Fixed Income

Special Report

BCA takes pride in its independence. Strategists publish what they really believe, informed by their framework and analysis. Occasionally, this independence results in strongly diverging views and we currently are in one of those times. Within BCA, two views on the cyclical (six to 12-months) outlook for assets have emerged. One camp expects global growth to rebound in the second half of the year. Along with accelerating growth, they anticipate stock prices and risk assets to remain firm, cyclical equities to outperform defensive ones, safe-haven yields to move up, and the dollar to weaken. Meanwhile, another group foresees a further deterioration in activity or a delayed recovery, additional downside in stocks and risk assets, outperformance of defensives relative to cyclicals, low safe-haven yields, and a generally stronger dollar. For the sake of transparency, we have asked representatives of each camp to make their case in a round-table discussion, allowing our clients to decide for themselves which view is more appealing to them. Global Investment Strategy’s Peter Berezin, U.S. Investment Strategy’s Doug Peta, and Global Fixed Income Strategy’s Rob Robis take the mantle for the bullish camp. U.S. Equity Strategy’s Anastasios Avgeriou, Emerging Market Strategy’s Arthur Budaghyan, and European Investment Strategy’s Dhaval Joshi represent the bearish group.1   The round-table discussion below focuses on the cyclical outlook. For longer investment horizons, most strategists agree that a recession is highly likely by 2022. Moreover, on a long-term basis, valuations in both risk assets and safe-haven bonds are very demanding. In this context, a significant back up in yields could hammer risk assets. The BCA Round Table Mathieu Savary: Yield curve inversions have often been harbingers of recessions. Anastasios, you are amongst those investors troubled by this inversion. Do you not worry that this episode might prove similar to 1998, when the curve only inverted temporarily and did not foreshadow a recession? Moreover, how do you account for the highly variable time lags between the inversion of the yield curve and the occurrence of a recession? Anastasios Avgeriou: The yield curve inverts at or near the peak of the business cycle and it eventually forewarns of upcoming recessions. This past December, parts of the yield curve inverted and now, BCA’s U.S. Equity Strategy service is heeding the signal from this simple indicator, especially given that the SPX has subsequently made all-time highs as our research predicted.2 Chart 1 (ANASTASIOS)The 1998 Episode Revisited The yield curve inversion forecasts a Fed rate cut, and it has never been wrong on that front. It served well investors that heeded the message in June of 1998 as the market soon thereafter fell 20% in a heartbeat. If investors got out at the 1998 peak near 1200 and forwent about 350 points of gains until the March 2000 SPX cycle peak, they still benefited if they held tight as the market ultimately troughed near 777 in October 2002 (Chart 1). With regard to timing the previous seven recessions using the yield curve, if we accept that mid-1998 is the starting point of the inversion, it took 33 months before the recession commenced. Last cycle, the recession began 24 months after the inversion. Consequently, December 2020 is the earliest possible onset of recession and September 2021, the latest. Our forecast calls for SPX EPS to fall 20% in 2021 to $140 with the multiple dropping between 13.5x and 16.5x for an SPX end-2020 target range of 1,890-2,310.3 In other words we are not willing to play a 100-200 point advance for a potential 1,000 point drawdown. The risk/reward tradeoff is to the downside, and we choose to sit this one out. Mathieu: Rob, you take a much more sanguine view of the current curve inversion. Why? Rob Robis: While the four most dangerous words in investing are “this time is different,” this time really does appear to be different. Never before have negative term premia on longer-term Treasury yields and a curve inversion coexisted (Chart 2). Longer-term Treasury yields have therefore been pushed down to extremely low levels by factors beyond just expectations of a lower fed funds rate. The negative Treasury term premium is distorting the economic message of the U.S. yield curve inversion. Chart 2 (ROB)Negative Term Premium Distorting The Economic Message Of An Inverted Yield Curve Term premia are depressed everywhere, as seen in German, Japanese and other yields, reflecting the intense demand for safe assets like government bonds during a period of heightened uncertainty. Global bond markets may also be discounting a higher probability of the ECB restarting its Asset Purchase Program, as term premia typically fall sharply when central banks embark on quantitative easing. This has global spillovers. Prior to previous recessions, U.S. Treasury curve inversions occurred when the Fed was running an unequivocally tight monetary policy. That is not the case today. The real fed funds rate still is not above the Fed’s estimate of the neutral real rate, a.k.a. “r-star,” which was the necessary ingredient for all previous Treasury curve inversions since 1960 (Chart 3). Chart 3 (ROB)Fed Policy Is Not Tight Enough For Sustained Curve Inversion Mathieu: The level of policy accommodation will most likely determine whether Anastasios or Rob is proven right. Peter, you have been steadfastly arguing that policy, in the U.S. at least, remains easy. Can you elaborate why? Peter Berezin: Remember that the neutral rate of interest is the rate that equalizes the level of aggregate demand with the economy’s supply-side potential. Loose fiscal policy and fading deleveraging headwinds are boosting demand in the United States. So is rising wage growth, especially at the bottom of the income distribution. Given that the U.S. does not currently suffer from any major imbalances, I believe that the economy can tolerate higher rates without significant ill-effects. In other words, monetary policy is currently quite easy. Of course, we cannot observe the neutral rate directly. Like a black hole, one can only detect it based on the effect that it has on its surroundings. Housing is by far the most interest rate-sensitive sector of the economy. If history is any guide, the recent decline in mortgage rates will boost housing activity in the remainder of the year (Chart 4). If that relationship breaks down, as it did during the Great Recession, it would suggest that the neutral rate is quite low. Chart 4 (PETER)Declining Mortgage Rates Bode Well For Housing Given that mortgage underwriting standards have been quite strong and the homeowner vacancy is presently very low, our guess is that housing will hold up well. We should know better in the next few months. Mathieu: Dhaval, you do not agree. Why do you think global rates are not accommodative? Dhaval Joshi: Actually, I think that global rates are accommodative, but that the global bond yield can rise by just 70 bps before conditions become perilously un-accommodative. Here’s where I disagree with Peter: for me, the danger doesn’t come from economics, it comes from the mathematics of ultra-low bond yields. The unprecedented and experimental panacea of our era has been ‘universal QE’ – which has led to ultra-low bond yields everywhere. But what is not understood is that when bond yields reach and remain close to their lower bound, weird things happen to the financial markets. I refer you to other reports for the details, but in a nutshell, the proximity of the lower bound to yields increases the risk of owning supposedly ‘safe’ bonds to the risk of owning so-called ‘risk-assets’. The result is that the valuation of risk-assets rises exponentially (Chart 5). Because when the riskiness of the asset-classes converges, investors price risk-assets to deliver the same ultra-low nominal return as bonds.4   Comparisons with previous economic cycles miss the current danger. The post-2000 policy easing distorted the global economy by engineering a credit boom – so the subsequent danger emanated from the most credit-sensitive sectors in the economy such as mortgage lending. In contrast, the post-2008 ‘universal QE’ has severely distorted the valuation relationship between bonds and global risk-assets – so this is where the current danger lies. Higher bond yields can suddenly undermine the valuation support of global risk-assets whose $400 trillion worth dwarfs the global economy by five to one. Where is this tipping point? It is when the global 10-year yield – defined as the average of the U.S., euro area,5 and China – approaches 2.5%. Through the past five years, the inability of this yield to remain above 2.5% confirms the hyper-sensitivity of financial conditions to this tipping point (Chart 6). Right now, I agree that bond yields are accommodative. But the scope for yields to move higher is quite limited. Chart 6 (DHAVAL)Since 2015, the Global Long Bond Yield Has Struggled To Surpass 2.5 Percent Mathieu: Monetary policy is important to the outlook, but so is the global manufacturing cycle. The global growth slowdown has been concentrated in the manufacturing sector, tradeable goods in particular. Across advanced economies, the service and consumer sectors have been surprisingly resilient, but this will not last if the industrial sector decelerates further. Arthur, you still do not anticipate any major improvement in global trade and industrial production. Can you elaborate why? Chart 7 (ARTHUR)Global Trade Is Down Due To China Not U.S. Arthur Budaghyan: To properly assess the economic outlook, one needs to understand what has caused the ongoing global trade/manufacturing downturn. One thing we know for certain: It originated in China, not the U.S.  Chart 7 illustrates that Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese and Singaporean exports to China have been shrinking at an annual rate of 10%, while their shipments to the U.S. have been growing. China’s aggregate imports have also been contracting. This entails that from the perspective of the rest of the world, China has been and remains in recession. U.S. manufacturing is the least exposed to China, which is the main reason why it has been the last shoe to drop. Hence, the U.S. has lagged in this downturn, and one should not be looking to the U.S. for clues about a potential global recovery. We need to gauge what will turn Chinese demand around. In this regard, the rising credit and fiscal spending impulse is positive, but it has so far failed to kick start a recovery (Chart 8). The key reason has been a declining marginal propensity to spend among households and companies. Notably, the marginal propensity to spend of mainland companies leads industrial metals prices by a few months, and it currently continues to point south (Chart 8, bottom panel).   The lack of willingness among Chinese consumers and enterprises to spend is due to several factors: (1) the U.S.-China confrontation; (2) high levels of indebtedness among both enterprises and households (Chart 9); (3) ongoing regulatory scrutiny over banks and shadow banking as well as local government debt; and (4) a lack of outright government subsidies for purchases of autos and housing. Chart 8 (ARTHUR)Stimulus Versus Marginal Propensity To Spend Chart 9 (ARTHUR)Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than U.S. Ones   On the whole, the falling marginal propensity to spend will all but ensure that any recovery in mainland household and corporate spending is delayed. Mathieu: Meanwhile, Peter, you have a much more optimistic stance. Why do you differ so profoundly with Arthur’s view? Peter: China’s deleveraging campaign began more than a year before global manufacturing peaked. I have no doubt that slower Chinese credit growth weighed on global capex, but we should not lose sight of the fact there are natural ebbs and flows at work. Most manufactured goods retain some value for a while after they are purchased. If spending on, say, consumer durable goods or business equipment rises to a high level for an extended period, a glut will form, requiring a period of lower production.  Chart 10 (PETER)The Global Manufacturing Cycle Has Likely Reached A Bottom These demand cycles typically last about three years; roughly 18 months on the way up, 18 months on the way down (Chart 10). The last downleg in the global manufacturing cycle began in early 2018, so if history is any guide, we are nearing a trough. The fact that U.S. manufacturing output rose in both May and June, followed by this week’s sharp rebound in the July Philly Fed Manufacturing survey, supports this view. Of course, extraneous forces could complicate matters. If trade tensions ratchet higher, this would weaken my bullish thesis. Nevertheless, with China stimulating its economy again, it would probably take a severe trade war to push the global economy into recession. Mathieu: Dhaval, you are not as negative as Arthur, but nonetheless expect a slowdown in the second half of the year. What is your rationale? Dhaval: To be clear, I am not forecasting a recession or major downturn – unless, as per my previous answer, the global 10-year bond yield approaches 2.5% and triggers a severe dislocation in global risk-assets. In fact, many people get the relationship between recession and financial market dislocation back-to-front: they think that the recession causes the financial market dislocation when, in most cases, the financial market dislocation causes the recession! Nevertheless, I do believe that European and global growth is entering a regular down-oscillation based on the following compelling evidence: From a low last summer, quarter-on-quarter GDP growth rates in the developed economies have already rebounded to the upper end of multi-year ranges. Short-term credit impulses in Europe, the U.S., and China are entering down-oscillations (Chart 11). The best current activity indicators, specifically the ZEW economic sentiment indicators, have rolled over. The outperformance of industrials – the equity sector most exposed to global growth – has also rolled over. Why expect a down-oscillation? Because it is the rate of decline in the bond yield that drove the rebound in growth after its low last summer. Furthermore, it is impossible for the rate of decline in the bond yield to keep increasing, or even stay where it is. Counterintuitively, if bond yields decline, but at a reduced pace, the effect is to slow economic growth.  Mathieu: A positive and a negative view of the world logically result in bifurcated outlooks for interest rates and the dollar. Rob, how do you see U.S., German, and Japanese yields evolving over the coming 12 months? Rob: If global growth rebounds, U.S. Treasury yields will have far more upside than Bund or JGB yields. Inflation expectations should recover faster in the U.S., with the Fed taking inflationary risks by cutting rates with a 3.7% unemployment rate and core CPI inflation at 2.1%. The Fed is also likely to disappoint by delivering fewer rate cuts than are currently discounted by markets (90bps over the next 12 months). Treasury yields can therefore increase more than German and Japanese yields, with the ECB and BoJ more likely to deliver the modest rate cuts currently discounted in their yield curves (Chart 12). Chart 11 (DHAVAL)Short-Term Impulses Rebounded... But Are Now Rolling Over Chart 12 (ROB)U.S. Treasuries Will Underperform Bunds & JGBs Japanese yields will remain mired at or below zero over the next 6-12 months, as wage growth and core inflation remain too anemic for the BoJ to alter its 0% target on 10-year JGB yields. German yields have a bit more potential to rise if European growth begins to recover, but will lag any move higher in Treasury yields. That means that the Treasury-Bund and Treasury-JGB spreads will move higher over the next year. Negative German and Japanese yields may look completely unappetizing compared to +2% U.S. Treasury yields, but this handicap vanishes when all three yields are expressed in U.S. dollar terms. Hedging a 10-year German Bund or JGB into higher-yielding U.S. dollars creates yields that are 50-60bps higher than a 10-year U.S. Treasury. It is abundantly clear that German and Japanese bonds will outperform Treasuries over the next year if global growth recovers. Mathieu: Peter, your positive view on global growth means that the Fed will cut rates less than what is currently priced into the OIS curve. So why do you expect the dollar to weaken in the second half of 2019? Peter: What the Fed does affects interest rate differentials, but just as important is what other central banks do. The ECB is not going to raise rates over the next 12 months. However, if euro area growth surprises on the upside later this year, investors will begin to question the need for the ECB to keep policy rates in negative territory until mid-2024. The market’s expectation of where policy rates will be five years out tends to correlate well with today’s exchange rate. By that measure, there is scope for interest rate differentials to narrow against the U.S. dollar (Chart 13). Chart 13A (PETER)Interest Rate Expectations Against The U.S. Should Narrow (I) Chart 13B (PETER)Interest Rate Expectations Against The U.S. Should Narrow (II) Keep in mind that the U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it moves in the opposite direction of global growth (Chart 14). This countercyclicality stems from the fact that the U.S. economy is more geared towards services than manufacturing compared with the rest of the world. Chart 14 (PETER)The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency As such, when global growth accelerates, capital tends to flow from the U.S. to the rest of the world, translating into more demand for foreign currency and less demand for dollars. If global growth picks up in the remainder of the year, as I expect, the dollar will weaken. Mathieu: Arthur, as you are significantly more negative on growth than either Rob or Peter, how do you see the dollar and global yields evolving over the coming six to 12 months? Arthur: I am positive on the trade-weighted U.S. dollar for the following reasons: The U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency – it exhibits a negative correlation with the global business cycle. Persistent weakness in the global economy emanating from China/EM is positive for the dollar because the U.S. economy is the major economic block least exposed to a China/EM slowdown. Meanwhile, the greenback is only loosely correlated with U.S. interest rates. Thereby, the argument that lower U.S. rates will drive the value of the U.S. currency much lower is overemphasized. The Federal Reserve will cut rates by more than what is currently priced into the market only in a scenario of a complete collapse in global growth. Yet this scenario would be dollar bullish. In this case, the dollar’s strong inverse relationship with global growth will outweigh its weak positive relationship with interest rates.   Contrary to consensus views, the U.S. dollar is not very expensive. According to unit labor costs based on the real effective exchange rate – the best currency valuation measure – the greenback is only one standard deviation above its fair value. Often, financial markets tend to overshoot to 1.5 or 2 standard deviations below or above their historical mean before reversing their trend. One of the oft-cited headwinds facing the dollar is positioning, yet there is a major discrepancy between positioning in DM and EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar. In aggregate, investors – asset managers and leveraged funds – have neutral exposure to DM currencies, but they are very long liquid EM exchange rates such as the BRL, MXN, ZAR and RUB versus the greenback. The dollar strength will occur mostly versus EM and commodities currencies. In other words, the euro, other European currencies and the yen will outperform EM exchange rates. I have less conviction on global bond yields. While global growth will disappoint, yields have already fallen a lot and the U.S. economy is currently not weak enough to justify around 90 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months. Mathieu: Before we move on to investment recommendations, Anastasios, you have done a lot of interesting work on the outlook for U.S. profits. What is the message of your analysis? Chart 15 (ANASTASIOS)Gravitational Pull Anastasios: While markets cheered the trade truce following the recent G-20 meeting, no tariff rollback was agreed. Since the tariff rate on $200bn of Chinese imports went up from 10% to 25% on May 10, odds are high that manufacturing will remain in the doldrums. This will likely continue to weigh on profits for the remainder of the year. Profit growth should weaken further in the coming six months. Periods of falling manufacturing PMIs result in larger negative earnings growth surprises as market forecasters rarely anticipate the full breadth and depth of slowdowns. Absent profit growth, equity markets lack the necessary ‘oxygen’ for a durable high-quality rally. Until global growth momentum turns, investors should fade rallies. Our four-factor SPX EPS growth model is flirting with the contraction zone. In addition, our corporate pricing power proxy and Goldman Sachs’ Current Activity Indicator both send a distress signal for SPX profits (Chart 15). Already, more than half of the S&P 500 GICS1 sectors’ profits are estimated to have contracted in Q2, and three sectors could see declining revenues on a year-over-year basis, according to I/B/E/S data. Q3 depicts an equally grim profit picture that will also spill over to Q4. Adding it all up, profits will underwhelm into year-end. Mathieu: Doug, you do not share Anastasios’s anxiety. What offsets do you foresee? Moreover, you are not concerned by the U.S. corporate balance sheets. Can you share why? Doug Peta: As it relates to earnings, we foresee offsets from a revival in the rest of the world. Increasingly accommodative global monetary policy and reviving Chinese growth will give global ex-U.S. economies a boost. That inflection may go largely unnoticed in U.S. GDP, but it will help the S&P 500, as U.S.-based multinationals’ earnings benefit from increased overseas demand and a weaker dollar. When it comes to corporate balance sheets, shifting some of the funding burden to debt from equity when interest rates are at generational lows is a no-brainer. Even so, non-financial corporates have not added all that much leverage (Chart 16). Low interest rates, wide profit margins and conservative capex have left them with ample free cash flow to service their obligations (Chart 17). Chart 16 (DOUG)Corporations Have Not Added Much Leverage ... Chart 17 (DOUG)...Though They Have Ample Cash Flow To Service It Every single viable corporate entity with an effective federal tax rate above 21% became a better credit when the top marginal rate was cut from 35% to 21%. Every such corporation now has more net income with which to service debt, and will have that income unless the tax code is revised. You can’t see it in EBITDA multiples, but it will show up in reduced defaults. Mathieu: The last, and most important question. What are each of your main investment recommendations to capitalize on the economic trends you anticipate over the coming 6-12 months? Let’s start with the pessimists: Arthur: First, the rally in global cyclicals and China plays since December has been premature and is at risk of unwinding as global growth and cyclical profits disappoint. Historical evidence suggests that global share prices have not led but have actually been coincident with the global manufacturing PMI (Chart 18). The recent divergence is unprecedented. Chart 18 (ARTHUR)Global Stocks Historically Did Not Lead PMIs Second, EM risk assets and currencies remain vulnerable. EM and Chinese earnings per share are shrinking. The leading indicators signal that the rate of contraction will deepen, at least the end of this year (Chart 19). Asset allocators should continue underweighting EM versus DM equities. Finally, my strongest-conviction, market-neutral trade is to short EM or Chinese banks and go long U.S. banks. The latter are much healthier than EM/Chinese ones, as we discussed in our recent report.6  Anastasios: The U.S. Equity Strategy team is shifting away from a cyclical and toward a more defensive portfolio bent. Our highest conviction view is to overweight mega caps versus small caps. Small caps are saddled with debt and are suffering a margin squeeze. Moreover, approximately 600 constituents of the Russell 2000 have no forward profits. Only one S&P 500 company has negative forward EPS. Given that both the S&P and the Russell omit these figures from the forward P/E calculation, this is masking the small cap expensiveness. When adjusted for this discrepancy, small caps are trading at a hefty premium versus large caps (Chart 20). Chart 19 (ARTHUR)China And EM Profits Are Contracting Chart 20 (ANASTASIOS)Continue To Avoid Small Caps We have also upgraded the S&P managed health care and the S&P hypermarkets groups. If the economic slowdown persists into early 2020, both of these defensive subgroups will fare well. In mid-April, we lifted the S&P managed health care group to an above benchmark allocation and posited that the selloff in this group was overdone as the odds of “Medicare For All” becoming law were slim. Moreover, a tight labor market along with melting medical cost inflation would boost the industry’s margins and profits (Chart 21). This week, we upgraded the defensive S&P hypermarkets index to overweight arguing that the souring macro landscape coupled with a firming industry demand outlook will support relative share prices (Chart 22). Chart 21 (ANASTASIOS)Buy Hypermarkets Chart 22 (ANASTASIOS)Stick With Managed Health Care   Dhaval: To be fair, I am not a pessimist. Provided the global bond yield stays well below 2.5 percent, the support to risk-asset valuations will prevent a major dislocation. But in a growth down-oscillation, the big game in town will be sector rotation into pro-defensive investment plays, especially into those defensives that have underperformed (Chart 23). Chart 23 (DHAVAL)Switch Out Of Growth-Sensitives Into Healthcare On this basis: Overweight Healthcare versus Industrials. Overweight the Eurostoxx 50 versus the Shanghai Composite and the Nikkei 225. Overweight U.S. T-bonds versus German bunds. Overweight the JPY in a portfolio of G10 currencies. Mathieu: And now, the optimists: Doug: So What? is the overriding question that guides all of BCA’s research: What is the practical investment application of this macro observation? But Why Now? is a critical corollary for anyone allocating investment capital: Why is the imbalance you’ve observed about to become a problem? As Herbert Stein said, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Imbalances matter, but Dornbusch’s Law counsels patience in repositioning portfolios on their account: “Crises take longer to arrive than you can possibly imagine, but when they do come, they happen faster than you can possibly imagine.” Look at Chart 24, which shows a vast white sky (bull markets) with intermittent clusters of gray (recessions) and light red (bear markets) clouds. Market inflections are severe, but uncommon. When the default condition of an economy is to grow, and equity prices to rise, it is not enough for an investor to identify an imbalance, s/he also has to identify why it’s on the cusp of reversing. Right now, as it relates to the U.S., there aren’t meaningful imbalances in either markets or the real economy. Chart 24 (DOUG)Recessions And Bear Markets Travel Together Even if we had perfect knowledge that a recession would arrive in 18 months, now would be way too early to sell. The S&P 500 has historically peaked an average of six months before the onset of a recession, and it has delivered juicy returns in the year preceding that peak (Table 1). Bull markets tend to sprint to the finish line (Chart 25). If this one is like its predecessors, an investor risks significant relative underperformance if s/he fails to participate in its go-go latter stages. Table 1 (DOUG)The S&P 500 Doesn’t Peak Until Six Months Before A Recession … We are bullish on the outlook for the next six to twelve months, and recommend overweighting equities and spread product in balanced U.S. portfolios while significantly underweighting Treasuries. Peter: I agree with Doug. Equity bear markets seldom occur outside of recessions and recessions rarely occur when monetary policy is accommodative. Policy is currently easy, and will get even more stimulative if the Fed and several other central banks cut rates. Global equities are not super cheap, but they are not particularly expensive either. They currently trade at about 15-times forward earnings. Given the ultra-low level of global bond yields, this generates an equity risk premium (ERP) that is well above its historical average (Chart 26). One should favor stocks over bonds when the ERP is high. Chart 26A (PETER)Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated (I) Chart 26B (PETER)Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated (II) The ERP is especially elevated outside the United States. This is partly because non-U.S. stocks trade at a meager 13-times forward earnings, but it also reflects the fact that bond yields are lower overseas. Chart 27 (PETER)EM And Euro Area Equities Outperform When Global Growth Improves As global growth accelerates, the dollar will weaken. Equity sectors and regions with a more cyclical bent will benefit (Chart 27). We expect to upgrade EM and European stocks later this summer. A softer dollar will also benefit gold. Bullion will get a further boost early next decade when inflation begins to accelerate. We went long gold on April 17, 2019 and continue to believe in this trade.  Rob: For fixed income investors, the most obvious way to play a combination of monetary easing and recovering global growth is to overweight corporate debt versus government bonds (Chart 28). Within the U.S., corporate bond valuations look more attractive in high-yield over investment grade. Assuming a benign outlook for default risk in a reaccelerating U.S. economy, with the Fed easing, going for the carry in high-yield looks interesting. Emerging market credit should also do well if we see a bit of U.S. dollar weakness and additional stimulus measures in China. Chart 28 (ROB)Best Bond Bets: Overweight Global Corporates & Inflation-Linked Bonds European corporates, however, may end up being the big winner if the ECB chooses to restart its Asset Purchase Program and ramps up its buying of European company debt. There are fewer restrictions for the ECB to buy corporates compared to the self-imposed limits on government bond purchases. The ECB would be entering a political minefield if it chose to buy more Italian debt and less German debt, but nobody would mind if the ECB helped finance European companies by buying their bonds. If one expects reflation to be successful, a below-benchmark stance on portfolio duration also makes sense given the current depressed level of government bond yields worldwide. Yields are more likely to grind upward than spike higher, and will be led first by increasing inflation expectations. Inflation-linked bonds should feature prominently in fixed income portfolios, especially in the U.S. where TIPS will outperform nominal yielding Treasuries. Mathieu: Thank you very much to all of you. Below is a comparative summary of the main arguments and investment recommendations of each camp.   Summary Of Views And Recommendations   Anastasios Avgeriou U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Doug Peta Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary The Bank Credit Analyst mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      To be fair to each individual involved, this is simplifying their views. Even within each camp, the negativity or positivity ranges on a spectrum, as you will be able to tell from the debate itself. 2      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Signal Vs. Noise,” dated December 17, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “A Recession Thought Experiment,” dated June 10, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Risk: The Great Misunderstanding Of Finance,” October 25, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 5      France is a good proxy for the euro area. 6      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “On Chinese Banks And Brazil,” available at ems.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights Mutual Funds & ETFs: The liquidity mismatch between easily tradeable mutual fund shares and the less liquid underlying corporate bonds makes it possible for negative feedback loops to emerge between fund flows and corporate bond spreads. The growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond market should be seen as a risk that could exacerbate future periods of spread widening, leading to worse economic outcomes. BBB Securities: The large amount of outstanding BBB debt could lead to fire sales from corporate bond holders with investment grade-only mandates when the debt is downgraded to junk. However, in contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, the evidence shows that the negative price pressure from fallen angel fire sales is fleeting. Leveraged Loans: The rapid surge in leveraged loans has been partially offset by reduced high-yield issuance, helping mitigate a potentially destabilizing rise in all riskier corporate debt. At the same time, bank exposure is focused on the safest CLO tranches, limiting the potential systemic risks from bank losses. Feature In April, we published a Special Report that investigated whether corporate debt poses a risk to the U.S. economy.1 That report focused on what economic theory and empirical evidence say about the relationship between corporate debt and future economic growth. We arrived at the following conclusions: The empirical evidence decisively shows that private (household + business) debt helps predict future economic outcomes. Some evidence shows that household debt is more important than corporate debt in this regard. In contrast to mainstream economic theory, the level of private debt-to-GDP does not help predict future economic outcomes. Rather, it is rapid private debt growth that is linked to more severe economic downturns. Ebullient credit market sentiment is also shown to predict weak economic growth. Tight credit spreads should be viewed as a warning sign, similar to rapid private debt growth. In this follow-up Special Report, we consider three credit market developments that are unique to this cycle: The large ownership stake of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the U.S. corporate bond market. The elevated amount of BBB-rated debt outstanding relative to other credit tiers. The rapid issuance of leveraged loans. All three of these developments could mediate the relationship between corporate debt and economic growth, potentially increasing risks to the economy. We consider each factor in turn. 1. Fund Flows One unique feature of the current cycle is that open-ended mutual funds and ETFs own a much larger share of outstanding corporate bonds than in the past. Back in 1990, insurance companies and pension funds were the largest holders of corporate debt, controlling 54% of the market. Meanwhile, open-ended funds owned a paltry 3%. Since then, fund ownership has surged to 16%, mostly at the expense of financial institutions, insurance companies and pensions. Foreign holdings of U.S. corporate bonds have also increased during this period, from 13% of the market to 28% (Charts 1 & 2). Chart 2Mutual Funds Now An Important Market Player Why Does Fund Ownership Matter? We focus on fund ownership of corporate bonds because it has been theorized that flows into and out of open-ended mutual funds can have a similar impact on market prices as leverage, amplifying price moves in either direction. As described in a 2014 paper by Feroli, Kashyap, Shoenholtz, and Shin:2 [W]hen asset flows for certain fixed income securities are high, prices persistently rise and a feedback loop emerges. High flows lead to rising prices, which attract more flows, which further raises prices. Obviously, the proposed feedback loop also works in reverse: Outflows cause prices to decline, and lower prices lead to further outflows. This sort of feedback loop is unique to mutual funds. Insurance companies and pension funds, for example, do not experience investor capital flight in response to a near-term price drop. This makes the larger presence of mutual funds in the corporate bond market potentially destabilizing. Fund ownership has surged to 16%, from a paltry 3% back in 1990. Why Do Fund Flows Behave This Way? Mutual fund shares are much more liquid than the corporate debt securities they hold. As described in a 2017 paper by Goldstein, Jiang and Ng:3 When [mutual] fund investors redeem their shares, they get the net asset value as of the day of redemption. The fund then has to conduct costly liquidation that hurts the value of the shares for investors who keep their money in the fund. Hence, the expected redemption by some investors increases the incentives for others to redeem. In other words, during times of stress, mutual fund investors have an incentive to withdraw their money before other fund shareholders get the chance. Otherwise, they could be stuck holding a basket of illiquid corporate bonds. This bank-run like behavior is well documented for corporate and municipal bond funds, though it appears not to exist for funds that traffic in more liquid instruments, such as Treasuries and equities. In fact, when Goldstein et al looked at how flows into and out of individual corporate bond and equity funds respond to past fund performance, they found that the Flow-Performance curve for an individual corporate bond fund exhibits a pronounced concave shape. Meanwhile, the same curve for an individual equity fund is convex (Chart 3). This means that corporate bond mutual fund shareholders are quick to redeem their shares in response to poor fund performance, while equity fund shareholders are more inclined to stand pat. On the flipside, positive fund performance leads to large equity fund inflows, but doesn’t attract capital to corporate bond funds to the same extent. The above results apply to individual funds, but Goldstein et al also performed the same analysis for corporate bond funds in the aggregate. That is, rather than measuring whether investors sold a particular corporate bond mutual fund in response to its poor performance, they measured whether investors exited the corporate bond mutual fund space altogether in response to poor corporate bond performance. Interestingly, they found a very similar result (Chart 4). Investors are inclined to exit the corporate bond space entirely following periods of poor performance. Meanwhile, they found no relationship between aggregate equity fund flows and performance. Investors might switch between different equity funds in response to recent performance trends, but they don’t exit the asset class altogether.   These results provide a clear indication for why the large presence of corporate bond mutual funds might be destabilizing. Corporate bond fund investors are quick to flee the space during periods of poor performance. For more liquid securities, such as equities and Treasuries, a large mutual fund presence in the market is not a concern, since flows do not respond as aggressively to price shocks. Empirical Evidence For The Flow-Performance Feedback Loop The evidence presented above shows that fund flows respond to performance, but for the theorized feedback loop between fund flows and corporate bond prices to exist, we also need evidence that fund flows impact corporate bond performance. In that regard, a 2019 Banque de France working paper examines the impact of aggregate flows into French corporate bond funds on the yields of the underlying securities.4 It finds that not only do flows impact yields contemporaneously, but also that outflows have a larger influence on yields than inflows. Using a different methodology, a 2015 paper by Hoseinzade finds no material impact of fund flows on underlying corporate bond yields, but for an interesting reason.5 The paper confirms that corporate bond fund shareholders demonstrate bank-run like behavior in response to poor performance, but also argues that “bond fund managers hold a significant level of liquid assets, allowing them to manage redemptions without excessively liquidating corporate bonds.” Chart 5Funds Deploy Cash Before Selling Bonds It’s true that corporate bond mutual funds often hold significant allocations to cash and U.S. Treasuries, and Hoseinzade shows that fund managers tend to discharge their most liquid holdings first, before attempting to sell corporate bonds. This result lines up with our casual observation. Chart 5 shows the aggregate liquid asset (cash and Treasury) holdings of corporate bond mutual funds. It is apparent that they tend to fall during periods of spread widening. We also note that corporate bond mutual funds, in aggregate, currently hold about 6% of their assets in liquid securities. This buffer can probably withstand a sizeable shock, but liquid assets fell from similar levels into negative territory during each of the past two recessions. One other factor that could help break the feedback loop between fund flows and prices is the institutional ownership of corporate bond mutual funds. Goldstein et al find that mutual funds mostly owned by institutional investors exhibit less of a feedback loop between flows and performance. That is, large institutional investors are less likely to redeem their shares in response to a bout of poor performance. While we don’t have data on corporate bond mutual fund ownership specifically, Federal Reserve data reveal that insurance companies and pension funds own a significantly larger proportion of outstanding mutual fund shares than in the 1990s, though less than they did in the mid-2000s (Chart 6). Note that Chart 6 shows data for all mutual funds, including equity funds, Treasury funds, etc… Chart 6Institutional Ownership Of Mutual Funds We conclude that there is enough evidence of a feedback loop between fund flows and corporate bond prices that we should be wary of the growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond space. Cash holdings and institutional ownership can help mitigate negative flow/performance feedback loops to some extent, but probably shouldn’t be counted on in the event of a severe shock. What’s The Economic Impact? In our corporate debt Special Report from April, we postulated that changes in corporate bond spreads might, themselves, cause an economic downturn, rather than simply reflect one. The mechanism is summarized nicely by Lopez-Salido, Stein and Zakrajsek (2016):6 [a] sentiment-driven widening of credit spreads amounts to a reduction in the supply of credit, especially to lower credit-quality firms. It is this reduction in credit supply that exerts a negative influence on economic activity. With that in mind, in the current environment it seems very possible that an initially sentiment-driven credit spread widening could be exacerbated by outflows from corporate bond mutual funds. A larger shock to credit spreads leads to a larger reduction in credit supply and a more severe economic impact. Aggregate liquid asset holdings of corporate bond mutual funds tend to fall during periods of spread widening. Bottom Line: The liquidity mismatch between easily tradeable mutual fund shares and the less liquid underlying corporate bonds makes it possible for negative feedback loops to emerge between fund flows and corporate bond spreads. The growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond market should be seen as a risk that could exacerbate future periods of spread widening, leading to worse economic outcomes. 2: BBB Debt Outstanding Chart 7The Large Amount Of BBB Debt It has been widely reported that an unusually large amount of outstanding corporate bonds are rated BBB, the lowest credit rating that is still considered investment grade. In fact, the par value of BBB-rated securities now makes up 50% of the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade index, up from 21% in 1990 (Chart 7). The amount of outstanding BBB securities is more than double the par value of the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index, and BBBs represent 41% of the total combined par value of the investment grade and high-yield indexes. The reason to be wary about the large amount of outstanding BBB debt is that when the credit cycle turns and ratings downgrades start to occur, a larger than normal amount of debt will be downgraded from investment grade into high-yield. When that happens, any investors with an investment grade-only mandate will be forced to sell. The concern is that such forced selling could set off a negative feedback loop very similar to the one discussed in the first section. An added layer of risk comes from the fact that in addition to investment grade-only mutual funds, insurance companies and pension funds – who still control 35% of the corporate bond market (see Chart 2 on page 3) – are often burdened with larger capital costs for high-yield debt. This means that a very large pool of investors could be impacted by a spate of BBB downgrades. In terms of the potential market impact, a 2010 paper by Ellul, Jotikasthira and Lundblad investigated fire sales of downgraded corporate bonds induced by regulatory constraints.7 The authors found that insurance companies often engage in the forced selling of bonds that have been recently downgraded into high-yield. Further, the downgraded bonds experience negative near-term price pressure from the fire sale, but that pressure tends to reverse after a few months. The finding that the negative price pressure is fleeting is important. In contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, BBB securities can only be downgraded to high-yield once. In other words, once the initial fire sale of fallen angel debt takes place, there is no mechanism to force the downward price pressure to continue.8 Bottom Line: The large amount of outstanding BBB debt could lead to fire sales from corporate bond holders with investment grade-only mandates when the debt is downgraded to junk. However, in contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, the evidence shows that the negative price pressure from fallen angel fire sales is fleeting. 3. Leveraged Loans The rapid growth of leveraged loans – lending made to below investment-grade borrowers - over the past couple of years has caught the attention of global central banks and financial regulators. That concern is understandable, as it would be a dereliction of duty for any policymaker or regulator who lived through the 2008 financial crisis to not consider the potential risks to financial stability and future economic growth from a surge in lower quality lending. This is especially true given the increase in the number of securitized instruments linked to leveraged loans – collateralized loan obligations, or CLOs – which evokes memories of the toxic subprime mortgage products that helped trigger the 2008 crisis. Although as the Fed’s Vice Chair for Supervision, Randal Quarles, recently noted, the financial media has been overplaying the leveraged loan story in such a way that it felt like “the Earth must be getting hit by an asteroid.” The BoE estimates that the CLOs would have to suffer a loss more than twice as severe as seen during the 2008 financial crisis for the AAA-rated piece of CLOs issued in 2018 to incur losses. The leveraged loan and CLO markets can be opaque. However, based on the information we do have from credible sources like central banks, the IMF and the BIS, some conclusions can be made about the potential economic risks from the rapid build-up of U.S. leveraged loans: Leveraged loan expansion has been partially offset by high-yield contraction. Chart 8More Leveraged Loans, Less Junk Bonds Based on estimates from the BIS and IMF, there are around $1.4 trillion in U.S. leveraged loans outstanding, which is greater than the $1.2 trillion U.S. high-yield bond market (Chart 8). That is an all-time high in the dollar amount of leveraged loans, as well as for the share of all lower-rated corporate debt accounted for by loans. The annual growth rate of U.S. leveraged loans is now a whopping 29% - the fastest pace seen since 2007. Yet the growth of the total amount of leveraged loans plus high-yield bonds is a much lower 12%. While that is still a large number, it is below the peak growth rates seen during the past fifteen years. This is because the amount of high-yield bonds outstanding has been modestly contracting since 2015. Much of that run-up in leveraged loan growth has been to satiate the demand for loans created by private equity funds and, more importantly, CLOs. The strong risk appetite from investors resulted in a notable deterioration in lending standards, with loans coming out at higher leverage multiples (debt/EBITDA) and with reduced investor covenant protection. Yet since lower-rated companies were not ramping up high-yield bond issuance at the same time, the economic stability risks from a rapid run-up in total riskier borrowing are lower, on the margin. The ownership structure of leveraged loans (and CLOs) is diverse enough to not create systemic problems. To date, the Bank of England (BoE) has compiled the most detailed estimates of the ownership breakdown of both leveraged loans and CLOs.9 In Chart 9, we have recreated a chart from the BoE’s July 2019 Financial Stability Report, which colorfully shows the ownership of global leveraged loans and CLOs. The way to read the chart is that each square represents a 1% share of the estimated $3.2 trillion of global leveraged loans and CLOs. The split in the chart is 75% loans and 25% CLOs (CLO ownership is shown on the right side of the thick dotted line). The biggest category of leveraged loan investor is what the BoE titled “U.S. and other global banks”, a group that represents 38% of total loans and CLOs. European banks own 12%, U.K. banks own 3% and Japanese banks own 3% (entirely through CLOs), thus bringing the global bank exposure to 56% of all leveraged loan instruments. While that sounds like a large number, the majority of that is in the form of revolving credit facilities – effectively, overdraft facilities to lower-rated borrowers. Revolving credit facilities are typically less risky than leveraged loans, because credit facilities have greater covenant protection and even more seniority in terms of creditor claims on borrower assets. The BoE estimates that 40% of all global leveraged loans and CLOs are owned by non-bank investors. This includes pension funds, insurance companies and investment funds (mutual funds and ETFs). Chart 9 shows how much more diverse the investor base is for CLOs than for other leveraged loans. It suggests that any future potential losses from CLOs will be distributed more evenly within the financial system, rather than being concentrated in the banks. Chart 10Leveraged Loan Losses Are Typically Lowered Compared To Junk Even within the bank holdings of CLOs, the systemic risks are lessened. The BoE noted that the increased amount of subordination (i.e. lower-rated tranches) of more recent CLO deals helps protect the senior tranches from losses. According to the BoE, the AAA-rated piece of a representative sample of CLOs issued in 2018 was 63%; this compares to 70% for CLOs issued in 2006.10 Furthermore, the central bank estimates that the CLOs would have to suffer a loss more than twice as severe as seen during the 2008 financial crisis for the AAA-rated piece of CLOs issued in 2018 to incur losses. That would be an extraordinary outcome, given how 2008 generated losses on leveraged loans that were over twice as bad as the previous worst year in 2002 (Chart 10). Potential losses from AAA tranches are important from a financial stability perspective. The BoE estimates that 40% of all CLOs are owned by global banks (including a large 13% share from yield-chasing Japanese banks). These banks tend to focus on safer AAA-rated CLO tranches. The demand for leveraged loan products is volatile, but that might actually be a good thing for economic stability. The surge in leveraged loans over the past two years has not only been related to demand from private equity funds and CLOs. U.S. retail investors have also been big buyers of mutual funds and ETFs linked to the leveraged loan market, as a way to seek out higher credit returns against a backdrop of Fed rate hikes. Chart 11Fed Rate Expectations Drive The Demand For Loans Vs Bonds Leveraged loans are floating rate instruments. Thus, they are more desirable than fixed-rate high-yield corporate debt when short-term interest rates are rising. This is seen in Chart 11, where we show net flows into the largest U.S. junk bond and leveraged loan ETFs. These flows are plotted with the JP Morgan survey of bond investor duration positioning (top panel) and our Fed Funds Discounter that measures the market-implied expected change in the fed funds rate over the next year (bottom panel). The conclusion is obvious – there was very strong retail demand for floating-rate leveraged loans over fixed-rate junk bonds during 2016-18 when expected rate hikes justified defensive duration positioning. In 2019, the tables have turned. The Fed is more dovish, rate cuts are now expected, investors have been adding duration exposure, and demand for leveraged loan funds has plunged while high-yield bond funds have been seeing inflows. The exodus from all leveraged loan funds has been historically large, with Lipper reporting that there were 33 straight weeks of outflows to July 3, 2019, for a total of $32 billion.11 Already, that reduced demand for leveraged loans has translated into sharply reduced issuance of new U.S. CLOs, which was 73% lower in the first half of 2019 versus the same period in 2018 (Chart 12). At the same time, high-yield bond issuance was up 20% in the first six months of 2019 versus 2018. The reduced demand for leveraged loans has also shifted the balance of power back to lenders, as the share of U.S. leveraged loans that have been issued with limited covenant protection (“cov-lite”) has plunged from 72% in 2018 to around 40% (Chart 13). Chart 12Lower-Rated Issuance Is "Self-Regulating" Chart 13Reduced Covenant-Lite Issuance So Far In 2019     This is a critical point on the potential stability risks from leveraged loans – the market for those loans is “self-regulating”, based on final demand from investors who “toggle” between floating rate and fixed rate credit instruments. This helps limit the growth in overall corporate indebtedness, helping to put off the date when credit booms turn into future credit busts. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Risk From U.S. Corporate Debt: Theory And Evidence”, dated April 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2     https://www.nowpublishers.com/article/DownloadEBook/9781680834864?format=pdf 3     http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~itayg/Files/bondfunds-published.pdf 4     https://ideas.repec.org/p/bfr/banfra/706.html 5     https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5a60feab84a7d10de084abfce414b5888d5586e2.pdf 6     https://www.nber.org/papers/w21879 7     https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/55a4/8602b17bc7e7f8428695ab6a3ef2c87756ab.pdf 8      Corporate bonds that are downgraded from investment grade to high-yield are called fallen angels. 9      The Financial Stability Board, the international body that monitors and makes recommendations on the global financial system, is due to publish a comprehensive analysis of the ownership structure of the leveraged loan market in the autumn of 2019. 10     For a more detailed description of this analysis, see pages 28 & 29 of the Bank of England’s July 2019 Financial Stability report, which can be found here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/financial-stability-report/2019/july-20… 11     https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/leveraged-loan-news/leveraged-loan-fund-withdrawal-streak-hits-record-33-weeks-totaling-32b  

Highlights Q2/2019 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -19bps in the second quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: Our below-benchmark overall duration stance expressed through country underweights in the U.S. (-25bps) and Italy (-10bps) hurt Q2 returns. This dwarfed the gains from U.S. corporate bond overweights (+14bps) and selective sovereign bond overweights in Germany, Australia and the U.K. Scenario Analysis For Next Six Months: We are adding credit exposure to our model portfolio, increasing spread product allocations in U.S. high-yield and European corporates. In our Base Case scenario, the Fed is likely to deliver some “insurance” rate cuts in the next few months, but by less than the markets are currently discounting, while global growth momentum will stabilize. The resulting price action will favor relative returns from spread product versus government debt. Feature The first half of 2019 produced a surprising result across the global fixed income universe – practically everything delivered a positive total return. From U.S. Treasuries to Italian BTPs to U.S. investment grade industrial corporates to emerging market hard currency sovereigns, all the year-to-date returns are colored green on your Bloomberg screen. Those returns have occurred despite all the uncertainties that investors have had to navigate during the past three months, from shock Trump tariff tweets to persistent weakness in global manufacturing data to swift dovish turns by global central bankers (rate cuts in Australia and New Zealand, the Fed hinting at easing and the ECB signaling a potential restart of asset purchases). In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the eventful second quarter of 2019. We also present our updated scenario analysis, and total return projections, for the portfolio over the next six months. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q2/2019 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Credit Overweights Help Limit Damage From Below-Benchmark Duration Chart of the WeekBelow-Benchmark Duration Overwhelms Credit Overweights In Q2/19 The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the second quarter was 2.8%, underperforming the custom benchmark index by -19bps (Chart of the Week).1 The bulk of the underperformance came from the government bond side of the portfolio (-33bps) - a function of our below-benchmark duration tilt and underweight stance on sovereign bonds, both occurring against a backdrop of rapidly falling bond yields (Table 1). Partially offsetting that was the outperformance from our recommended overweights in U.S. corporate debt, which helped the spread product side of our model portfolio outperform the benchmark by +14bps. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2019 Overall Return Attribution The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Overweight U.S. investment grade industrials (+5bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield Ba-rated (+4bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield B-rated (+4bps) Overweight U.S. investment grade financials (+2bps) Overweight German government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (+2bps) Biggest underperformers Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-10bps) Underweight Italy government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-6bps) Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-6bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity of 1-3 years (-5bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity of 3-8 years (-5bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q2/2019. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q2/2019 (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral).2 Ideally, we would look to see more blue bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Our underweight tilts on European Peripheral sovereign debt were our biggest “miss” in the quarter, as Spanish and Italian yields plunged after the ECB signaled future rate cuts and a potential return to bond purchases in order to boost flailing European growth. We had been viewing Spain and Italy as growth-focused credit stories rather than yield plays, leaving us to maintain a cautious stand on both markets given worsening economic momentum (but with an imbedded “long Spain/short Italy” tilt by having a smaller relative underweight in Spain). In terms of our best “hits” in the quarter, our overweight stance on U.S. investment grade corporates and Australian government bonds performed relatively well. We also avoided a big “miss” by upgrading emerging market U.S. dollar-denominated sovereign debt to neutral from underweight on April 30.3 We also avoided a bigger hit to the portfolio through tactical adjustments made in late May, when we added back some interest rate duration to the portfolio given the increasing uncertainties from slowing global growth and rising U.S. trade policy hawkishness.4 We also reduced our U.S. corporate bond overweights at the same time, but the additional duration exposure was the more important factor – without those changes, the portfolio would have lagged the benchmark index by another -8bps in Q2. In terms of our best “hits” in the quarter, our overweight stance on U.S. investment grade corporates and Australian government bonds performed relatively well. Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index in the second quarter of the year, with the drag on performance from underweight exposure to U.S. Treasuries and Italian BTPs overwhelming the gains from credit overweights in the U.S. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by two main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias and our overweight stance on global corporate debt versus government bonds. In terms of the specific high-level weightings in the model portfolio, we currently have a moderate overweight, equal to three percentage points, on spread product versus government debt (Chart 5). This reflects a more constructive view on future global growth, with early leading economic indicators starting to bottom out to the benefit of growth-sensitive assets like corporate debt. That faster growth backdrop will also benefit our below-benchmark duration stance through a rebound in government bond yields. This should happen only slowly, however, as global central bankers are likely to keep their newly-dovish policy bias in place for some time until there are more decisive signs of accelerating growth AND inflation. Chart 6Overall Portfolio Duration: Below-Benchmark We are maintaining our below-benchmark duration tilt (0.5 years short of the custom benchmark), but we recognize that the underperformance from duration seen in the first half of 2019 will only be clawed back slowly over the next six months (Chart 6). As for country allocation, we continue to favor regions where looser monetary policy is most likely (core Europe, Australia, Japan and the U.K.). We are staying underweight the U.S., however, as the market’s expectations for the Fed are too dovish, with -82bps of rate cuts now discounted over the next twelve months. We are also keeping our underweight stance on Italian government bonds, which we now see as overvalued after the recent rally. We are maintaining our below-benchmark duration tilt (0.5 years short of the custom benchmark), but we recognize that the underperformance from duration seen in the first half of 2019 will only be clawed back slowly over the next six months We are, however, making some adjustments to the portfolio allocations to reflect our expectation of less negative news on global growth and easier monetary policies from global central bankers facing uncertainty alongside too-low inflation expectations: Increasing the overweight to U.S. high-yield corporates, boosting the allocation to Ba-rated and B-rated credit tiers by one percentage point each. This is funded by reducing our U.S. Treasury allocation by two percentage points. Upgrading euro area corporates to overweight, increasing the allocation to both investment grade and high-yield by one percentage point each. This is funded by reducing our German government bond allocation by two percentage points. Upgrading U.K. investment grade corporates to neutral, funded by reducing U.K. Gilt exposure by 0.5 percentage points. Upgrading Spanish government bonds to neutral, funded by reducing German exposure by 0.3 percentage points. These changes will boost the overall spread product allocation to 50% of the portfolio (an overweight of seven percentage points versus the benchmark index). This will also boost the overall yield of the portfolio to 3.2%, +6bps greater than that of the benchmark. That relative yield advantage looks even better in U.S. dollar terms, with currency hedging adding an additional +16bps to the relative portfolio yield given the current powerful carry advantage of the greenback (Chart 7). Chart 7Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Chart 8Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious Even though we have decent-sized overall tilts on global duration and spread product allocation, our estimated tracking error (excess volatility of the portfolio versus its benchmark) remains low (Chart 8). We remain comfortable with a portfolio tracking error of 38bps, well below our self-imposed 100bps ceiling, as the internal weightings in the portfolio are helping keep overall portfolio volatility at a modest level. Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts In April 2018, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.5 For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis of projected returns for each asset class in the model bond portfolio by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. In Tables 3A & 3B, we present our three main scenarios for the next six months, defined by changes in the risk factors, and the expected performance of the model bond portfolio in each case. The scenarios, described below, are all driven by what we believe will be the most important driver of market returns over the rest of 2019 – the momentum of global growth and the path of U.S. monetary policy. Our Base Case: the Fed delivers -50bps of easing by the end of 2019, the U.S. dollar depreciates by -3%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index hovers around 15, and there is a mild bear-steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is a scenario where the Fed delivers a rate cut in July and one more “insurance cut” before year-end, while signaling that no other easing beyond that. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +57bps in this case. Global Growth Rebounds: the Fed stays on hold to year-end, the U.S. dollar is flat, oil prices increase +10%, the VIX index falls to 12 and there is a mild bear-flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is a scenario where improving economic data outside the U.S. diminishes the fears of a U.S. recession, allowing the Fed to stand pat and keep rates unchanged as financial market volatility stays muted. The model bond portfolio is expected to outperform the benchmark by +50bps here. Global Downturn Intensifies: the Fed cuts the funds rate by -75bps by year-end, the U.S. dollar falls by -5%, oil prices decline -15%, the VIX index increases to 30 and there is a bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is a scenario where U.S./global growth momentum continues to fade, prompting the Fed to deliver a series of curve-steepening rate cuts to try and stabilize elevated financial market volatility amid increasing recession risks. The model portfolio will severely underperform the benchmark by -41bps with this outcome. The scenario inputs for the four main risk factors (the fed funds rate, the price of oil, the U.S. dollar and the VIX index) are different than what was presented in our last model bond portfolio review in mid-April (Chart 9). Then, we were contemplating scenarios involving the Fed keeping rates stable and even potentially looking for an opportunity to deliver another rate hike by year-end. Now, given the Fed’s clear dovish shift after the downshift in global growth momentum, two of our three main scenarios involve rate cuts in the U.S. The only scenario where Treasury yields can fall further, however, is if the global economic downturn deepens – a scenario we view as more of a tail risk rather than a higher-probability possibility (Chart 10). Chart 9Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 10U.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis In terms of our conviction level among the main drivers of the model portfolio returns – duration allocation (across yield curves and countries) and asset allocation (credit versus government bonds) – we are most confident that credit returns will exceed those of sovereign debt over the next six months. In terms of our conviction level among the main drivers of the model portfolio returns – duration allocation (across yield curves and countries) and asset allocation (credit versus government bonds) – we are most confident that credit returns will exceed those of sovereign debt over the next six months. Bottom Line: We are adding credit exposure to our model portfolio, increasing spread product allocation in U.S. high-yield and European corporates. In our Base Case scenario, the Fed is likely to deliver some “insurance” rate cuts in the next few months, but by less than the markets are currently discounting, while global growth momentum will stabilize. The resulting price action will favor spread product over government bonds, helping boost the returns of our model portfolio.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q2/2019 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “It’s Time To Break Out The Fine China”, dated April 30, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Message From Low Bond Yields”, dated May 28, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start”, dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.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 1Looks Like 2016 & 1998 The Treasury market continues to price-in a recession-like outcome for the U.S. economy, embedding 83 basis points of Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months. But last week’s economic data challenge that narrative. First, the ISM Non-Manufacturing PMI held above 55 in June, even as its Manufacturing counterpart plunged toward the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 1). This divergence between a strong service sector and weak manufacturing sector is more reminiscent of prior mid-cycle slowdowns in 2016 and 1998 than of any pre-recession period. Second, nonfarm payrolls added 224k jobs in June, a strong rebound from the 72k added in May and enough to keep the 12-month growth rate at a healthy 1.5% (bottom panel). Still-low inflation expectations provide sufficient cover for the Fed to cut rates later this month, likely by 25 bps. But beyond that, continued strong economic data could prevent any further easing. Keep portfolio duration low and stay short the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 144 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +368 bps. We removed our recommendation to hedge near-term corporate credit exposure after the Fed’s clear dovish pivot at the June FOMC meeting.1  At that time, we also noted that the surging gold price, weakening trade-weighted dollar and outperformance of global industrial mining stocks were all signaling that corporate spreads have peaked (Chart 2). Of our “peak credit spread” indicators, only the CRB Raw Industrials index has yet to turn the corner. The macro environment supports tighter spreads. But in the investment grade space, value only looks attractive for Baa-rated securities. Baa spreads remain 7 bps above our target (panel 3), while Aa and A-rated spreads are 1 bp and 4 bps below, respectively (panel 4). Aaa bonds are even more expensive, with spreads 19 bps below target (not shown).2  Investors should focus their investment grade corporate bond exposure on Baa-rated securities. Our measure of gross leverage – total debt over pre-tax profits – jumped in Q1, as corporate debt grew at an annualized pace of 8.5% while corporate profits contracted by an annualized 18% (bottom panel). Leverage will likely rise again in Q2, as profit growth will almost certainly remain weak, but should then level-off as global growth recovers. High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 154 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +603 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 56 bps on the month. At 366 bps, it remains well above the cycle-low of 303 bps. As with investment grade credit, we removed our recommendation to hedge near-term exposure following the June FOMC meeting (see page 3). Further, we see the potential for much more spread tightening in high-yield than in investment grade. Within investment grade, only the Baa credit tier carries a spread above our target. In High-Yield, Ba-rated spreads are 42 bps above our target (Chart 3), B-rated spreads are 108 bps above our target (panel 3) and Caa-rated spreads are 263 bps above our target (not shown).3  Junk spreads also offer reasonable value relative to expected default losses. The current Moody’s baseline forecast calls for a default rate of 2.7% over the next 12 months, not far from our own projection.4 This would translate into 224 bps of excess spread in the High-Yield index, after adjusting for default losses (panel 4). This is comfortably above zero, and only just below the historical average of 250 bps. We will continue to monitor job cut announcements, which have moderated so far this year (bottom panel), and C&I lending standards, which remain in net easing territory, to assess whether our default expectations need to be revised. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -11 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread widened 1 bp on the month, as a 4 bps widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS) was partially offset by a 3 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). Falling mortgage rates hurt MBS in the first half of this year, as lower rates led to an increase in refi activity that drove MBS spreads wider (Chart 4). In fact, the conventional 30-year index OAS has risen all the way back to its average pre-crisis level (panel 3). However, as we noted in last week’s report, the nominal 30-year MBS spread remains very tight, at close to one standard deviation below its historical mean.5 The mixed valuation picture means we are not yet inclined to augment our recommended allocation to MBS, especially given the favorable environment for corporate bonds, where expected returns are higher. We are equally disinclined to downgrade MBS, given that refi activity could be close to peaking. All in all, we expect that the next move in the MBS/Treasury basis will be a tightening, as global growth improves and mortgage rates rise in the second half of the year. However, valuation is not sufficiently attractive to warrant more than a neutral allocation. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +133 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 208 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +419 bps. Local Authorities underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 6 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +213 bps. Meanwhile, Foreign Agencies underperformed by 26 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +103 bps. Domestic Agencies underperformed by 4 bps in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +25 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 1 bp on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +28 bps. Sovereign debt remains very expensive relative to equivalently rated U.S. corporate credit (Chart 5). While the sector would benefit if the Fed’s dovish pivot results in a weaker dollar, U.S. corporate bonds would still outperform in that scenario, given the more attractive starting point for spreads. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to Sovereigns. Unlike the debt of most other countries, Mexican sovereign bonds continue to trade cheap relative to U.S. corporates (bottom panel). While this remains an attractive option from a valuation perspective, the President’s on again/off again tariff threats make it a risky near-term proposition. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 73 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -44 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio rose 2% in June, and currently sits at 81% (Chart 6). The ratio is close to one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean, but exactly equal to the average that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Recent muni underperformance has been broad-based across the entire maturity spectrum, but long-end (20-year and 30-year) yield ratios continue to look attractive relative to the rest of the curve. 20-year and 30-year Aaa-rated yield ratios are more than one standard deviation above their respective pre-crisis averages. Meanwhile, 10-year, 5-year and 2-year Aaa yield ratios are very close to average pre-crisis levels. State & local government balance sheets are in decent shape and a material increase in ratings downgrades is unlikely (bottom panel). We therefore recommend an overweight allocation to municipal bonds, but with a preference for 20-year and 30-year Aaa-rated securities. We showed in a recent report that value declines sharply if you move into shorter maturities or lower credit tiers.6 Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-steepened in June, alongside a large drop in our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter from -75 bps to -90 bps (Chart 7). June’s bull-steepening was reversed last week, as the strong employment report caused our discounter to jump back up to -83 bps, resulting in a bear-flattening of the Treasury curve. All in all, the 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 6 bps in June, then flattened 8 bps in the first week of July. It currently sits comfortably above zero at 17 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 11 bps in June, then flattened 6 bps last week. It currently sits at 70 bps. In last week’s report we reviewed the case for barbelling your U.S. bond portfolio.7 That is, favoring the short and long ends of the yield curve while avoiding the 5-year and 7-year maturities. This positioning continues to make sense. Not only does the barbell increase the average yield of your portfolio, but our butterfly spread models all show that barbells are cheap relative to bullets (see Appendix B). The 5-year and 7-year yields will also rise more than long-end and short-end yields when the market eventually moves to price-in fewer Fed rate cuts. In addition to our recommended barbell positioning, we advocate keeping a short position in the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. That contract is currently priced for a fed funds rate of 1.69% next February, the equivalent of three 25 basis point rate cuts spread over the next five FOMC meetings. The Fed is unlikely to deliver that much easing. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 11 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +28 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 5 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.69% (Chart 8). The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 4 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.83%. As we have noted in recent research, FOMC members are monitoring long-dated inflation expectations and are committed to keeping policy easy enough to “re-anchor” them at levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% target.8 In the long-run, this will support a return of long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates (both 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward) to our 2.3% - 2.5% target range. However, for breakevens to move higher, investors will also need to see evidence that realized inflation can be sustained near 2%. On that note, the core PCE deflator grew at a healthy 2.3% (annualized) clip in May, following an even higher 3% (annualized) rate in April. However, it has only grown 1.6% during the past year. 12-month trimmed mean PCE is running almost exactly in line with the Fed’s target at 1.99%. In a recent report we noted that 12-month core PCE inflation has a track record of converging toward the trimmed mean.9   ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +51 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 9 bps on the month, moving back above its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). At 36 bps, the spread remains well below its pre-crisis mean of 64 bps. In addition to poor valuation, the sector’s credit fundamentals are shifting in a negative direction. Household interest payments continue to trend up, suggesting a higher delinquency rate going forward (panel 3). Meanwhile, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey revealed that average consumer lending standards tightened in Q1 for the second consecutive quarter. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising consumer delinquencies (bottom panel). Loan officers also reported slowing demand for credit cards for the fifth consecutive quarter, and slowing auto loan demand for the third consecutive quarter. Second quarter data will be made available in early August, but current trends are not promising. The combination of poor value and deteriorating credit quality leads us to recommend an underweight allocation to consumer ABS. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +191 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 2 bps on the month. It currently sits at 68 bps, below its average pre-crisis level but above levels seen in 2018 (Chart 10). The macro outlook for commercial real estate looks somewhat unfavorable, with lenders tightening standards (panel 4) amidst falling demand (bottom panel). However, on a positive note, commercial real estate prices recently accelerated and are now much more consistent with current CMBS spreads (panel 3). Despite the mixed fundamental picture, CMBS still offer excellent compensation relative to other similarly-rated fixed income sectors.10  Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +93 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 50 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector remains appropriate. Appendix A - The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 83 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We do not anticipate any rate cuts during this timeframe, and therefore recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B - Butterfly Strategy Valuation 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: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. 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 July 5, 2019) 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 July 5, 2019) 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 +56 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 56 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 C - Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Map employs volatility-adjusted breakeven spread analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Map does not incorporate any macroeconomic view. The horizontal axis of the Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps of excess return. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Got Your Back”, dated June 25, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For more details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Assessing Corporate Default Risk”, dated March 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Long Awkward Middle Phase”, dated July 2, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Full Speed Ahead”, dated April 16, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Long Awkward Middle Phase”, dated July 2, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Hedge Near-Term Credit Exposure”, dated May 28, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10  Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights The Chinese economy slowed in May following two months of improvement, but the June PMI data suggests that the pace of decline is moderating. Still, the economy remains highly vulnerable in a full-tariff scenario. This weekend’s agreement to continue trade talks was a weaker result compared with what emerged from the G20 meeting in Argentina, and did not represent any real progress toward a final trade agreement that includes a substantial tariff rollback. Our 6-12 month investment outlook remains unchanged: Chinese stocks face potentially acute near-term risks, but are likely to outperform global stocks over the coming year as mounting economic weakness forces policymakers to overcome their reluctance to act and to ultimately stimulate as needed. Feature The Caixin PMI decline in June appears to have been preceded by the official PMI in May. No change in the latter in June is thus somewhat encouraging. Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, May’s activity data shows that the economy slowed following two months of improvement, which underscores that the budding, credit-driven recovery in China’s investment relevant economic activity remains in its infancy and is vulnerable to a further deterioration in external demand. The Caixin manufacturing PMI fell back below the 50 mark in June, but this appears to have simply confirmed the prior decline in the official PMI. June’s official PMI was flat on the month, which in combination with only a modest further decline in new export orders, implies that the May slowdown in activity noted above did not repeat itself in June (at least not in terms of magnitude) Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Within financial markets, Chinese stocks actively outperformed the global benchmark over the past month as the latter rallied. The rally was in response to assurances from the PBoC about the capacity to ease further if needed, and the steadily rising odds over the course of the month that a new tariff ceasefire would be reached at the G20 meeting in Osaka. While this expectation was indeed validated, our view is that the agreement to continue talks was a weaker result compared with what emerged from the G20 meeting in Argentina, and did not represent any real progress toward a final trade agreement that includes a substantial tariff rollback. As such, our 6-12 month investment outlook remains unchanged: Chinese stocks face potentially acute near-term risks, but are likely to outperform global stocks over the coming year as mounting economic weakness forces policymakers to overcome their reluctance to act and to ultimately stimulate as needed. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide below several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1A Sharp Decline In Electricity Production China’s economy slowed in May according to the Bloomberg Li Keqiang index, after having picked up for two months in a row. While both electricity production and rail cargo volume fell in May, the former fell sharply, almost into negative territory (Chart 1). This underscores that the budding, credit-driven recovery in China’s investment relevant economic activity remains in its infancy, and that economic activity is set to deteriorate meaningfully in a full-tariff scenario. Our LKI leading indicator rose modestly in May, with all six components showing an improvement. Still, the uptrend in the indicator is slight, and is being held back by the money supply components, particularly the growth in M2. Much stronger money & credit growth will be required if Chinese economic activity relapses and no deal to end U.S. import tariffs has occurred, but policymakers are likely to be reactive rather than proactive in this regard. The picture painted by China’s housing data continues to be a story of weak housing demand arrayed against seemingly strong housing construction and stable growth in house prices. However, we noted in a May 9 joint Special Report with our Emerging Market Strategy service that the strength observed in floor space started over the past year reflected a funding strategy by cash-strapped real estate developers.1 Launching new projects aggressively last year – i.e., more property starts – allowed real estate developers to pre-sell property units in order to raise cash in a tight credit environment. On the demand side, the annual change in the PBOC’s pledged supplementary lending injection has strongly predicted floor space sold over the past four years; it remains deeply in negative territory and our measure declined in May for the 8th month in a row. Given that housing construction cannot sustainably decouple from housing demand, we expect floor space started to slow meaningfully over the coming several months absent a major pickup in housing sales. Chart 2The Flat Official PMI In June Is Somewhat Encouraging The Caixin manufacturing PMI fell back below the 50 mark in June, but this appears to have simply confirmed the prior decline in the official PMI (Chart 2). The official PMI was flat in June with only a modest further decline in new export orders, which implies that the May slowdown in activity noted above did not repeat itself in June, at least not in terms of magnitude. Chinese stocks have rallied 8-9% over the past month in U.S. dollar terms, outpacing the EM and global equity benchmarks. The rally initially followed comments from Governor Yi Gang that the PBoC had “tremendous” room to ease monetary policy if needed, and was sustained by expectations later in the month of a second tariff truce emerging from the G20 meeting in Osaka. For China-exposed investors, the issue is not whether Chinese policymakers have the capacity to support China’s economy, but rather the willingness to ease materially. From our perspective, the renewal of trade talks with the U.S. does not represent material progress towards the ultimate removal of tariffs. But the existence of talks is likely to give Chinese authorities a reason (for now) to avoid aggressively stimulating the economy, meaning that our 6-12 month investment outlook remains unchanged. Chart 3The BAT Stocks Will Outperform China If Chinese Stocks Outperform Global The significant outperformance of the investable consumer discretionary has been the most meaningful equity sector development over the past month. We have noted in past reports that changes last December to the global industry classification standard (GICS) mean that trends in investable consumer discretionary are now largely driven by Alibaba’s stock price, and Chart 3 highlights that the BAT stocks (Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent) have indeed risen relative to the overall investable index. We noted in last month’s macro & market review that investors appeared to be wrongly conflating the risks facing Huawei (U.S. supply chain reliance) with those facing the BATs (the outlook for Chinese consumer spending), and the outperformance of the latter over the past month, as expectations mounted of another tariff truce emerging from the G20, would appear to validate this view. This implies that the outlook for the relative performance of the BATs versus the Chinese equity benchmark is likely to be the same as that of Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark: near-term risk, but likely to outperform over a 6-12 month time horizon. Chinese interbank rates fell over the past month, in response to an injection of liquidity by the PBoC following the collapse and takeover of Baoshang bank. The event marked the first takeover of a commercial bank in China since 1998, and has been described by authorities as an isolated event that was caused, in part, by the illegal use of bank funds. Market participants have clearly been concerned that Baoshang is not an isolated event; China’s 3-month interbank repo rate rose nearly 60bps from early-April to mid-June, and the PBoC’s response was intended to help prevent a significant tightening in credit conditions for China’s smaller lenders. While bad debt concerns have clearly impacted the interbank market over the past several weeks, there has been little impact on China’s onshore corporate bond market (Chart 4). Spreads on bonds rated AA+ did rise meaningfully in June, but have since nearly returned to late-May levels. We continue to recommend an overweight stance towards Chinese onshore corporate bonds, on the basis that market participants are pricing in a much higher default rate than we expect over the coming 6-12 months. The risk to Hong Kong is not the stability of the peg, but the impact of higher interest rates on an extremely leveraged economy. Chart 4The Onshore Corporate Bond Market Is Not Concerned By The Baoshang Takeover Chart 5HKD Strength Reflects More Than Just Falling U.S. Rate Expectations The Hong Kong dollar has strengthened significantly over the past month, with USD-HKD having retreated to the midpoint of its band. This has occurred in part because of declining U.S. interest rate expectations, but also because of a sharp rise in 3-month HIBOR versus the base rate (Chart 5). The strengthening in HIBOR seems linked to the anti-extradition bill protests, implying that HKD has strengthened due to anti-capital flight measures by the HKMA. We see no major risk to the currency peg at the moment, but discussed the negative implications of higher interest rates in Hong Kong on the region’s property market and share prices in last week’s joint report with our Emerging Market Strategy service.2   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China’s Property Market: Making Sense Of Divergences”, dated May 9, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Hong Kong’s Currency Peg: Truths And Misconceptions”, dated June 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Current activity indicators are now losing momentum, or outright rolling over. This confirms that European (and global) growth is now entering a down-oscillation. Why? It is the rate of decline in the bond yield that has driven the current up-oscillation in growth and it is mathematically impossible for the rate of decline in the bond yield to keep increasing, or even stay where it is. Equity investors should rotate from pro-cyclical to pro-defensive sectors. But the support to risk-asset valuations from low bond yields will keep the aggregate European equity market in a sideways channel. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Interest Rate Impulse And Credit Impulse Are Both Entering ##br##Down-Oscillations If the level of interest rates drove economic growth then, let’s face it, the economies of Japan and Switzerland would have reached the moon by now! In both Japan and Switzerland, the policy rate and long bond yield have been at ultra-low levels for decades (Chart I-2). This is true for both the nominal level and the real level of the interest rate and bond yield. But we all know that the level of interest rates does not drive economic growth. Chart I-2Japan And Switzerland Have Had Ultra-Low Bond Yields For Decades If Interest Rates Decline At A Reduced Pace, Growth Slows Most people understand that it is the change in interest rates that can drive economic growth. The main transmission mechanism is by adding to or subtracting from credit creation. For example if, in a given period, a -0.5 percent decline in the interest rate added €50 billion to credit creation, then the extra €50 billion would constitute additional economic demand. Many people struggle to understand the subtle and counterintuitive follow-on point. If interest rates decline, but at a reduced pace, it can slow economic growth. To understand why, let’s continue the example. If, in the following period, a further -0.5 percent decline in the interest rate added another €50 billion of credit-sourced demand, it would constitute the same rate of growth as in the first period. But a further -0.25 percent decline in the interest rate which added €25 billion to demand would result in the growth rate halving. The counterintuitive thing is that the interest rate has continued to decline, yet it has caused growth to slow! If interest rates decline, but at a reduced pace, it can slow economic growth. This counterintuitive dynamic is about to unfold in the European and global economy during the second half of this year. The pace of change in the interest rate (inverted) drives the credit impulse, and thereby drives short-term growth oscillations (Chart I-3). Of course, other influences on credit creation can sometimes swamp the interest rate impact. But not in the latest cycle. From the fourth quarter of 2018, both the pace of decline in the interest rate – or more precisely, the bond yield – and the credit impulse were in a synchronised and closely connected up-oscillation. Chart I-3The Pace Of Change In the Bond Yield (Inverted) Drives The Credit Impulse Unfortunately, it is mathematically impossible for the pace of decline in the bond yield to keep increasing, or indeed stay where it is. Hence, both the interest rate and credit impulses are now on the cusp of down-oscillations, which will bear on economies and financial markets in the second half of the year (Chart of the Week). Growth Rebounded, But Will Now Fade From the fourth quarter of 2018, European and global growth very clearly entered an up-oscillation. Let’s list all the evidence: First and foremost, quarter-on-quarter GDP growth rates picked up: by 2.5 percent in Germany; by 1 percent in the euro area; and by 1 percent in the developed economies (Chart I-4).1 The stark evidence that growth rebounded, but is now rolling over. The best current activity indicators rebounded: specifically the ZEW economic sentiment indicators for both Germany and the euro area (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6); the euro area composite PMI picked up too, albeit very modestly. Chart I-4Global Growth Rebounded... But Is Now Likely To Roll Over Chart I-5Current Activity Indicators ##br##Rebounded... Chart I-6...But Are Now Rolling Over The aforementioned interest rate impulses (inverted) and 6-month credit impulses picked up, and sharply in China (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Short-Term Impulses Rebounded... But Are Now Rolling Over The equity sector that is most exposed to growth – the industrials – strongly outperformed the broader market, especially in the euro area (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Industrials Outperformed Strongly... But Are Now Rolling Over In fact, just the first item on our list, the pick-up in GDP growth, should suffice to demonstrate the up-oscillation in growth, and that should be that. After all, GDP – after revisions – is the broadest measure of economic activity. Nevertheless, for the sceptics, the corroboration of four independent pieces of evidence should, once and for all, confirm that growth rebounded late last year and early this year. Now though, all of these indicators are losing momentum, or outright rolling over. This confirms that growth is now entering a down-oscillation. Why? To repeat, it is the rate of decline in the bond yield that has driven the current up-oscillation in growth and it is mathematically impossible for the rate of decline in the bond yield to keep increasing, or even stay where it is. The ultimate test of a good theory is its predictive power. In the case of investment strategy this means calling the markets right. Our bond yield and credit impulse oscillation framework passes this test with flying colours, especially at the last two turning-points. On February 1, 2018 at the onset of the last down-oscillation we correctly recommended: “Downgrade banks to underweight versus healthcare” Then on August 30 2018 at the onset of the last up-oscillation we correctly recommended:  “Take profits in the 35 percent outperformance of European healthcare versus banks” Now, at the onset of a new down-oscillation, we recommended last week that equity investors should as a first step go underweight European industrials and switch once again to the less economically-sensitive and less price-sensitive healthcare sector. Sector rotation has huge implications for equity market regional and country allocation. Nowadays, regional and country relative performance just comes from the dominant stock and sector fingerprints of each stock market. Next week, we will advise on what the onset of a new down-oscillation means for Europe as a region relative to the world as well as for equity market allocation within Europe. Enhancing The ‘Rule Of 4’ And The ‘Rule Of 3’ The level of interest rates does not drive economic growth, but the level of interest rates – or more precisely, bond yields – does drive the valuations of equities and other risk-assets. Moreover, it does so in a viciously non-linear way. Essentially, at a tipping point, higher bond yields can suddenly undermine the valuation support of equities, triggering a plunge in the stock market and other risk-assets which threatens a disinflationary impulse on the economy. How can we sense this tipping point? Previously we defined it as when the sum of the 10-year yields on the T-bond, German bund, and JGB is at 4 percent, the ‘rule of 4’. Conversely, when the sum is below 3 percent, the ‘rule of 3’, the seemingly rich valuation of equities and other risk-assets is well underpinned.2 Higher bond yields can suddenly undermine the valuation support of equities. Did this framework work? Yes, perfectly. On September 13 2018 when the global bond yield was approaching danger level, our framework was spot-on in forecasting that: “Using the 10-year T-bond yield as a roadmap, a short trip to the uplands of 3.5 percent would precede a longer journey down to 2 percent” Nevertheless, today we are enhancing the rule. The global bond yield must include China and it must include the aggregate euro area rather than just Germany. Hence, our enhanced metric is the simple average of the 10-year yields of the U.S., the euro area, and China. But to simplify matters, we can proxy the 10-year yield of the aggregate euro area with the 10-year yield of France. So calculate the simple average of the 10-year yields of the U.S., France, and China (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Rules Of 4 And 3 Become The Rules Of 2.5 And 2 A value approaching 2.5 equates to danger for equities and risk-assets. A value below 2.0 equates to an underpinning for equities and risk-assets. Today, the value stands at 1.8. So to sum up, European (and global) growth will experience a down-oscillation in the second half of 2019, but the support to risk-asset valuations will keep the aggregate European equity market in a sideways channel. For equity investors, the big game in town will be sector rotation, as well as regional and country rotation. Of which, more next week. Stay tuned. Fractal Trading System*  This week we note that the spectacular rally in the Greek stock market this year is now ripe for a countertrend move. We prefer to play this on a hedged basis, so this week’s recommended trade is short Athex versus the Eurostoxx 600. Set the profit target at 7 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. Chart I-10 The Fractal Trading System now has five open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Based on a GDP weighted average of the U.S., euro area, and Japan. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report ‘The Rule Of 4 Becomes The Rule Of 3’ dated March 21, 2019 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Corporate Spreads: The Fed’s dovish pivot prolongs the period of time before the yield curve inverts, thus extending the window for corporate bond outperformance. Investors should remain overweight corporate bonds, with a preference for securities rated Baa and below, where spreads remain wide relative to our fair value estimates. Yield Curve: Investors should barbell their U.S. bond portfolios, favoring long-maturity (> 10 years) and short-maturity (< 2 years) securities while avoiding the 5-year and 7-year notes. This positioning will boost average portfolio yield and will benefit from any future hawkish re-assessment of Fed policy. MBS: Lower mortgage rates have led to a jump in mortgage refinancings and wider MBS spreads. However, MBS spreads remain quite low compared to history. Maintain a neutral allocation to MBS in U.S. bond portfolios. Feature Last December, we laid out our key fixed income themes for 2019 in a Special Report.1 In that report we also introduced a framework for splitting the economic cycle into three phases based on the slope of the yield curve. Specifically, we use the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope to divide each cycle into the following three phases:2 Phase 1 runs from the end of the last recession until the 3/10 slope flattens to below 50 bps. Phase 2 encompasses the period when the 3/10 slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps. Phase 3 begins after the 3/10 slope inverts and ends at the start of the next recession. Clearly, as is illustrated in Chart 1, we are smack dab in the middle of a Phase 2 environment. This has implications for how we should think about positioning a U.S. bond portfolio. Chart 1Firmly In Phase 2 What Makes The Middle Phase Awkward? Table 1 shows annualized excess returns for Treasuries and corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) in each phase of every cycle stretching back to the mid-1970s. Treasury excess returns are calculated relative to cash, as a proxy for the returns from taking duration risk. Corporate excess returns are relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Table 1Bond Performance In Different Yield Curve Regimes A look at Table 1 reveals why we call Phase 2 the “awkward” middle phase of the cycle. The excess returns earned from taking both duration and corporate spread risk tend to be underwhelming. On duration, we observe that in three of the four complete cycles in our sample, Treasury excess returns are lowest in Phase 2. This lines up well with intuition. The flatter yield curve means that Treasuries offer a lower term premium in Phase 2 than in Phase 1. Meanwhile, Phase 3 periods tend to coincide with rapid Fed rate cuts, and thus large capital gains. Phase 2 periods, in contrast, often contain Fed tightening cycles. On corporate credit, we observe that excess returns tend to be lower in Phase 2 than in Phase 1, but are usually still positive. Returns tend not to turn consistently negative until after the 3/10 slope inverts and we enter Phase 3. Overall, if we know nothing other than that we are in Phase 2 of the cycle, our results suggest that we should take less duration risk in our portfolio than in Phases 1 or 3. Overall, if we know nothing other than that we are in Phase 2 of the cycle, our results suggest that we should take less duration risk in our portfolio than in Phases 1 or 3. The results also suggest that we should prefer corporate credit over Treasuries, though to a lesser extent than in Phase 1. What Makes The Middle Phase Long? In last December’s Special Report, we argued that the U.S. economy would remain in a Phase 2 environment for a long time, at least until late 2019. Our reasoning was that, in the absence of inflationary pressures, the Fed would be reluctant to tighten policy enough to invert the 3/10 curve. The Fed’s recent dovish pivot, and the resultant steepening of the curve (see Chart 1), only prolongs the current Phase 2 environment. We now think it will be well into 2020, and possibly later, before the 3/10 slope inverts and the economy enters Phase 3. One obvious investment implication of an extended Phase 2 environment is that we should remain overweight corporate bonds relative to duration-matched Treasuries. However, we also need to consider valuation before drawing too firm of a conclusion. Charts 2A and 2B show spreads for each corporate credit tier, encompassing both investment grade and high-yield, along with our spread targets. The spread targets are the median levels observed in prior Phase 2 environments, adjusted for changes in the average duration of the bond indexes over time.3 The charts reveal that Aaa-rated bonds already look expensive, while Aa and A-rated bonds are close to fairly valued. Baa-rated bonds are 13 bps cheap relative to our target, while the high-yield credit tiers offer significantly more value. Chart 2AInvestment Grade Spread Targets Chart 2BHigh-Yield Spread Targets As discussed in last week’s report, the Fed’s dovish pivot will cause corporate spreads to tighten in the near-term, but it will take longer before Treasury yields respond by moving higher.4 For Treasury yields to move higher, investors must first become convinced that the Fed’s reflationary efforts are translating into stronger global economic growth. Ultimately, we expect this will occur in the second half of this year and Treasury yields will be higher 12 months from now, as the Fed will fail to deliver the 92 bps of rate cuts that are currently priced. The flat yield curve means that the yield give-up is small, and we expect global growth to improve in the second half of the year. Bottom Line: The Fed’s dovish pivot prolongs the period of time before the yield curve inverts, thus extending the window for corporate bond outperformance. Investors should remain overweight corporate bonds, with a preference for securities rated Baa and below, where spreads remain wide relative to our fair value estimates. Investors should also keep portfolio duration low. The flat yield curve means that the yield give-up is small, and we expect global growth to improve in the second half of the year. Barbell Your Portfolio Chart 3Barbell Your Portfolio For those unwilling or unable to deviate portfolio duration significantly from benchmark, there is another way to bet on the Fed delivering fewer cuts than are currently priced into the market. Investors can run a barbelled portfolio, favoring short-maturity (< 2 years) and long-maturity (> 10 years) securities, while avoiding the belly (5-year/7-year) of the curve. This sort of positioning has a few advantages. First, since the financial crisis, the yield curve has tended to steepen out to the 5-year/7-year point and flatten beyond that point whenever our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter rises (Chart 3). Conversely, whenever the market prices in more cuts/fewer hikes and our discounter falls, the yield curve has flattened out to the 5-year/7-year maturity point and steepened beyond that point. This correlation has been very consistent during the past few years, and continued to hold during the most recent decline in rate expectations. Notice that the 5-year yield has fallen by more than either the 2-year or 10-year yields since our Discounter's early-November peak (Table 2). Table 2The Belly Of The Curve Is Most Sensitive To Rate Expectations The upshot is that, if rate expectations rise during the next 12 months, as we expect, the 5-year and 7-year notes will endure the most damage. The second reason why a barbelled portfolio makes sense is that valuation is very attractive. Chart 4 shows that the 5-year yield is below the yield on a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. It also shows that this 2/5/10 butterfly spread is very low relative to our model’s fair value.5  Chart 42/10 Barbell Is Attractive Versus 5-Year Bullet We run similar fair value models for every possible bullet/barbell combination along the yield curve, and barbells appear universally cheap (see Appendix). Bottom Line: Investors should barbell their U.S. bond portfolios, favoring long-maturity (> 10 years) and short-maturity (< 2 years) securities while avoiding the 5-year and 7-year notes. This positioning will boost average portfolio yield and will benefit from any future hawkish re-assessment of Fed policy.   MBS & Housing: The Implications Of Lower Mortgage Rates Alongside bond yields, mortgage rates have fallen sharply during the past few months, a trend that has important implications for both MBS spreads and future housing data. We consider the outlook for both. MBS Spreads Lower mortgage rates encourage homeowners to refinance their loans, and any increase in refinancing activity puts upward pressure on MBS spreads. Not surprisingly, as mortgage rates have declined we have seen a jump in the MBA Refinance Index and a widening of nominal MBS spreads (Chart 5). Chart 5MBS Spreads Still Historically Tight While spreads have widened somewhat, they remain low compared to history (Chart 5, top panel). As such, we do not see a compelling buying opportunity in MBS. This is especially true relative to corporate credit where spreads are more attractive. Chart 6Limited Upside For Refis With the mortgage rate now below 4%, our rough calculation suggests that approximately 44% of the Bloomberg Barclays Conventional 30-year MBS index is refinanceable. A regression of the MBA Refi Index versus the refinanceable share suggests a fair value of 2014 for the Refi Index, slightly above its actual level of 1950 (Chart 6). We also calculate that a further drop in the mortgage rate to below 3.5%, where it troughed in mid-2016, would increase the refinanceable share to 77%. Our regression translates this 77% share to a level of 3309 on the Refi Index. It should be noted that when the refinanceable share rose to 77% in 2016, the MBA Refi Index peaked at 2870. This means that our simple regression analysis probably overstates the surge in refis that would occur if mortgage rates fell another 50 bps. In addition, we think it’s unlikely that mortgage rates will actually fall back to 3.5%, as they did in 2016, and as such, we are hesitant to position for further MBS spread widening. The improvement in housing actitivty is not uniform across all indicators. We recommend maintaining a neutral allocation to MBS for now. If mortgage rates drop and spreads widen further in the near-term, then a buying opportunity may present itself. Housing Activity Chart 7Housing Activity: A Mixed Picture The drop in mortgage rates will also have a significant impact on housing activity data. This is important because, as we have demonstrated in prior reports, housing activity data – particularly single-family housing starts and new homes sales – are reliable indicators of U.S. recessions and interest rates.6 By all measures, housing activity weakened significantly as mortgage rates surged in 2018. But it has improved somewhat now that mortgage rates have declined. However, the improvement is not uniform across all indicators (Chart 7): New home sales jumped sharply early this year, then fell back more recently. The current trend is neutral, with the latest monthly print very close to the 12-month moving average (Chart 7, top panel). Housing starts and permits are both trending below their respective 12-month moving averages, though by less than in 2018 (Chart 7, panel 2 & 3). Existing home sales have popped, and are now exerting upward pressure on the 12-month average (Chart 7, panel 4). Likewise for mortgage purchase applications (Chart 7, panel 5). Homebuilders also report that lower mortgage rates have led to a jump in sales activity (Chart 7, bottom panel).  With mortgage rates still low, the tentative rebound in housing activity data should continue in the coming months. Looking further out, we see significantly more upside in single-family housing starts and new home sales as builders shift construction toward lower-priced properties. The Bifurcated Housing Market Beyond the large swings in mortgage rates, another trend has significantly influenced housing activity in recent years. For the past few years, homebuilders have focused their attention on higher priced homes, and that segment of the market now looks oversupplied. Data from the American Enterprise Institute Housing Center show that the recent deceleration in home prices has been driven by falling prices for the most expensive homes. Homes in the lowest price tier have seen prices accelerate (Chart 8).7 The divergence is also evident in the supply data. New home inventories are roughly consistent with average historical levels, while existing home inventories are incredibly low (Chart 9). In fact, new home inventories now represent 6.4 months of demand while existing home inventories represent 4.3 months of demand (Chart 9, panel 3). Such a wide divergence is historically rare. Chart 8An Oversupply Of High ##br##Priced Homes... Chart 9...And An Undersupply Of Low Priced Homes   The divergence between an oversupply of new homes and an undersupply of existing homes is a result of new construction having focused on higher priced homes in recent years. The median price for a new home used to be only slightly above the median price for an existing home, but the difference shot up to above 75k during the past few years (Chart 9, bottom panel). More recently, the price differential between new and existing homes has started to fall, as builders are starting to recognize that the greater growth opportunity lies at the low-end of the market where demand is strong relative to supply. As this supply-side adjustment plays out, it will provide an additional boost to new homes sales and housing starts going forward. Appendix 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: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 3 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 3Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of June 27, 2019) Table 4 scales the raw residuals in Table 3 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of June 27 2019) Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 We use the 3/10 Treasury slope in place of the more commonly referenced 2/10 slope because it is a close proxy that provides an additional 14 years of historical data. 3 For more details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Got Your Back”, dated June 25, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our yield curve models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners”, dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Low-tier homes are those in the bottom 40% of the price distribution in each metro area. High-tier homes are those that are both in the top 20% of the price distribution and exceed the GSE loan limit by more than 25%. For further details: http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/HPA_market_conditions_report_June_2019.pdf Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification