged EM equities, they enjoy lower volatility than in domestic equities. Unlike the case for EM debt where a static correlation hedge did not improve over an unhedged case, both static and dynamic correlation hedges improve the return/risk profiles relative to the unhedged case, and the dynamic hedge outperforms the static hedge in each country. While domestic equities underperform domestic government bonds in terms of risk-adjusted returns, EM equities outperform EM local currency debt when a dynamic correlation hedge is applied. Even in the unhedged case, EM equities are still a much better choice than EM debt (Chart 11). To evaluate how this could impact an asset allocation, we replace home equity with EM equities in a 60/40 home equity/Treasury portfolio. In this extreme exercise, six of the eight non-USD-based portfolios could generate better return/risk profiles, with only the NZD- and SEK-based portfolios worse off (Chart 12). Chart 11Risk-Adjusted Return: Stocks Minus Bonds Chart 12Asset Allocation Implications*     Bottom Line: Non-USD-based investors should avoid EM local debt if their objective is to maximize their risk-adjusted returns. For the purposes of return enhancement, EM equities are a much better choice than EM debt for all investors with the exception of those based in New Zealand and Sweden.   Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1,2Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Reports, “Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors,” dated September 29, 2017; and "Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors (Part II)," dated October 13, 2017. 3 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Reports, “Why Invest In Foreign Government Bonds?” dated March 12, 2018. 4 Please see "Triennial Central Bank Survey Foreign exchange turnover in April 2019," Bank for International Settlements, dated 16 September 2019.

Dear Client From March 18 I will be writing under a new product title, the BCA Research Counterpoint. The aim of the Counterpoint is to generate a high volume of investment opportunities that are unconnected to the business cycle and run counter to the conventional wisdom. For those of you that have followed the European Investment Strategy through the past ten years, Counterpoint will seamlessly continue the same intellectual framework of investment ‘mega-themes’, fundamental analysis, fractal analysis, and sector primacy. The difference is that the investment opportunities will encompass all geographies. To whet your appetite, early Counterpoint reports will introduce new investment mega-themes including: the compelling structural case for cryptocurrencies; why shocks such as the pandemic are inherently predictable; and the structural transformation coming to the global labour market. There will also be an upgrade of the proprietary Fractal Trading System to generate more ideas per week and to boost the win ratio towards 70 percent. As for the European Investment Strategy, it will continue in the very capable hands of my colleague and friend, Mathieu Savary. Mathieu has previously written the Foreign Exchange Service, the flagship Bank Credit Analyst, and most recently the Daily Insights. Moreover, Mathieu is French. So if anyone knows how Europe works (and doesn’t work), it is Mathieu! I do hope you read both products. Best regards Dhaval Highlights If bond yields continue their march higher, the most dangerous earthquake will happen in the global real estate market. If higher bond yields caused even a 10 percent decline in the $300 trillion global real estate market it would unleash a deflationary impulse equal to one third of world GDP This would make any preceding inflationary impulse feel like a waltz in the park. For long-term investors who can ride out near term pain, there are three important conclusions: The ultimate low in bond yields is still ahead of us. The structural bull market in stocks will continue until bond yields reach their ultimate low. Equity investors should structurally tilt towards ‘growth’ sectors that will benefit from the ultimate low in bond yields. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Real Estate Market Dwarfs The Stock Market And The Global Economy In the last couple of weeks, higher bond yields have caused tremors in the stock market. But if bond yields continue their march higher and stay there, the most dangerous earthquake will not happen in the stock market, it will happen in the real estate market. The $90 trillion worth of the global stock market is large, but it is chicken feed compared with the $300 trillion worth of global real estate (Chart of the Week). The big worry is that the valuation of global real estate is critically dependent on bond yields staying low. If higher bond yields caused even a 10 percent decline in global real estate values, it would amount to a $30 trillion plunge in global wealth. Such a deflationary impulse, equal to one third of world GDP, would make any preceding inflationary impulse feel like a waltz in the park. Hence, to anybody worried that we are on the road to inflation, we pose a simple question. How would the world economy cope with the massive deflationary impact on $300 trillion of global real estate?1   The Real Risk Is Real Estate Over the past decade, global real estate rents have broadly tracked nominal GDP, as they should. But real estate prices have massively outperformed rents (Chart I-2). The reason is that the valuation paid for those rents has surged by 35 percent. This ‘multiple expansion’ of real estate which has added $80 trillion to global wealth – broadly equivalent to global GDP – is entirely due to lower bond yields. Chart I-2Real Estate Prices Have Massively Outperformed Rents And GDP Within the global real estate market, the residential segment constitutes 80 percent by value. Commercial real estate accounts for a little over 10 percent, and agricultural and forestry real estate makes up the remainder. It follows that the most important component of the real estate boom has been a housing boom. Given that most homes are owner-occupied, the boom in house prices has boosted the wealth of the ordinary global citizen by much more than the boom in stock prices. Moreover, the 2010s housing boom was unprecedented in its penetration and regional breadth, simultaneously encompassing cities, suburbs, and rural areas across North America, Europe, Asia and Australasia. Even Germany and Japan joined in, making it the most widely participated-in housing boom in economic history. What was behind this synchronised and broad-based housing boom? The answer is the universal decline in bond yields. As the global real estate firm Savills puts it: “Real estate has increased significantly in value, spurred on by the intervention of central banks and their suppression of bond yields” In fact, as the US and China now dominate the global real estate market, the downtrend in the global rental yield has closely tracked the downtrend in the US and China long bond yields. The big danger would be if this downtrend turned into an uptrend, undermining the valuation of $300 trillion of global real estate. To repeat, even a 10 percent synchronised decline in global real estate prices would wipe out $30 trillion of global wealth equal to one third of annual GDP, and it would impact almost everybody. The ‘multiple expansion’ of real estate has added $80 trillion to global wealth, broadly equivalent to global GDP. But where is the pain point? Our answer is that if inflation fears lifted the average US and China 30-year bond yield to 3.75 percent (from 3 percent now), it would constitute the change in trend that would unleash a massive countervailing deflationary impulse from falling house prices (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Higher Bond Yields Would Unleash A Massive Deflationary Impulse From Falling House Prices Waiting For Rationality To Return To Stocks In the stock market, the August to mid-February period was a brief aberration in which stocks rallied in tandem with rising bond yields. But looking at the bigger picture, the bull market in stocks, just as for real estate, is due to lower bond yields (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The August To Mid-February Rally In Stocks Was An Aberration Since 2008, global stock market profits have gone nowhere. Therefore, the only reason that the stock market surged is that the valuation paid for those unchanged profits surged. Just as for real estate, the stock market’s valuation surged because bond yields collapsed (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Bull Market In Stocks Is Entirely Due To Higher Valuations Taking account of this downtrend in bond yields, the post-2008 boom in valuations is rational. However, as we warned two weeks ago, the continued expansion of valuations while bond yields are backing up means that The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational. The point of vulnerability is in high-flying tech stocks. Since 2009, the technology sector earnings yield has always maintained a minimum 2.5 percent premium over the 10-year T-bond yield, defining the envelope of the rational bubble. But in recent weeks, this envelope has been breached, indicating that valuation is entering a new and irrational phase (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational For long-term investors the pressing questions are: how much higher can bond yields go, and for how long? Our answers are, much less than 1 percent, and not for long – because the deflationary impact on $300 trillion of real estate would eventually force bond yields into a very sharp reversal. The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation Many people believe that ‘real’ assets such as real estate and stocks perform well in an inflationary scare. But this is a misunderstanding. Granted, the income generated by real assets should keep pace with nominal GDP. But the valuation paid for that income collapses, taking the price of the asset down with it. From the state of price stability, in which most developed economies now find themselves, the creation of inflation is a non-linear phenomenon. Non-linear means that policymakers’ efforts result in either nothing (witness Japan or Switzerland), or in uncontrolled inflation (witness the US in the late 1960s). In fact, can you name any economy that has shifted from price stability to a controlled inflation? If you can, please tell me in an email! When an economy phase shifts from price stability to price instability, the valuations of real assets collapse. This is because the starting valuation needed to generate a given real return during uncontrolled inflation is much lower than during price stability. When an economy phase shifts from price stability to price instability, the valuations of real assets collapse. Chart I-7 should make this crystal clear. During the low-inflation 1990s and 2000s, a starting price to earnings multiple of 15 consistently generated a prospective 10-year real return of 10 percent. But during the uncontrolled inflation of the 1970s, the same starting multiple of 15 generated a real return of zero. To generate a real return of 10 percent, the starting multiple had to sink to 7. This explains why the prices of stocks and real estate collapsed in the 1970s and why they would collapse again in a new inflationary scare. Chart I-7In An Inflation Scare, Valuations Have To Collapse To Generate An Adequate Real Return As an aside, this also explains why so-called ‘financial repression’ – whereby the central bank holds down bond yields while the government generates inflation – will not work. While it is conceivable that a government could corner its government bond market and thereby repress it, it would be near-impossible to repress the much larger asset-classes of stocks and real estate. Once these large and privately priced markets sniffed out the government’s nefarious plan, the valuation of such assets would collapse to generate the previously required real return – the result being an almighty crash in stock and real estate prices. Given that the combined value of such markets dwarfs the $90 trillion global economy, the road to inflation would end at deflation. For long-term investors who can ride out near term pain, all of this leads to three important conclusions: The ultimate low in bond yields is still ahead of us. The structural bull market in stocks will continue until bond yields reach their ultimate low. Equity investors should structurally tilt towards ‘growth’ sectors that will benefit from the ultimate low in bond yields. Fractal Trading System* In a very successful week, short MSCI Korea versus MSCI AC World achieved its 10.6 percent profit target and short tin versus lead quickly achieved its 13 percent profit target. This takes the rolling 12-month win ratio to 60 percent. Given the transition to the new product title, there are no new trades this week. We look forward to introducing the upgraded Fractal Trading System and some new trades in the BCA Counterpoint on March 18. Chart I-8MSCI Korea Vs. MSCI All-Country World* For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Source: Savills Prime Index: World Cities, August 2020; and Savills: 8 things to know about global real estate value, July 2018. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Rising Global Yields: The increased turbulence in global bond markets is part of the adjustment process to a more positive outlook for global economic growth. Rising real yields are now the main driver of nominal yield movements, with stable inflation expectations indicating that investors are not overly concerned about a sustained inflation overshoot. Duration: Central bankers will eventually be forced to shift to less dovish interest rate guidance to reflect the new reality of faster growth and increased inflation pressures, but this is likely to not occur until much later in 2021, starting with the Fed. Maintain a below-benchmark cyclical duration stance in global bond portfolios. UST Yields & Spreads: The selloff in US Treasuries has pushed US yields to levels that are starting to look a bit stretched relative to yields from other major developed economies like Germany and Japan. This is especially true on a volatility-adjusted basis. As a result, we are closing our tactical US-Germany spread widening trade in bond futures at a profit of 1.8%. Feature Chart of the WeekBond Yields Are Rising Because Of Growth The rapid surge in global bond yields seen so far in 2021 has led some commentators to declare that the dreaded “bond vigilantes” have returned to dole out punishment for overly stimulative fiscal and monetary policies (most notably in the US). The rapid pace of the bond selloff, with the 10-year US Treasury yield reaching 1.6% on an intraday basis last week, has raised fears that spiking yields could damage a fragile global economic recovery. This logic is backwards – it is surging growth expectations that are driving bond yields sustainably higher from deeply depressed levels. Global growth is projected to accelerate at a very rapid pace over the rest of this year and 2022. The combination of the Bloomberg consensus real GDP growth and inflation forecasts for the major developed economies suggest that nominal year-over-year GDP growth is expected to climb to 7.2% in the US, 8.4% in the UK and 6.4% in the euro area by year-end (Chart of the Week). Nominal growth in 2022 is expected to grow by another 5-7% across the same regions, suggesting a return to a slightly faster pace than prevailed during the pre-pandemic years of 2017-19 - even after a boom in 2021. Nominal longer-term global government bond yields, which had been priced for a pandemic-stricken economic backdrop, are now playing catch-up to the new reality of a post-pandemic, vaccinated world. Bond investors understand that the need for extreme monetary accommodation is ebbing, especially in the US where there will be an enormous fiscal impulse to growth in 2021 (and beyond). As a result, interest rate expectations are moving higher, fueling a repricing towards higher bond yields around the world. This process has more room to run. A Global Move Higher In Yields, For The Right Reasons Chart 2Reflationary Bear-Steepening Of Global Yield Curves The cyclical rise in developed market bond yields that began last summer was initially focused on longer-maturity yields boosted by rising inflation expectations (Chart 2). The very front-ends of bond yield curves – which are more sensitive to expectations of changes in central bank policy rates – have remained subdued. The upward pressure on global bond yields is starting to infect some shorter maturities, however. 5-year government bonds yields in the UK, Canada and Australia rose 44bps, 42bps and 35bps, respectively, during the month of February. The latter two represented a near doubling of the level of the 5-year yield. In the case of the UK, the surge in 5-year Gilt yields came from a starting point of negative yields at the end of January. Last week, the 5-year US Treasury yield jumped a massive 22bps on a single day due to a poorly received US Treasury auction. Year-to-date, longer-term global bond yields have been rising more through the real yield component than higher inflation expectations (Charts 3A & 3B). This is a change in the dynamics from the latter half of 2020 when inflation expectations were the dominant force pushing global yields higher. Chart 3AReal Yields Are Driving The Recent Bond Selloff … Chart 3B… Even In The Lower-Yielding Markets This shift in “leadership” of the global bond market selloff has been broad-based. 10-year real yields from inflation-linked bonds have surged higher in the US (+35bps year-to-date), UK (+40bps), Australia (+44bps) and Canada (+25bps). Real 10-year yields have even inched up in France (+9bps), despite euro area growth suffering because of COVID-19 lockdowns. This coordinated rise in real bond yields comes on the heels of a sharp improvement in overall global economic momentum and improving expectations for future growth. Manufacturing PMIs, a reliable leading indicator of real yields in the developed markets, began a cyclical improvement in the middle of last year and, right on cue, global bond yields bottomed out toward the end of 2020 (Chart 4). The link between that strong growth momentum and real bond yields comes from expected changes in central bank policies. Our Central Bank Monitors for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and Australia – designed to measure cyclical pressures on monetary policy - have all moved significantly higher since mid-2020 (Chart 5). This suggests a diminished need for additional monetary stimulus because of rebounding economic growth and intensifying inflation pressures. The Monitors have climbed to above pre-pandemic levels in the US and Australia. Chart 4Real Yields Starting To Catch Up To Solid Growth Chart 5Markets Starting To Discount Rate Hikes In 2023 Interest rate markets are responding to this cyclical pressure to tighten monetary policies by repricing the expected timing and pace of the next rate hiking cycle. Our 24-month discounters, which derive the amount of interest rate changes priced into overnight index swap (OIS) curves up to two years in the future, are now pricing in higher policy rates in the US (+40bps), the UK (+32bps), Australia (+36bps) and Canada (a whopping +82bps) by the first quarter of 2023. This repricing of interest rate expectations does conflict with current central bank forward guidance, to varying degrees. For example, the Fed continues to signal that there will not be any rate hikes until at least the end of 2023. Policymakers will not be overly concerned about higher government bond yields and shifting interest rate expectations, however, if there is limited spillover into broader financial market performance. In the US, the latest increase in real Treasury yields to date has had minimal impact on US equity market valuations or corporate bond yields (Chart 6A), suggesting no tightening of financial conditions that could impact future US economic growth. A similar situation is playing out in Europe, where higher longer-term real yields have had little impact on equity market valuations or the borrowing rates that the ECB is most concerned about, like Italian BTP yields (Chart 6B). Chart 6ANo Tightening Of Financial Conditions In The US... Chart 6B...Or Europe Currency valuations are a more important indicator of financial conditions for other central banks. For example, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has been explicit that its current policies – near-zero policy rates, yield curve control to anchor the level of 3-year bond yields and quantitative easing (QE) to moderate the level of longer-term yields – are intended to not only keep borrowing costs low but also dampen the value of the Australian dollar. At the moment, the US dollar is being pulled in different directions by the typical fundamental drivers. Real rate differentials between the US and other major developed economies remain unattractive for the greenback, even with the latest rise in US real yields (Chart 7). At the same time, growth differentials between the US and the other major economies are turning more USD-positive. For now, rate differentials are the more dominant factor for the US dollar and will remain so until the Fed begins to shift to a less dovish policy stance – an outcome that we do not expect until much later this year when the Fed will begin to prepare the market for a tapering of asset purchases in 2022. A sustainable bottoming of the US dollar, fueled by a shift to a less accommodative Fed, will also likely mark the end of the rising trend for global inflation expectations, given the links between the dollar, commodity prices and inflation breakevens (bottom panel). Central banks outside the US will continue to resist any unwelcome appreciation of their own currencies versus the US dollar. That means doing more QE when bond yields rise too quickly, as the RBA did this week and the ECB has threatened to do in recent comments from senior policymakers (Chart 8). Increasing the size of asset purchases is unlikely to sustainably drive non-US bond yields lower, however, in an environment of improving global growth that is causing investors to reassess the future path of interest rates. All more QE can hope to do at this point in the global business cycle is limit how fast bond yields can increase. Chart 7The USD Remains The Critical Reflationary Variable Chart 8More QE Is Less Effective At Capping Bond Yields   Chart 9Markets With A Lower Yield Beta To USTs Are Outperforming From an investment strategy perspective, the current growth-fueled move higher in global real bond yields does not change any of our suggested tilts. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall duration stance within global bond portfolios. Within our recommended country allocation among developed market government bonds, we continue to prefer a large underweight to US Treasuries and overweights to markets that are less susceptible to changes in US Treasury yields like Germany, France, Japan and the UK (Chart 9). We also continue to recommend only neutral allocations to Canadian and Australian government bonds (with below-benchmark duration exposure within those allocations), although we are on “downgrade alert” for both given their status as higher-beta bond markets with central banks more likely follow the Fed down a less dovish path later this year. Bottom Line: Rising real yields are now the main driver of nominal yield movements, with stable inflation expectations indicating that investors are not overly concerned about a sustained inflation overshoot. Central bankers will eventually be forced to shift to less dovish interest rate guidance to reflect the new reality of faster growth and increased inflation pressures, but this is likely to not occur until much later in 2021, starting with the Fed. Maintain a below-benchmark cyclical duration stance in global bond portfolios, with a large underweight allocation to US Treasuries. The UST-Bund Spread Widening Looks Stretched Chart 10Yield Chasing Has Been A Losing Strategy In 2021 Last August, we published a report discussing how “yield chasing” – a strategy of consistently favoring the highest yielding government bond markets – had become the default strategy for bond investors during the early months of the pandemic.1 We concluded that yield chasing would be a successful strategy for only as long as central banks stuck to their promises to maintain very loose monetary policy for the next few years. Investors would be forced to chase scarce yields in that environment, while worrying less about cyclical economic and inflation factors that could push up bond yields. Yield chasing has performed quite poorly so far in 2021. A basket of higher-yielding markets like the US, Canada and Australia has underperformed a basket of low-yielders like Germany, France and Japan by -1.4 percentage points (Chart 10). Obviously, such a carry-driven strategy would be expected to perform poorly during an environment of rising bond volatility as is currently the case. Markets that have been offering relatively enticing yields, like the US or Australia (Table 1), are actually generating the largest total return losses. Those higher-yielders have suffered more aggressive repricing of interest rate expectations, as discussed in the previous section of this report, leading to losses from duration that are dwarfing the higher yields. This is especially true in the US, where there remains the greater scope for an upward repricing of interest rate and inflation expectations. Table 1Government Bond Yields: Unhedged & Hedged Into USD This suggests that investors must be cautious on determining when to consider increasing exposure to higher yielders like the US, even after Treasury yields have increased substantially. One way to evaluate that is to look at the spreads between US Treasuries and low yielders like Germany and Japan, relative to US bond volatility. In Chart 11, we show the spread of 10-year US Treasuries to 10-year German Bunds. To facilitate a fair comparison between the two, we hedge the Treasury yield into euros while adjusting the spread for duration difference between the two bonds. The currency-hedged and duration-matched Treasury-Bund spread is shown in the middle panel of the chart. In the bottom panel, we adjust that spread for US interest rate volatility by dividing the spread by the level of the MOVE index of US Treasury option volatility. On an unadjusted basis, the 10-year yield gap now sits at 175bps, +70bps higher than the lows seen in August 2020. That spread is narrower on a currency hedged basis, with the 10-year US Treasury yield hedged into euros +73ps higher than the 10-year German bund yield. Two conclusions stand out from the chart: The currency-hedged and duration-matched spread is still well below the prior peaks dating back to 2000; The volatility-adjusted spread is already one standard deviation above the mean value since 2000. In other words, there is scope for US Treasuries yields to continue rising relative to German Bund yields based on levels reached in past cycles. Yet at the same time, the spread provides a reasonable level of compensation compared to the riskiness (volatility) of Treasuries, also based on past cycles. We show the same chart for the spread between 10-year US Treasuries and 10-year Japanese government bonds (JGBs) in Chart 12. In this case, there is also scope for additional spread widening although the volatility-adjusted spread is still not as attractive as at previous peaks since 2000. Chart 11UST-Bund Spread Looking Stretched Vs UST Vol Chart 12UST-JGB Spread Getting Stretched Vs UST Vol The message from the volatility-adjusted Treasury-Bund spread lines up with that of the momentum measures of the unadjusted spread. The latter is historically stretched relative to its 200-day moving average, while the change in the spread over the past six months has been as rapid as any of the moves seen since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 13). Adding it all up, positioning for additional widening of the Treasury-Bund spread is a much poorer bet from a risk versus reward perspective than it was even a few months ago. On a fundamental medium-term basis, however, there is still room for the Treasury-Bund spread to widen further. Relative inflation and unemployment (spare capacity) trends both argue for relatively higher US bond yields (Chart 14). In addition, the Fed is almost certainly going to start tightening monetary policy well before the ECB, thus policy rate differentials will underpin a wider bond spread – although that is already largely discounted in the spread on a forward basis (top panel). Chart 13UST-Bund Spread Momentum Looks Stretched Chart 14Fundamentals Still Support A Wider UST-Bund Spread Chart 15Stay Underweight US Vs. Germany On A Strategic Basis Our fundamental fair value model of the 10-year Treasury-Bund spread shows that the spread is still cheap relative to fair value, which is rising (Chart 15). This suggests more medium-term upside in the spread, perhaps even by more than currently priced into the forwards over the next year. Based on this analysis, we see a case for maintaining a core strategic (6-12 month holding period) underweight position for the US versus Germany in our recommended country allocation within our model bond portfolio. At the same time, with the spread looking a bit stretched on some of the momentum and volatility-adjusted measures, we are taking profits on our tactical (0-6 month holding period) 10-year Treasury-Bund spread widening trade using bond futures, realizing a 1.8% return (see the Tactical Overlay table on page 18). Bottom Line: The selloff in US Treasuries has pushed US yields to levels that are starting to look a bit stretched relative to yields from other major developed economies like Germany and Japan. This is especially true on a volatility-adjusted basis. As a result, we are taking profits on our tactical US-Germany spread widening trade. However, we are maintaining our strategic overweight for Germany versus the US in our model bond portfolio, as fundamentals argue for a wider Treasury-Bund spread on a cyclical and strategic basis.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "We’re All Yield Chasers Now", dated August 11, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chart 1Back To Fair Value February was a terrible month for the bond market. In fact, the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index returned -1.8%, its worst month since November 2016. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield rose 37 bps. At 2.19%, it is now fairly valued for the first time since 2019, at least according to survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rates (Chart 1). We outlined a checklist for increasing portfolio duration in our Webcast two weeks ago. So far, only two of the five items on our list have been checked. In particular, dollar sentiment and cyclical economic indicators continue to point toward higher yields, even though the market is now priced for a rate hike cycle that is slightly more hawkish than the Fed’s median forecast from December. We anxiously await this month’s revisions to the Fed’s interest rate forecasts. If the Fed’s forecasts remain unchanged from December, then we may get an opportunity to add some duration back into our recommended portfolio. Stay tuned. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 65 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +68 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. Though Treasury yields have risen in recent weeks, this does not yet pose a risk for credit spreads. The 5-year/ 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate remains below 2%. We won’t be concerned about restrictive monetary policy pushing credit spreads wider until it reaches a range of 2.3% to 2.5%. Despite the positive macro backdrop, investment grade corporate valuations are extremely tight. The investment grade corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is down to its 2nd percentile (Chart 2). This means that the breakeven spread has only been tighter 2% of the time since 1995. The same measure shows that Baa-rated bonds have only been more expensive 3% of the time (panel 3). We don’t anticipate material underperformance versus Treasuries, but we see better value outside of the investment grade corporate space.1 Specifically, we advise investors to favor tax-exempt municipal bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration. We also prefer USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration. Finally, the supportive macro environment means we are comfortable adding credit risk to a portfolio. With that in mind, we encourage investors to pick up the additional spread offered by high-yield corporates. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 115 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +178 bps. Ba-rated credits outperformed duration-matched Treasuries by 111 bps on the month, besting B-rated bonds which outperformed by only 104 bps. The Caa-rated credit tier delivered 138 bps of outperformance versus duration-matched Treasuries. We view Ba-rated junk bonds as the sweet spot within the corporate credit space. The sector is relatively insulated from default risk and yet still offers a sizeable spread pick-up over investment grade corporates (Chart 3). We noted in our 2021 Key Views Special Report that the additional spread earned from moving down in quality below Ba is merely in line with historical averages.2 Assuming a 25% recovery rate on defaulted debt and a minimum required risk premium of 150 bps, we calculate that the junk index is priced for a default rate of 2.3% for the next 12 months (panel 3). This represents a steep drop from the 8.3% default rate observed during the most recent 12-month period. However, only 2 defaults occurred in January, down from a peak of 22 in July. Job cut announcements, an excellent indicator of the default rate, have also fallen dramatically (bottom panel). Overall, we see room for spread compression across all junk credit tiers in 2021 but believe that Ba-rated bonds offer the best opportunity in risk-adjusted terms. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -2 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries widened 6 bps in February, but it remains low relative to the recent pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 1 bp on the month to 24 bps. This is considerably below the 57 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 42 bps offered by Agency CMBS. It is only slightly above the 22 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. The plummeting primary mortgage spread was a key reason for the elevated refi activity seen during the past year. However, the spread has now recovered back to more typical levels (bottom panel). The implication is that further increases in Treasury yields will likely be matched by higher mortgage rates. This means that mortgage refinancings are likely close to a peak. A drop in refi activity would be a positive development for MBS returns, but we aren’t yet ready to turn bullish on the sector. First, relative OAS valuation favors Aa-rated corporates and Agency CMBS over MBS. Second, the gap between the nominal MBS spread and the MBA Refinance Index remains wide (panel 2) meaning that we could still see spreads adjust higher. Last year’s spike in the mortgage delinquency rate is alarming (panel 4), but it will have little impact on MBS returns. The increase was driven by household take-up of forbearance granted by the federal government. Our US Investment Strategy service has shown that a considerable majority of households will remain current on their loans once the forbearance period ends, causing the delinquency rate to fall back down.3  Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +21 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 95 bps in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -116 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 31 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +25 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 63 bps in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +203 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 1 bp, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +16 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 2 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +5 bps. We recently took a detailed look at valuation for USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereigns.4 We found that, on an equivalent-duration basis, EM Sovereigns offer a spread advantage versus US corporates for all credit tiers except Ba. We recommend that investors take advantage of this spread pick-up by favoring investment grade EM Sovereigns over investment grade US corporates. Attractive countries include: Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Russia and Colombia. We prefer US corporates over EM Sovereigns in the high-yield space. Ba-rated high-yield US corporates offer a spread advantage over EM Sovereigns and the extra spread available in B-rated and lower EMs comes from distressed credits in Turkey and Argentina. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +102 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Municipal bond spreads have tightened dramatically during the past few months and Aaa-rated Munis now look expensive compared to Treasuries, with the exception of the short-end of the curve (Chart 6). That said, if we match the duration and credit rating between the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal bond indexes and the US Credit index, we find that both General Obligation (GO) and Revenue Munis appear attractive compared to US investment grade Credit. Both GO and Revenue Munis offer a before-tax spread pick-up relative to US Credit for maturities above 12 years (bottom panel), the same goes for Revenue bonds in the 8-12 year maturity bucket (panel 3). Revenue bonds in the 6-8 year maturity bucket offer an after-tax yield pick-up versus Credit for investors with an effective tax rate above 0.3%. GO bonds in the 8-12 year and 6-8 year maturity buckets offer breakeven effective tax rates of 1% and 10%, respectively. All in all, municipal bond value has deteriorated markedly in recent months and we downgraded our recommended allocation from “maximum overweight” to “overweight” in January. However, investors should still prefer municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury yields moved up dramatically in February, with the curve steepening out to the 7-year maturity point and flattening thereafter. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 30 bps on the month to reach 130 bps. The 5/30 slope, meanwhile, held steady at 142 bps. Slopes across the entire yield curve traded directionally with yields for the bulk of February. That is, until last Thursday when a surge in bond yields occurred alongside flattening beyond the 5-year maturity point. As a result, the 2/5/10 butterfly spread spiked (Chart 7), moving into positive territory for the first time in a while (panel 4). This curve behavior raises an interesting question. Was last week’s sharp underperformance in the belly a one-off move driven by convexity selling and other technical factors, as many have suggested?5 Or, are we now close enough to a potential Fed liftoff date that we should expect some segments of the yield curve to flatten on days when yields rise? We will be watching the correlations between different yield curve segments and the overall level of yields closely during the next few weeks, but as of today, we think it’s premature to declare that the 5/10 slope has transitioned into a regime where it flattens on days when yields move higher. That being the case, we expect further increases in bond yields to coincide with a falling 2/5/10 butterfly spread, and we retain our recommended position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 39 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +183 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 2 bps on the month to hit 2.17%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 15 bps in February to reach 1.91%. February’s TIPS outperformance was concentrated at the front-end of the curve, as investors started to price-in the possibility of higher inflation during the next year or two that eventually subsides. It’s interesting to note that, despite last month’s surge in bond yields, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell, moving further away from the Fed’s 2.3% to 2.5% target range in the process (Chart 8). The Fed will continue to strive for an accommodative policy stance at least until this target is met. Last month’s price action caused our recommended positions in inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners to perform very well, but we think further gains are possible in the coming months. The 2/10 CPI swap slope has only just dipped into negative territory (panel 4). With the Fed officially targeting a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target, this slope should remain inverted for some time yet. With the Fed also continuing to exert more control over short-dated nominal yields than over long-term ones, short-maturity real yields will continue to come under downward pressure relative to the long end (bottom panel). ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +20 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +13 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 9 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +58 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed last April. This excess savings has still not been spent, and now another round of checks is pushing the savings rate higher again (Chart 9). The large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is very high, with many households using their windfall to pay down debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and take advantage of strong collateral performance by moving down in credit quality. The Treasury department’s decision to let the Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF) expire at the end of 2020 does not alter our recommendation. Spreads are already well below the borrowing cost that was offered by TALF, and these tight spread levels are justified by strong household balance sheets. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +87 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 5 bps in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +37 bps. Meanwhile, non-Aaa CMBS outperformed by 75 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +262 bps (Chart 10). We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to Aaa-rated Non-Agency CMBS and an underweight allocation to non-Aaa CMBS. Even with the expiry of TALF, Aaa CMBS spreads are already well below the cost of borrowing through TALF and thus won’t be negatively impacted. Meanwhile, the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate could lead to problems for lower-rated CMBS (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +39 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 3 bps on the month to reach 42 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have completely recovered back to their pre-COVID lows, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. This is especially true when you consider the Fed’s continued pledge to purchase as much Agency CMBS as “needed to sustain smooth market functioning”. Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of February 26TH, 2021) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of February 26TH, 2021) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 39 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 39 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of February 26th, 2021) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For a look at alternatives to investment grade corporates please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2021 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Big Bank Beige Book, January 2021”, dated January 25, 2021, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-25/convexity-hedging-haunts-markets-already-reeling-from-bond-rout?sref=Ij5V3tFi Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation