Fixed Income

Highlights Fed: The large divergence between Treasury yields and risk assets means that the Fed will almost certainly cut rates during the next few months. The only question is whether a large sell-off in risk assets will be required to force the Fed’s capitulation. Maintain a cautious near-term (0-3 month) allocation to corporate credit. Duration: The economic data and shape of the yield curve do not suggest that the economy is heading into recession. Rather, they suggest that the economy is experiencing an external shock – akin to 1998 or 2015/16 – that can be offset by a relatively minor pivot in Fed policy. Investors should keep portfolio duration low. Corporate Balance Sheets: Growth rates for both corporate profits and debt should settle into the mid-single digits during the next few quarters. This will keep gross leverage and the default rate roughly stable. A sustained period of negative profit growth and tighter C&I lending standards would challenge this outlook. Feature Chart 1Markets Taking The Rate Cut For Granted Markets aren’t begging for a rate cut. Rather, they are behaving as though one has already occurred. This sort of set-up could lead to wider credit spreads and lower equity prices in the near-term. To elaborate, notice that the S&P 500 is only 3% off its late-2018 peak, but is down an alarming 8% relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index. Meanwhile, the 10-year Treasury yield had fallen all the way to 2.06% as we went to press last Friday (Chart 1, bottom panel). The overall message from financial markets is that investors expect the Fed to cut rates very soon, but also think that a small number of cuts will be enough to forestall recession and keep risk assets supported. As we see it, the divergence between risk assets and Treasuries makes a rate cut during the next few months a near certainty. If the Fed does not appear sufficiently dovish at next week’s FOMC meeting, then risk assets will sell off. The resulting tightening of financial conditions will then force the Fed’s hand, leading to a rate cut in July or September. The alternative is that the Fed tries to get ahead of market sentiment by delivering a rate cut next week, even if such a move is not easily justified by the economic data. A New Trade In last week’s report, we recommended adding a fed funds futures calendar spread trade to take advantage of these near-term policy moves (Chart 2).1 Specifically, we advised investors to go long the August 2019 fed funds futures contract and short the February 2020 contract. Chart 2Exit Long Aug 2019 / Stay Short Feb 2020 We recommended buying the August 2019 fed funds futures contract to hedge the risk that the Fed tries to get ahead of market sentiment by cutting rates in June or July. As of last week, this contract would have earned a positive return in a scenario where the Fed delivered one 25 basis point rate cut in either June or July, and a negative return in a scenario where rates are unchanged. But as of last Friday, the contract’s risk/reward profile had shifted dramatically. The contract is now priced for a loss in both the “one rate cut” and “no rate cut” scenarios. We therefore exit our long position in the August 2019 fed funds futures contract for a gain of 8 bps.  .  The second leg of our proposed trade was to short the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. This remains an excellent bet. As of last Friday, a short position in the February 2020 contract will earn a positive return as long as three or fewer rate cuts occur between now and next February (Chart 2, bottom panel). In last week’s report, we recommended adding a fed funds futures calendar spread trade to take advantage of these near-term policy moves. Table 1 displays the expected returns from our proposed spread trade (long Aug 2019/short Feb 2020) as of last Friday, the most recent pricing available at the time of publication. Because of the rapid gains in the August 2019 contract price, an outright short position in the February 2020  contract now dominates the expected returns from the calendar spread trade in all likely scenarios. We therefore advise investors to exit the long position in the August 2019 contract, but to remain short the February 2020 contract. Table 1Expected Returns From Long Aug 2019 / Short Feb 2020 Fed Funds Futures Calendar Spread Trade Bottom Line: The large divergence between Treasury yields and risk assets means that the Fed will almost certainly cut rates during the next few months. The only question is whether a large sell-off in risk assets will be required to force the Fed’s capitulation. We advise near-term caution on credit spreads. While a near-term rate cut is likely, we also doubt that the Fed will deliver more than the 76 bps of rate cuts priced into the curve for the next 12 months. We therefore recommend that investors keep portfolio duration low and maintain a short position in the February 2020 fed funds futures contract.  More 1998 Than 2001 In the last section we reiterated our view that the Fed will deliver fewer than the 76 bps of rate cuts that are priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Our main justification is that such a large number of rate cuts will only occur if the economy enters recession. At present, the pre-conditions for an economic recession are simply not in place. Rather, the economy is experiencing an external shock – akin to 2015/16 and 1998 – that will require only a modest shift in Fed policy. In other words, if we use the mid-1990s cycle as a roadmap, today looks much more like 1998 than 2001. The divergence between manufacturing and services PMIs is exactly what occurred in 1998 and 2015/16. In a recent Special Report, we observed that every single post-WWII recession was preceded by either high inflation or rapid private debt growth (Chart 3).2 At present, inflation is muted and private debt growth is low. The economy is unlikely to experience a recession if there hasn’t been a prior build-up of excess demand. Chart 3Private Debt Growth, High Inflation & Recessions Second, economic indicators are much more consistent with the 2015/16 and 1998 episodes than with “pre-recession” conditions. The ISM Manufacturing PMI has fallen sharply, though it remains above 50, but the ISM Non-Manufacturing PMI looks much healthier. This divergence between manufacturing and services is exactly what occurred in 1998 and 2015/16 (Chart 4). It is consistent with a shock to global demand and trade that has relatively little impact on the U.S. consumer and the domestic economy’s large service sector. Chart 4Divergence Between Services And Manufacturing Granted, the PMIs compiled by Markit do not mirror the divergence between the ISM Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing surveys. In fact, the Markit Services PMI has dropped sharply alongside its manufacturing counterpart (Chart 5). However, the Markit surveys also showed no divergence between manufacturing and services in 2015/16 and have no available data for 1998. We are therefore inclined to downplay the weakness in the Markit Services PMI for the time being. Chart 5MARKIT PMIs Third, employment growth usually starts to slow at least one year before the economy heads into recession. But it showed relatively little weakness in 1998 and 2015/16 (Chart 4, bottom panel). If May’s downbeat payrolls number turns out to be the start of a trend, then we will have to reconsider our view. But for now, even after last week’s report, employment growth remains solid. Finally, not only do the economic data suggest an episode similar to 1998 and 2015/16, but the slope of the yield curve does as well. While many have focused on the inversion of the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope, the 2-year/10-year slope remains above zero, and has indeed steepened in recent weeks. A more comprehensive look at the entire yield curve, adjusting for changes in the overall level of yields, shows that it looks very similar to the yield curve seen just ahead of the first 1998 rate cut. In contrast, the yield curve seen just before the first 2001 rate cut was more heavily inverted at the front-end, and long-dated yields priced-in much less of a rebound (Charts 6A & 6B). Bottom Line: The economic data and shape of the yield curve do not suggest that the economy is heading into recession. Rather, they suggest that the economy is experiencing an external shock – akin to 1998 or 2015/16 – that can be offset by a relatively minor pivot in Fed policy. Investors should keep portfolio duration low on the view that the Fed will cut rates by less than 76 bps during the next 12 months. Corporate Health Update Chart 7Weak Profit Growth In Q1 The full slate of first quarter corporate balance sheet data have now been released, and as expected, corporate profit growth cooled significantly compared to the rapid gains seen in 2018. As a result, our Corporate Health Monitor – an equal-weighted composite of six important financial ratios – ceased its recent improvement and jumped firmly back into “deteriorating health” territory (Chart 7). Our preferred measure of pre-tax profits contracted at an annualized rate of 17% in Q1, dragging the year-over-year growth rate down to 7%, from 15% in 2018 Q4 (Chart 7, bottom panel). The crucial relationship for corporate bond investors is between pre-tax profit growth and debt growth. If profit growth exceeds debt growth, then gross leverage will decline over time taking the default rate with it. Conversely, defaults tend to rise whenever profit growth fails to keep pace with debt growth.3 Corporate debt has been growing at an annualized pace of about 6-8%. This means that profit growth would have to slow to below those levels for us to become concerned about an increase in defaults. This could occur for the next quarter or two, as the weak global growth environment weighs on revenues (Chart 8). But our Profit Margin Proxy – corporate selling prices less unit labor costs – is in a strong uptrend, suggesting that the weakness may not be that dire. The crucial relationship for corporate bond investors is between pre-tax profit growth and debt growth.  There is also some reason to think that corporate debt growth might slow during the next few quarters. According to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey, C&I loan demand has weakened significantly in recent months, while lending standards remain approximately unchanged. Historically, it is extremely rare for loan demand to weaken without a simultaneous tightening in bank lending standards (Chart 9). However, if the current unusual situation were to persist, it would be quite positive from the perspective of corporate balance sheet health. It would suggest that firms are adding less debt to balance sheets, even though banks continue to make credit readily available. Chart 8Profit Margins Still Strong Chart 9Is Corporate Sector On A Debt Diet? Bottom Line: Growth rates for both corporate profits and debt should settle into the mid-single digits during the next few quarters. This will keep gross leverage and the default rate roughly stable. A sustained period of negative profit growth and tighter C&I lending standards would challenge this outlook.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “When Expectations Are Self-Fulfilling”, dated June 4, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy  Special Report, “The Risk From Corporate Debt: Theory And Evidence”, dated April 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Assessing Corporate Default Risk”, dated March 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Bond yields have fallen a lot since the beginning of November, … : At the close on November 8th, the 10-year Treasury bond yielded 3.24%. By last Monday, it was yielding just 2.07%. … but the move isn’t terribly anomalous relative to history: In terms of nominal yields, the decline was just over a one-standard-deviation event; per real yields, it amounted to a -0.7 sigma move. The Fed may be preparing for a rate cut, but overweight duration positions will only pay off if several more follow: A one-and-done rate cut would stretch out the expansion and the bull markets in equities and spread product, but Treasuries are priced for an extended rate-cutting cycle. Feature Stocks are said to be the only asset that people want more of when prices rise, and less of when they fall. Lately, bonds have also seemed to have an upward-sloping demand curve, because more and more people have bought them as they’ve gotten more expensive. A BCA client who’s been shaking his head at the action got in touch with us last week to try to make some sense of it all. Experience tells him that big moves like the one that’s been unfolding since last November don’t go on forever. When they stop, mean reversion would suggest that they’re prone to retrace a good bit of territory. He came to us for some historical context to support or contradict his intuition, as summed up in something like the following statement. “Over the past 50 years, the current move equates to an x-standard-deviation event. Following similar instances, rates have risen by x basis points over the next six months, and by y basis points over the next twelve months.” The Empirical Record The sharp decline in the 10-year Treasury yield that began in early November can be viewed as three separate declines (Chart 1). In the first, the 10-year yield fell by 68 basis points (“bps”) over a span of 37 trading days. After retracing a third of the decline over the next 11 sessions, it slid by another 40 bps over 48 days. Following a one-half retracement over the ensuing 13 days, it shed 53 basis points in 32 days, capped off by a 36-bps decline across the final eight sessions (Table 1). Chart 1The Path To 2.07% Table 1A Lower 10-Year Treasury Yield In Three Steps Using the daily 10-year Treasury yield series beginning in 1962, we compared the individual yield declines for prior 37-, 48- and 32-day periods, as well as for the aggregate 141-day session spanning the entire stretch from the November 8th peak to the June 3rd trough. We also looked at the May 21st to June 3rd crescendo relative to past eight-day segments. The standardized moves range from three-quarters of a standard deviation below the mean for the 48-day middle leg to 1.5 and 1.8 for the 37- and 8-day moves, respectively (Table 2). All in all, the entire move grades out to 1.3 standard deviations below the mean – a somewhat unusual move, but nothing too special. Table 2Standardized Values Of Nominal 10-Year Treasury Yield Declines The current decline’s relative stature is undermined by the wild volatility of the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, when bond yields and annual inflation reached double-digit levels (Chart 2). To try to place the current episode on a more equal framework, we also calculated standardized moves in real (inflation-adjusted) yields. On a real basis, however, the current moves made even less of a splash. The 8-day decline (z-score = -1.2) was the only component that was more than a standard deviation from the mean, and the overall move amounted to just 0.7 standard deviations below the mean (Chart 3). Chart 2No Historical Anomaly In The Current Market Chart 3Little Impact In Terms Of Real Yields We are familiar with the electronic financial media’s increasingly popular convention of stating daily yield moves in proportion to the previous day’s closing yield.1 That convention has the advantage of fitting snugly aside stock price quotes on TV and computer screens, but it is ultimately nonsensical. The proportional change in a bond’s yield relative to its starting yield doesn’t come close to approximating the change in the value of that bond. Comparing proportional changes in bond yields across timeframes would be a way of putting today’s yield moves on a more equal footing with yield moves in the high-inflation, high-coupon era of the late seventies and early eighties, but it conveys no practical information. The margin by which long-maturity Treasuries have outperformed intermediate-maturity Treasuries is unusual, ... Our next steps were instead to compare Treasury total returns and the change in the slope of the yield curve to past flattening and steepening episodes. The moves here were also unavailing over both seven- and one-month periods, as the high-coupon ‘70s and ‘80s still dominated (Chart 4). In terms of the change in the 10-year Treasury yield, both nominal and real; Treasury index total returns; and the slope of the yield curve (3-month rate to 10-year yield), both the aggregate move since last October and its three component moves have amounted to one-standard-deviation events. They would only have had about a one-in-six chance of occurring randomly in a normally distributed population, but they do not represent unsustainable moves that cry out to be reversed. Chart 4Little Impact In Terms Of Treasury Total Returns, ... Digging a little deeper to consider total returns across different regions of the yield curve, we do find one apparent anomaly at the long end of the curve. The long Treasury index has outperformed the intermediate Treasury index by a two-standard-deviation margin over both a seven-month and a one-month timeframe (Chart 5). On a standalone basis, the long Treasury index has beaten the seven-month mean return by one-and-a-half standard deviations, and the one-month mean return by two standard deviations (Chart 6). The two-standard-deviation results would only be expected to occur one out of forty times, and thereby validate our client’s sense that something has been going on. ... and history suggests they’ll be partially unwound over the next six to twelve months. Chart 5... But The Spread Between Long- And Intermediate-Index Returns Is Wide, ... Chart 6... And Long-Maturity Returns Have Been Elevated Moving on to the second part of his inquiry, we reviewed the standalone performance of the long Treasury index, and the relative long-versus-intermediate performance, over subsequent six- and twelve-month periods. We focused our analysis on instances when historical z-scores were greater than or equal to their current levels to try to determine if we should expect current performance to reverse and, if so, how sharply. On a standalone basis, long Treasury index performance has gently reverted to the mean over the subsequent six and twelve months, posting returns over those periods within +/- 0.2 standard deviations of its long-run average (Table 3). Table 3Standardized Values Of Future Long-Maturity Treasury Index Returns Outlying relative long-versus-intermediate performance like we’ve witnessed over the last seven months has reversed more convincingly. The long Treasury index has underperformed its intermediate-maturity counterpart over six and twelve months when its z-scores were greater than or equal to their current levels over a seven- and one-month basis, falling roughly 0.5 standard deviations below the mean (Table 4). The future does not have to resemble the past, especially over small sample sizes, but relative long-end underperformance would accord with our constructive view of the U.S. economy. It would also be consistent with our anti-duration and pro-inflation biases. Table 4Standardized Values Of Future Difference Between Long- And Intermediate-Maturity Treasury Index Returns The Fed, Again The consistency of the comments from Fed officials last week would seem to suggest that they are trying to prepare the ground for a rate cut. A cut at next week’s FOMC meeting might be a little too abrupt, but it seems increasingly possible that the committee could guide markets to a cut at the next scheduled meeting at the end of July. Various officials have made it abundantly clear that they view trade tensions as a threat to the economy, and that the bank is prepared to adjust policy, if need be, to sustain the expansion. Uber-dovish St. Louis President Bullard, who said last Monday that, “a downward policy rate adjustment may be warranted soon,” no longer appears to be such an outlier. We do not think a rate cut is necessary, and we would be content to remain on the sidelines if we were on the committee, but our opinion is irrelevant. We endeavor not to be distracted by what we think should happen, devoting our focus instead to determining what’s most likely to happen. To that end, our estimate of the probability that the Fed’s next move might be a cut is rising by the speech/interview. When incorporating that probability into investment strategy, we have been thinking a lot about a question that keeps being raised within BCA: If the Fed cuts rates next week or next month, how will markets respond? Assuming the economic backdrop doesn’t deteriorate, we expect that a rate cut will keep the equity and credit bull markets going. The answer depends heavily on the context in which the Fed cuts, and we assume that if the Fed cuts after the economy has taken a dramatic turn for the worse, risk assets would decline. In that case, markets would presumably read the Fed’s decision as confirmation that things were even worse than they perceived and that a significant bout of risk aversion was right around the corner. On the other hand, if the cut came against a backdrop of decent, if unexciting, economic data, risk assets would likely rally. For an investor who cannot resist injecting his/her opinion into the mix, the market response would be supportive of risk assets if a rate cut was unnecessary, but negative if the economy couldn’t get along without it. Investment Implications We believe that the U.S. economy is doing just fine, thank you, and do not yet see the signs that the expansion requires more monetary accommodation if it is to continue. Assuming that the cast of the incoming data does not change enough to change our view, we would expect that a rate cut would defer the end of the expansion and thereby defer the end of the bull markets in risk assets. We are therefore content to stick with our recommendation that investors should remain at least equal weight equities and spread product. We are still looking for restrictive monetary policy to be the catalyst that ends the expansion, and anything that pushes restrictiveness further into the future ought to keep the market parties going. Our view has aligned with the house view over the last year, but there is no guarantee that it will continue to do so. A growing minority of managing editors has been repeatedly challenging the internal consensus in our daily meetings, and it will be debated vigorously at our monthly view meeting Monday morning in Montreal. It is possible that the house view, and the U.S. Investment Strategy view, could soon become less constructive, though our level of conviction remains fairly high.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 If a bond yielding 3% at Friday’s close ends Monday’s session with a yield of 2.94%, 6 bps lower, its yield is shown as having declined 2% on the day (-.0006/.03 = -2%).

Dear Client, Tomorrow we will publish a debate piece on China shedding more light on the ongoing discussions at BCA on this topic. This report will articulate the conceptual and analytical differences between my colleague, Peter Berezin, and I relating to our respective outlooks on China’s credit cycle. Peter believes that the credit boom in China is a natural outcome of a high household “savings” rate. I maintain that household “savings” have no bearing on credit growth, debt or bank deposit levels. Rather, China’s credit and money excesses are pernicious and will precipitate negative macro outcomes. I hope you will find this report valuable and interesting. Today we are publishing analysis and market strategy updates on Russia and Chile. Best regards, Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist   Russia: A Fiscal And Monetary Fortress Underpins A Low-Beta Status Russian financial markets and the ruble have entered a low-beta paradigm. A combination of ultra-conservative fiscal and monetary policies over the past four years will help Russian equities, local bonds as well as sovereign and corporate credit to continue outperforming their respective EM benchmarks.   First, both the overall and primary fiscal surpluses now stand at over 3% of GDP (Chart I-1). The authorities have sufficient fiscal leeway to undertake substantial fiscal easing. They have announced a major fiscal spending program, which is planned to be in the order of $390 billion or 25% of GDP, over the next six years. Chart I-1Fiscal Balance Is In Large Surplus Importantly, government non-interest expenditures have dropped to 15.5% of GDP from 18% in 2016. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to ease fiscal policy materially to counteract the impact of lower commodities prices on the economy. What’s more, gross public debt is at 13% of GDP – out of which the foreign component is only 4% of GDP – and remains the lowest in the EM space. A fiscal fortress, as well as the potential for significant fiscal stimulus amid the current EM selloff, will help the Russian currency, local bonds and sovereign and corporate credit markets behave as a lower beta play within the EM universe. Second, there is scope for the Central Bank of Russia (CBR) to cut interest rates. Both nominal and real interest rates have remained high, particularly lending rates (Chart I-2). Furthermore, growth has been mediocre and inflation is likely to fall again (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Russian Real Interest Rates Are High Chart I-3Russia: Growth Has Been Weakening Prior To Oil Price Decline   Although overwhelming evidence warrants lower interest rates in Russia, it is not clear if the ultra-conservative Central Bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina will resort to rate reductions as oil prices and EM assets continue selling off – as we expect. Even if Governor Elvira Nabiullina delivers rate cuts, they will be delayed and small. Hence, real rates will remain high, helping the ruble outperform other EM currencies. Provided the central bank remains behind the curve, odds are that the yield curve will probably invert as long-term bond yields drop below the policy rate (Chart I-4). In short, a conservative central bank will provide a friendly environment for fixed-income and currency investors. Third, the Russian ruble will depreciate only modestly despite the ongoing carnage in oil prices due to high foreign exchange reserves and a positive balance of payments. The current account surplus stands at 7.5% of GDP, or $115 billion. Both the central bank and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) have been buying foreign currency. In particular, based on the fiscal rule, the MoF buys U.S. dollars when oil prices are above $40/barrel and sells U.S. dollars when the oil price is below that level. As such, policymakers have created a counter-cyclical ballast to counteract any negative shocks. A fiscal fortress, as well as the potential for significant fiscal stimulus amid the current EM selloff, will help the Russian currency, local bonds and sovereign and corporate credit markets behave as a lower beta play within the EM universe. Remarkably, the monetary authorities have siphoned out the additional liquidity that has been injected as part of their foreign currency purchases. In fact, the CRB’s net liquidity injections have been negative. This is in contrast to what has been happening in many other EMs. These prudent macro policies will limit the downside in the ruble versus the dollar and the euro. Chart I-4Russia: Yield Curve Will Probably Invert Chart I-5Cash Flow From Operations: Russia Versus EM Finally, rising profits in the non-financial corporate sector and balance sheet improvements justify Russian equity outperformance relative to EM. Specifically, Russian firms’ cash flows from operation have been diverging from EM, suggesting the former is in better financial health than its EM counterparts (Chart I-5). Bottom Line: Even though we expect oil prices to drop further,1 investors should continue to overweight Russian equities, sovereign and corporate credit and local currency bonds relative to their respective EM benchmarks (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Continue Overweighting Russian Stocks And Bonds To express our positive view on the ruble, we have been recommending a long RUB / short COP trade since May 31, 2018. This position has generated a 10.8% gain, and remains intact. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com   Chile: Heading Into A Recession? Our recommended strategy2 for Chile has been to (1) receive three-year swap rates, (2) favor local bonds versus stocks for domestic investors, (3) short the peso versus the U.S. dollar, and (4) overweight Chilean equities within an EM equity portfolio. Chart II-1Chile's Central Bank Is Behind The Curve The first three strategies have played out nicely as the economy has slowed, rate expectations have dropped and the peso has plunged (Chart II-1). Yet the Chilean bourse has recently substantially underperformed the EM benchmark, challenging our overweight equity stance. At the moment, we recommend staying with these recommendations, as the growth slowdown in Chile has much further to run and the central bank will cut rates substantially: Our proxy for marginal propensity to spend among both households and companies – which leads the business cycle by six months – has been falling (Chart II-2). The outcome is that growth conditions will worsen, and a recession is probable. There are already segments of the economy – retail sales volumes, car sales, non-mining exports and mining output, to name a few – that are contracting (Chart II-3). Chart II-2More Growth Retrenchment In The Next 6 Months Chart II-3Chilean Economy: Certain Segments Are Contracting   Shockwaves from the global slump in general and China’s slowdown in particular are taking a toll on this open economy. Copper prices are breaking down, and Chile’s industrial pulp and paper prices are falling in dollar terms (Chart II-4). Bank loan growth as well as employment growth have not yet decelerated. The latter are typically lagging indicators in Chile. Therefore, as weakening growth erodes business and consumer confidence, credit growth as well as hiring and wages will retrench. Finally, both core consumer prices and service inflation rates are at the lower end of the central bank’s inflation target band. It is a matter of time before the growth deterioration leads to even lower inflation. We argued in our last analysis on Chile3 that large net immigration has boosted labor supply and is hence disinflationary. This, along with forthcoming hiring cutbacks, will depress wages and lead to lower inflation. Overall, Chile’s central bank is well behind the curve. A major rate reduction cycle is in the cards, as both growth and inflation will undershoot the Chilean central bank’s targets. Chart II-4Chile: Industrial Paper And Pulp Prices Are Deflating Chart II-5The Chilean Peso Is Not Cheap Lower interest rates, shrinking exports and a large current account deficit will weigh on the exchange rate. In addition, Chilean companies have large amounts of foreign currency debt ($75 billion or 26% of GDP), and peso depreciation is forcing them to hedge their foreign currency liabilities. This will heighten selling pressure on the peso. Notably, the currency is not yet cheap and bear markets usually do not end until valuations become cheap (Chart II-5). That said, the main reasons to continue overweighting Chilean equities within an EM universe are potential monetary and fiscal easing in Chile that many other EM are not in a position to do amid their own ongoing currency depreciation. Besides, this bourse’s relative equity performance versus the EM benchmark is already very oversold and is likely to rebound as the EM stock index drops more than Chilean share prices. The main reasons to continue overweighting Chilean equities within an EM universe are potential monetary and fiscal easing in Chile that many other EM are not in a position to do. Our recommended strategy remains intact: Fixed-income investors should continue receiving three-year swap rates; Local investors should overweight domestic bonds versus stocks; Currency traders should maintain the short CLP / long U.S. dollar trade; Dedicated EM equity portfolio managers should maintain an overweight in this bourse versus the EM benchmark. One trade we are closing is our short copper / long CLP, which has returned a 1.6% gain since its initiation on September 6, 2017. The original motive for this trade was to express our negative view on copper. While we believe copper prices have more downside, the peso could undershoot, which tips the balances in favor of closing this trade. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Juan Egaña, Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The Emerging Markets Strategy team’s negative view on oil prices is different from the BCA house view which is bullish on oil. 2      Please see "Chile: Stay Overweight Equities, Receive Rates," dated May 31, 2018 and "Chile: Favor Bonds Over Stocks," dated February 7, 2019. 3      Please see "Chile: Favor Bonds Over Stocks," dated February 7, 2019. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Feature Through the past five years, the global long bond yield has tried to surpass 2.5 percent on three occasions – once in 2015, twice in 2018. But it has failed (Feature Chart). The global long bond yield’s five-year struggle to break through 2.5 percent convinces us that the so-called ‘neutral’ rate of interest is now extremely low, indeed zero in real terms. This is a very high conviction view though, to be clear, not every BCA strategist may necessarily concur. Feature ChartSince 2015, The Global Long Bond Yield Has Struggled To Surpass 2.5 Percent The neutral rate of interest is the interest rate at which monetary policy is neither accommodative nor restrictive, the interest rate consistent with the economy maintaining full employment while keeping inflation constant. That much is generally accepted. Here’s where we differ from the conventional thinking: what is setting the neutral rate now is not the economy’s direct sensitivity to the interest rate via rate sensitive sectors such as mortgage lending or home construction: rather, it is the economy’s indirect sensitivity to the interest rate via its impact on equities and other so-called ‘risky’ assets. This Special Report challenges the conventional wisdom on the neutral rate on three specific points: The neutral rate is based on the bond yield, not on the policy interest rate. The neutral rate is global, not European or region specific. The neutral rate is nominal, not real. The Neutral Rate Is Based On The Bond Yield, Not On The Policy Interest Rate The $400 trillion combined value of equities, corporate bonds, real estate and other risky assets dwarfs the $80 trillion global economy by five to one. These risky assets are long-duration assets, because their cash flows extend into the distant future. Hence, the market calibrates the expected return available on these risky assets from the supposedly less risky return available from long-duration bonds – the bond yield – plus a ‘risk premium’. Now comes the part of the story that is not well understood, even by central bankers, because it derives from recent advances outside their field of expertise. Years of research in behavioural finance conclude that the measure that best encapsulates our perception of an investment’s risk is not its volatility but its negative asymmetry: the potential largest loss as a multiple of the potential largest gain (Chart I-2). The $400 trillion combined value of equities, corporate bonds, real estate and other risky assets dwarfs the $80 trillion global economy by five to one. Crucially, when the bond yield gets low, the proximity of its lower bound dramatically reduces the potential for price gains while leaving open the potential for large losses. This sudden onset of negative asymmetry means that bonds are no longer less risky than equities or other risky assets (Chart I-3). So risky assets no longer need to deliver a higher expected return than bonds (Chart I-4). Chart I-5Equities Offer Diversification Benefits Too! Some people counter that bonds offer investors a diversification benefit and, because of this, investors still need a higher return from equities. This argument is wrong. Just as bonds can protect equity investors, equities can protect bond investors during vicious sell-offs in the bond market – such as after Trump’s shock victory in 2016 (Chart I-5). So we could equally argue that equities require the lower return. In fact, at a low bond yield, with the same negative asymmetry and diversification properties, both equities and bonds must offer the same prospective return.   The upshot is that once the bond yield gets low and stays low, equity (and other risky asset) returns collapse to the feeble return offered by bonds with no additional ‘risk premium’ giving the valuation of $400 trillion of assets an exponential uplift (Chart I-6). The unfortunate corollary is that if the bond yield was no longer low, the valuation of $400 trillion of assets would suffer an exponential decline. And the consequent deterioration in financial conditions would send a chill wind through the global economy. Theoretically and empirically, the hyper-sensitivity of equity valuations to bond yields is greatest when the 10-year bond yield is in the 2-3 percent range. But which 10-year bond yield?1  Chart I-6Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Feeble Long-Term Return The Neutral Rate Is Global, Not European Or Region Specific The question: ‘will European equities go up or down?’ is essentially the same as ‘will U.S. equities go up or down?’ or ‘will Chinese equities go up or down?’ albeit the size of the moves can be quite different. The same applies to mainstream bond markets; in directional terms, bonds move together. Chart I-7The Global 10-Year Yield Is The Average Of The Euro Area, U.S., And China Given this tight directional integration of global capital markets – and to some extent economies too – asset allocators make the asset class choice between equities and bonds their primary decision, and the regional allocation the subsidiary decision. It follows that the point of hyper-sensitivity of equity valuations, be it in Europe or any other region, is when the global 10-year bond yield is in the 2-3 percent range. What is the global 10-year bond yield? Previously, we defined it in terms of the German bund, U.S. T-bond, and JGB. But we now have an even better definition: it is the simple average of the 10-year yields in the world’s three major economies; the euro area, U.S., and China (Chart I-7).2  Given this yield’s five year struggle to surpass 2.5 percent, we can say that the ‘neutral’ rate, at which tighter financial conditions do not threaten any major economy, might be somewhere below this recent empirical limit, at around 2 percent. The Neutral Rate Is Nominal, Not Real Investors always think about the negative asymmetry of returns in nominal terms. This is because the losses they fear tend to be too short and too sharp for the real return to be meaningfully different from the nominal return.3 It follows that the aforementioned hyper-sensitivity of equity valuations is when the nominal bond yield is in the 2-3 percent range, resulting in a neutral nominal rate which might be 2 percent (Chart I-8). But if inflation is also running fairly close to 2 percent, as it is in the major economies, the upshot is that the neutral real rate of interest is zero.  What Does All Of This Mean? To sum up, a decade of ultra-loose monetary policy has fostered an addiction to – or at least a dependency on – low bond yields (Chart I-9). But the dependency is not of the rate sensitive sectors in the economy per se, rather it is of the rich valuation of risky assets whose worth dwarfs the global economy by five to one (Chart I-10). Gradually, this dependency should diminish as economic and profit growth improves valuations, but this will take time. Chart I-9A Decade Of Ultra-Loose Monetary Policy... Chart I-10...Has Made The Rich Valuation Of Risky Assets Dependent On Low Bond Yields In the meantime, the integration of global capital markets means that the valuation cue for European – and all regional – stock markets now comes from the global 10-year bond yield. Given its recent decline to slightly below neutral, stock markets are unlikely to free fall. A decade of ultra-loose monetary policy has fostered an addiction to – or at least a dependency on – low bond yields. That said, the aggregate market is likely to be in a sideways structural pattern, as it has been for the past eighteen months, and the big opportunities will continue to come from sector rotation: in the second half of the year switch out of economically sensitives such as industrials, and into defensives such as healthcare. A final point is that any decline in the global bond yield to below neutral will come disproportionately from higher yielding bond markets. This will underpin the lower yielding major currencies such as the euro. But our first choice for the second half of the year remains the Japanese yen. Fractal Trading System* This week, we see an excellent opportunity to short Russia’s recent strong outperformance versus Japan. The recommended trade is short MOEX versus Nikkei225 with a profit target of 5 percent and symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, short WTI crude versus LMEX achieved its profit target. Against this, short the French OAT reached its stop-loss. This leaves three 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. Chart I-11 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 Consider what happens to valuations when bond yields decline from 4% to 2%. At a 4% bond yield, equities possess significantly more negative asymmetry than 10-year bonds. So investors will demand a comparatively higher return from equities, let’s say 8% a year. Whereas, at a 2% bond yield, equities and 10-year bonds possess the same negative asymmetry. So investors will demand the same return from equities as they can get from bonds, 2% a year. At the lower bond yield, the bond must deliver 2% a year less for ten years compared to previously, meaning its price must rise by 22%. But equities must deliver 6% a year less for ten years, so the equity market must surge by 80%. 2 We define the global 10-year bond yield as the simple average of the three 10-year bond yields in the euro area, U.S., and China, where the 10-year bond yield in the euro area is the issue-weighted average of the euro area’s individual 10-year bond yields. 3 For example, if bonds had a countertrend correction of 10% in a month when the economy was suffering severe deflation of 10% (per annum), it would still equate to a 9% loss in real terms! 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 - ##br##Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch -##br## Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch -##br## Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - ##br##Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights The May official PMI shows that manufacturing in China will slow over the coming year unless the recent doubling of U.S. import tariffs can be reversed and the imposition of the remaining tariffs can be avoided. The divergence between H-shares and both A-shares and the domestic fixed-income market suggests that China’s domestic financial market participants are pricing in some probability of a major reflationary response by Chinese authorities. We agree that such a response will occur over the coming 6-12 months, and would recommend that investors stay overweight Chinese equities within a global equity portfolio over that time horizon. Feature 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, April’s activity data provided early evidence that the trajectory of the economy was beginning to turn prior to the breakdown in U.S./China trade talks, in response to a meaningful credit improvement in Q1. The May Caixin manufacturing PMI was stable, but the official PMI fell and the experience of last year clearly shows that manufacturing in China will slow over the coming year unless the recent doubling of U.S. import tariffs can be reversed and the imposition of the remaining tariffs can be avoided. Assuming that the Trump administration follows through with its threat, investors are likely to see a repeat of last year’s perversely positive effects of tariff frontrunning on the Chinese trade data over the next few months; this should be viewed as confirmation of an impending collapse in trade activity, rather than a sign that the underlying trade situation is improving. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Within financial markets, the most notable development is the contrast between the relative performance of investable Chinese stocks on the one hand, and domestic equities and the Chinese fixed-income market on the other. The recent performance of investable stocks confirms that they have been driven nearly exclusively by trade war developments for the better part of the past year, whereas the somewhat better relative performance of A-shares and the calm in the government bond, corporate bond, and sovereign CDS markets suggests that China’s domestic financial market participants are pricing in some probability of a major reflationary response by Chinese authorities. We agree that such a response will occur over the coming 6-12 months, and would recommend that investors stay overweight Chinese equities within a global equity portfolio over that time horizon. 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 Strong Response From Policymakers Will Likely Offset The Coming Tariff Shock Both Bloomberg’s and our alternative calculation of the Li Keqiang index (LKI) rose in April, albeit only fractionally in the case of the latter. Still, as we noted in last week’s report,1 the Q1 rebound in credit appears to have halted the decline in investment-relevant Chinese economic activity (Chart 1). This suggests that the trajectory of the economy was beginning to change in April prior to the breakdown in U.S./China trade talks, implying that an aggressively stimulative response from Chinese authorities to counter a full 25% tariff scenario has good odds of succeeding. This supports our cyclically overweight stance towards Chinese stocks. Our leading indicator for the LKI declined slightly in April, but remains in a very modest uptrend. The gap between accelerating credit growth and the sluggishness of our leading indicator is explained by the fact that growth in Chinese M2 and M3 has been slow to rise. A weaker-than-expected recovery in Chinese economic activity is much more likely if money growth remains weak, but we cannot reasonably envision an outcome where credit growth continues to trend higher and growth in the money supply does not meaningfully accelerate. The incoming Chinese housing data continues to provide conflicting signals. The annual change of the PBOC’s pledged supplementary lending injections declined further in April, which since 2015 has done an excellent job explaining weak housing demand. However, both floor space started and sold picked up in April (Chart 2), and house price growth remained steady despite a significant decline in the breadth of house price appreciation across 70 cities. Policymakers are likely to allow aggregate credit growth to accelerate significantly over the coming 6-12 months in order to counter the deflationary impact of a trade war with the U.S., but our sense is that policymakers will then refocus their financial stability efforts on the household sector (i.e. they will work to prevent another significant reacceleration in household debt growth). Given this, we continue to expect that housing demand will remain weak, although we will be closely watching floor space sold over the coming few months. The new export orders component of the official manufacturing PMI is signaling an external outlook that is as negative as the 2015/2016 episode. The May official manufacturing PMI fell back into contractionary territory, led by a very significant decline in the new export orders component (Chart 3). The Caixin manufacturing PMI was stable, but the outlook for manufacturing in China is clearly negative unless the recent doubling of U.S. import tariffs can be reversed and the imposition of the remaining tariffs can be avoided. Investors are likely to see a repeat of last year’s perversely positive effects of tariff frontrunning on the Chinese trade data over the next few months; this should be viewed as confirmation of an impending collapse in trade activity, rather than a sign that the underlying trade situation is improving. Chart 2Surprising Resilience In China's Housing Market (For Now) Chart 3A Clearly Negative Outlook For Manufacturing There has been a sharp contrast in the behavior of the Chinese investable and domestic equity markets over the past month, which in our view confirms that the former has been driven nearly exclusively by trade war developments for the better part of the past year. Chart 4 shows that the relative performance of investable stocks (versus global) has nearly fallen back to its late-October low, whereas A-shares technically remain in an uptrend despite having sold off. Some investors have attributed the relative support of A-shares to aggressive buying by the “national team”, state-related financial market participants that the government has relied on since 2015 to manage volatility in the domestic equity market. Chart 4Are A-Shares Acting More Rationally Than The Investable Market? However, it is also possible that the A-share market is acting more rationally than the investable market, by focusing on the possibility of a major reflationary response to the Trump tariffs. This contrast in behavior between the investable and domestic markets was also observed pre- and post-February 15th, when the January credit data was released. Prior to this point, the A-share market was (rightly) not confirming the relative uptrend in investable stocks; following February 15th, A-shares exploded higher in response to tangible evidence that a upcycle in credit had arrived. If it is true that the A-share market is better reflecting the prospect of a reflationary response from Chinese policymakers, the relative performance trend for domestic stocks supports our decision to remain cyclically overweight Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark.   Chinese utilities and consumer staples have outperformed in both the investable and domestic equity markets over the past month, which is not surprising given that these sectors typically outperform during risk-off phases. Within the investable market, the sharp underperformance of the BAT (Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent) stocks has been the most interesting (Chart 5). To the extent that the selloff in BAT stocks reflects trade war retaliation risk (through, for example, delisting from U.S. exchanges), then the selloff is rational. But the fact that Tencent (which also trades in Hong Kong) has also declined so sharply suggests that investors are blanket selling Chinese technology-related stocks out of concern that the sector will be heavily implicated by punitive action from the Trump administration. The BAT stocks are domestically oriented, meaning that “Huawei risk” appears to be minimal. Chart 5A Potential (Future) Opportunity In The BAT Stocks Beyond the near-term risk from deteriorating sentiment, the selloff in BAT stocks may present a cyclical opportunity for investors. Unlike Huawei, whose export-oriented business model relied on the U.S. as part of its supply chain, Alibaba and Tencent are largely domestically-driven businesses whose earnings will depend mostly on the outlook for Chinese consumer spending. We agree that reflationary efforts by Chinese policymakers will attempt to avoid stoking a significant acceleration in residential mortgage credit, but it is difficult to envision a scenario in which China stimulates aggressively and consumer spending growth does not accelerate. As such, investors should closely watch the performance of BAT stocks in response to reflationary announcements and developments on the credit front; we would strongly consider an outright long stance favoring BAT stocks if a technical breakout occurs alongside the release of data that is consistent with a significant improvement in the macro outlook. There has been little movement in the Chinese government bond market over the past month, with the Chinese 10-year government bond yield having fallen merely 10 basis points since late-April. This is in contrast to what has occurred in the U.S., with yields on 10-year Treasurys having come in roughly three times as much over the past month (Chart 6). The relative calm in the Chinese government bond market is echoed by the relative 5-year CDS spread between China and Germany, a component of our BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator. While the spread has certainly moved higher in response to the breakdown in trade talks and President Trump’s full imposition of tariffs on the second tranche of imports from China, it remains below its 2018 average and well below levels that prevailed in 2015 and 2016 (Chart 7). Similarly, Chinese onshore corporate bond spreads have not reacted negatively to the resumption in the trade war, with the spread on the aggregate ChinaBond Onshore Corporate Bond Index up one basis point over the past month. Taken together with the relative performance of A-shares as well as Charts 6 and 7 we see this as evidence that China’s financial market participants are pricing in some probability of a major reflationary response by Chinese authorities. Chart 6Relative Calm In China's Fixed-Income Market Chart 7China's Sovereign CDS Spread Is Rising, But The Level Remains Low A decline in the RMB is necessary to stabilize China’s economy (and is thus reflationary), but global investors will not act like it is until the economy visibly improves. Global financial market commentary on the RMB has been focused almost exclusively over the past month on the USD-CNY exchange rate, but Chart 8 shows that the decline in the currency has been broad-based. The RMB has fallen roughly 1.4% versus the euro over the past month, and over 2% versus an equally-weighted basket of Asian currencies. We highlighted in our May 15 Weekly Report that a 25% increase in tariffs affecting all U.S.-China trade would cause economic conditions in China to deteriorate to 2015/2016-like levels, and that currency depreciation was essential in order to generate a 2015/2016-magnitude policy response.2 However, to the extent that the decline in the RMB will contribute to a period of greater volatility in the global foreign exchange market, China-related assets are not likely to respond positively to this form of stimulus until “hard” activity data clearly shows a meaningful rise. Chart 8The RMB Has Declined Against Everything, Not Just The Dollar   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Waiting For The Pain”, dated May 29, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Simple Arithmetic”, dated May 15, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations