Fixed Income

Highlights Driven by its fear that deflation is a more intractable danger than inflation, the Federal Reserve has enshrined its pause for the remainder of 2019 in order to lift inflation expectations. Since the U.S. business cycle expansion is not over, the Federal Reserve’s plan to put policy on hold this year raises the odds that the economy will overheat. Global growth is set to bottom during the second quarter in response to easier financial conditions. Accommodative policy, rebounding global economic activity and a softening dollar will boost risk asset prices during the remainder of the year. Safe-haven bonds, including Treasurys, will underperform cash over the coming 12 to 18 months. The rally in risk assets will ultimately prove the last hurrah as the Fed will resume tightening later this year or in 2020, and a bear market lies down the road. Only investors with tactical investment horizons should aggressively play this rally. Those with longer investment horizons should use this rally to lighten up their exposure to risk. Feature Introduction Following the introduction of the word “patience” into the Federal Reserve’s lexicon, a move lower in the so-called Fed dots was to be anticipated. The FOMC now expects no rate increases in 2019 and only one hike in 2020. The interest rate market remains skeptical that the Fed will be able to deliver on its forecast. For now, the OIS curve is pricing in a 75% probability of a cut this year, and rates at 1.9% by the end of 2020. With the 10-year/3-month yield curve inverting last week and the U.S. Leading Economic Indicator still decelerating, it is no wonder that investors are betting on the Fed becoming ever more dovish (Chart I-1). BCA is inclined to take the Fed at its word – the next move will be a hike, not a cut. This call rests on our view of the business cycle: The fed funds rate is still somewhat below neutral, U.S. economic activity can expand further, and global growth is likely to trough soon. The current dovish inclination of global central banks will only nurture the cycle a little bit longer. Consequently, we continue to recommend a positive stance on stocks for the coming quarters, while keeping in mind that the cycle is long in the tooth, and that beyond this last climb lies a significant bear market. The U.S. Business Cycle Has Further To Run… The Fed remains data dependent, but this now means that depressed inflation expectations in the private sector need to be vanquished before the hiking can resume (Chart I-2). With the view that low realized inflation has curtailed expectations now common across major central banks, this implies that a temporary overshoot in actual core PCE will be tolerated in order to lift expectations. Chart I-1Worrisome Signs For Growth Chart I-2The Fed Wants To Lift Inflation Expectations   Since consumer prices are a lagging variable, lifting both realized and anticipated inflation will only be possible if we move ever further along the business cycle, further pressuring the economy. Our base case remains that the risk of a recession is low in 2019, and is even receding in 2020. First, U.S. credit-dependent cyclical spending currently constitutes only 25.3% of potential GDP. As Chart I-3 illustrates, this is in line with its historical average, and well below the levels recorded near the end of previous business cycles. This suggests that the amount of vulnerability caused by misallocated capital is not yet in line with previous cycles. It also indicates that the share of output generated by the sectors most sensitive to higher rates is also low. Chart I-3U.S. Cyclical Spending: Limited Signs Of Vulnerability Second, the consumer remains in good shape. Households have deleveraged, and debt-service payments relative to disposable income are still near multi-generational lows (Chart I-4). Moreover, thanks to a saving rate of 7.6%, consumer spending is likely to move in line or even outperform income growth. On this front, the outlook is also good. As Chart I-5 demonstrates, the link between wages and salaries relative to the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers – a measure of labor utilization unaffected by the demographic changes that have muddied the interpretation of the unemployment rate – is still as tight as it was 20 years ago. Thus, as long as the labor market does not suddenly collapse, wage growth will continue to accelerate, supporting household income and consumption.   Chart I-4Household Balance Sheets Are Solid Third, at 0.4% of GDP, the fiscal thrust remains positive. In other words, fiscal policy will still add to GDP in 2019. Fourth, we do not see the traditional symptoms associated with a fed funds rate above neutral. After dipping sharply in the second half of 2018, mortgage for purchase applications are back near their cycle highs (Chart I-6). Moreover, the performance of homebuilders’ equities relative to the broad market has begun to rebound, which is inconsistent with a fed funds rate above neutral. Chart I-6Mortgage Applications Do Not Suggest Policy Is Tight Fifth, there is scope for the contribution from housing sector activity to morph from a negative to a positive. A fed funds rate below neutral historically is correlated with an improving housing market. Rising mortgage rates from 3.8% to 4.6% depressed home sales and construction output, and the fall in mortgage rates over the past x month 4.3% should stimulate housing activity (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Residential Activity Will Rebound This Year Bottom Line: U.S. first-quarter GDP growth will be dismal, but one quarter does not make a trend. The low degree of economic vulnerability in the U.S., and the likelihood that the fed funds rate will stay below neutral for a while suggest that growth should rebound to the 2-2.5% range and should remain above-trend for the remainder of 2019. … And Global Growth Will Soon Trough As the cliché goes, it is darkest before the dawn. This is a fitting description of the world economy outside the U.S. right now. Global trade is depressed, global PMIs are moribund and nothing feels good. But it is exactly when nothing is going well that one needs to wonder what may cause the outlook to turn for the better. Thankfully, green shoots are emerging. To begin with, central banks around the world have taken a more dovish slant. This dovish forward guidance is nurturing global activity via a significant easing in global financial conditions, which is undoing the severe brake-pumping imposed on global growth in the fourth quarter of 2018 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Global Financial Conditions Are Easing This more dovish forward guidance has helped our Financial Liquidity Index, which sharply deteriorated through 2009, rebound. Historically, this presages an improvement in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (Chart I-9). Improving liquidity conditions have already been reflected in lower real rates around the globe, creating a reflationary impulse. EM financial conditions are responding positively, pointing to an upcoming pick-up in industrial activity, as measured by our Global Nowcast (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Improving Global Liquidity Backdrop Chart I-10A Tailwind From EM? Our Global LEI diffusion Index has begun to reflect some of these developments. After forming a trough in 2018, more than 50% of the countries in our Global LEI are currently experiencing a sequential improvement in their LEIs. We are now entering the normal lag after which a broadening growth impulse converts into aggregate activity moving higher (Chart I-11). Most interestingly, investors do not seem to be anticipating such a rebound. There is therefore room for growth surprises around the world. Chart I-11Scope For Growth Surprises China has a role to play in this story, will likely morph from a headwind to global growth to a positive. Positive may be a strong word, but at the very least, we expect China to stop detracting from global growth. Premier Li-Keqiang recently put the accent on stability and preserving employment, suggesting Chinese policymakers are likely to de-emphasize deleveraging over the coming 12-18 months. For Chinese growth to improve, deleveraging does not even have to stop. As both theory and history have shown, a slower pace of deleveraging means that the credit impulse moves back into positive territory and growth re-accelerates, even if only temporarily (Chart I-12). Chart I-12Growth Can Improve Even If Deleveraging Continues As a thought experiment, if Chinese leverage were to stabilize this year and nominal growth were to hit 8% – the lower bound of the real GDP target of 6-6.5% and inflation of 2% – the Chinese credit impulse would surge to more than 10% of GDP (Chart I-13)! We are not forecasting such a large rebound in the impulse, but this exercise clearly shows that if the Chinese authorities – who are cutting taxes and trying to ease credit conditions for small- and medium-sized enterprises – want to favor stability and employment for just one year, the impact on growth will be non-negligible, even if deleveraging continues. Since domestic demand responds to the credit impulse, and imports sport an elevated beta to domestic demand, Chinese imports are likely to soon morph from a negative to something more neutral – maybe even a small positive for the rest of the world. Chart I-13A Thought Experiment Finally, as weak as Europe is right now, it will likely be an important source of positive surprises in the second half of the year. To begin with, Europe is much more sensitive to EM growth conditions than the U.S. (Chart I-14). In the same way as Europe felt the full force of the deceleration in global trade last year, it will benefit from any improvement in trade this year. A myriad of idiosyncratic shocks rammed through the euro area last year, worsening an already difficult situation. The new WLTP emission standards caused German auto production to collapse by nearly 20%. Nonetheless, as contracting domestic manufacturing orders and a large inventory pullback in the final quarter of last year suggest, the inventory overhang has been worked off (Chart I-15, top panel). Chart I-15Passing European Idiosyncratic Shocks Just as critically, Italy’s technical recession should end soon. The country’s economic malaise reflected the tightening in financial conditions that followed the violent battle between Rome and Brussels early last year. Ultimately, Rome folded: The budget deficit is 2.3% of GDP, not above 6%, and threats of leaving the union have been abandoned. Consequently, financial conditions are easing. Italian bond auctions are massively oversubscribed this year, and rising bond prices are supporting the solvency of the Italian banking system. The last hurdle affecting Europe was the fact that funding stress in the Italian and Spanish banking systems have been directly addressed by the TLTRO-III announced three weeks ago by the European Central Bank. Spanish and Italian banks have to refinance EUR 425 billion of TLTRO-II this June, in a year where a sizeable amounts of European bank bonds also needs to be refinanced. This is simply too much. With the ECB again bankrolling Italian and Spanish financial institutions, funding stress in the periphery can decline. Consequently, the European credit impulse, which had formed a valley in 2018 Q1, can continue its ascent (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Investors expect little from the global economy outside the U.S., yet easing liquidity and financial conditions, a temporary shift in Chinese policy preferences and passing idiosyncratic shocks in Europe all point to improvement in global economic activity. U.S. Inflation Expectations Will Allow The Fed To Resume Rate Hikes Above-potential growth in the U.S. and rebounding economic activity in the rest of the world are consistent with higher – not lower – U.S. inflation. First, rebounding global growth is normally associated with a weakening dollar (Chart I-16). This time will not be different, especially as U.S. equity valuations relative to global stocks suggest that investors are particularly pessimistic on non-U.S. growth. A weaker dollar will lift import prices, commodity prices, and goods prices, helping inflation move higher. Chart I-16The USD Is Counter-Cyclical Second, the change in the velocity of the money of zero maturity in the U.S. is consistent with a further strengthening in core inflation (Chart I-17). Chart I-17The Fisher Equations Points To Gently Rising Inflation Third, above-trend U.S. growth in the context of elevated capacity utilization is also consistent with rising inflation (Chart I-18). Chart I-18Elevated U.S. Capacity Utilization If these three forces can cause core PCE inflation to move slightly above 2% in the second half of 2019, this will likely result in inflation expectations firming. Moreover, the combination of positive growth surprises around the world and easy monetary and liquidity conditions will prove supportive of asset prices globally, implying further easing in global and U.S. financial conditions. This set of circumstances will allow the Fed to shift its tone toward the end of 2019, in order to crystalize additional hikes in 2020. Additionally, we estimate the U.S. terminal policy rate to be around 3.25%. In fact, a longer-than-originally-anticipated Fed pause reinforces confidence in this assessment, even if it means that it will take longer to reach the terminal level than we previously thought. Bottom Line: Our growth outlook is consistent with robust inflation and improving inflation expectations. This means we disagree with interest rate markets and anticipate the Fed will resume its hiking campaign instead of cutting rates next year. Moreover, easier-for-longer policy also strengthens our view that the fed funds rate can end this cycle near 3.25%. Stay Positive On Risk Assets For Now… Most bear markets are linked to recessions. It follows that if the U.S. business cycle can be extended and the Fed remains on the easy side of neutral for longer, then the S&P 500 has more upside (Chart I-19). So do global equities. Chart I-19Low Bear-Market Risk This view is reinforced by the fact that buy-side analysts and investors alike have aggressively curtailed their expectations for EPS growth this year, to 3.9% for the U.S. and 4.9% outside the U.S. Yet, our profit model suggests that U.S. EPS growth is likely to come in at around 8.1% this year. Earnings revisions are pro-cyclical. Hence, our expectation that the BCA global Leading Economic Indicator meaningfully revives in the second half of 2019 points toward analysts having ample room to revise global earnings higher in the second half of the year (Chart I-20). Chart I-20Global Profit Margins Will Improve If Growth Rebounds Moreover, global valuations experienced a reset last year. Despite a rebound, the forward P/E ratio for the MSCI All-Country World Index remains in line with 2014 levels, 12.5% lower than at their apex last year. When looking at the U.S., our composite valuation index has also improved meaningfully (Chart I-21). This improvement in valuations increases the probability that a bottom in global growth will lift stock prices. Chart I-21Large Improvement In The Equity / Risk Reward Ratio Our Monetary Indicator further reinforces this message. After being a headwind for stocks over the past eight quarters, now that the Fed has paused and is essentially guaranteeing low real rates for an extended period, this gauge is growing more supportive of further equity price gains (Chart I-22). Chart I-22Stock-Friendly Monetary Backdrop A below-benchmark duration exposure for fixed-income portfolio still makes sense, even if the Fed has prolonged its pause. As per our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s “Golden Rule Of Treasury Investing,” if the Fed increases rates more than the market has priced in 12 months prior, Treasurys underperform cash (Chart I-23). Even if the Fed does nothing this year, it will still be more than the OIS curve is currently pricing in. Moreover, the dollar is likely to soften and the Fed is increasingly taking the risk of falling behind the realized inflation curve. This should create upside not only for inflation breakevens but also for term premia, which are depressed everywhere across the G-10. The yield curve should modestly steepen in this environment. It may take a bit more time than we originally expected, but safe-haven bond yields are trending higher, not lower. Chart I-23The Golden Rule Of Treasury Investing Spread products are also likely to continue to do well. Easy monetary policy, a soft U.S. dollar, an ongoing U.S. business expansion, an upcoming rebound in global growth and rising asset values all point toward a delay of the inevitable wave of defaults. Corporate bonds may offer poor value and credit quality has deteriorated, but an end to the business cycle and a tighter Fed will be key to catalyzing these poor fundamentals. We are not there yet. The Brexit saga continues to have the potential to unsettle markets. Nonetheless, we would fade any broad market sell-off linked to poor British headlines. As Marko Papic writes in this month's Special Report, despite continued political uncertainty in Westminster this year, the risk of a no-deal Brexit is dwindling by the minute, and political logic suggests that there is a high probability that the U.K. will ultimately remain in the EU in two to three years. Bottom Line: After the reset in valuations and earning expectations last year, markets should continue their ascent. The Fed has showed that its “put” is alive and well. This will both favor risk-taking and extend the duration of the business cycle. If global growth can rebound in the second quarter, it will create fertile ground for strong asset prices over the bulk of 2019. Treasury yields will also exhibit upside, even if achieving these higher rates will take more time now. … But Beware What Lurks Below The benign outlook for this year masks that the rally in risk assets is living on borrowed time. A Fed willingly falling behind the curve may fan speculative flames this year, but it doesn’t mean that policy will stay easy forever. On the contrary, the inevitable rise in inflation will push rates higher down the road and the unavoidable recession will ultimately materialize, most likely somewhere around 2021. Since asset valuations will only grow more inflated between now and then, a bigger fall will ultimately ensue. Our Composite Valuation Indicator may currently be flashing a positive signal, but dynamics within its components already point to brewing trouble down the road (Chart I-24). First, the balance sheet group of indicators has showed no improvement. In other words, without last year’s rebound in profitability, stocks would not be as attractively valued as the overall indicator suggests. Chart I-24Disconcerting Internal Dynamics Second, the interest rate group is currently flattering aggregate valuations. To remain supportive of higher returns ahead, this group depends on interest rates staying constrained. Here, the Fed will play a particularly perverse role. Its willingness to tolerate inflationary pressures right now means lower rates today at the price of a higher cost of capital tomorrow. Once it becomes obvious that the Fed is falling behind the curve – something more likely to happen once inflation expectations normalize – safe-haven yields will rise sharply. The interest rate group will suddenly look a lot less supportive than it does today. Third, the profit components of our valuation indicator may look healthy today, but this will not remain the case. At 31.7%, EBITD margins are currently extraordinary elevated. In fact, if the profit margins were to normalize to their historical average, the Shiller P/E would skyrocket to 40.3 from 29.9 today, implying the stock market may be just as expensive as it was at the start of 2000. For margins to remain wide, wages will have to stay depressed relative to selling prices (Chart I-25). However, the combination of an economy at full employment and the Fed goosing economic growth points to rising wages. Since the pass-through from wages to prices is below 100%, unless productivity rises more than labor costs, profitability will suffer and P/E ratios will start sending the same message as the price-to-sales ratio, a multiple that currently stands near record highs. Chart I-25Rising Wages Will Ultimately Hurt Profits Valuations are not the only danger lurking for stocks: Spread products will morph from a tailwind to a headwind for equities. Whether or not it steepens a bit this year, the yield curve’s previous big flattening already points toward rising financial market volatility (Chart I-26). The Fed’s recent dovish tilt can keep the VIX and the MOVE compressed for a while longer. However, since inflation expectations will ultimately move higher, likely within a year or so, the Fed will once again tilt to the hawkish side, and volatility will follow its path of least resistance higher. Carry trades of all kinds will suffer, and spreads will widen. The deteriorating credit quality this cycle, with BBB and lower-rated issues constituting 60.1% of the corporate universe, could make this widening more violent than normal. This phenomenon will hurt stocks. Chart I-26Volatility Is A Coiled Spring Finally, the improvement in global growth this year is likely to prove temporary. China may want to slow the pace of deleveraging this year, but pushing debt loads lower and reforming the economy remains Beijing’s number one priority on a multi-year horizon. China has created USD 26 trillion worth of yuan since 2008, making the Chinese money supply larger than the euro area’s and the U.S.’s together. As a result, China’s incremental output-to-capital ratio continues to trend lower, implying large misallocation of capital (Chart I-27). State-owned enterprises, the recipients of much of the credit created over the past 10 years, now generate lower RoAs than their cost of borrowing, an unmistakable sign of poorly allocated funds. Chart I-27The Biggest Threat To China's Long-Term Prosperity Correcting this structural impediment will require the Chinese credit impulse to once again move back into negative territory. This means that unless Chinese policymakers abandon their efforts to prise the country off easy credit, Chinese growth will morph back into a headwind for the world somewhere in 2020, i.e. not so late as to encourage excesses, but not so early as to sharply slow the economy ahead of the Communist Party’s one-hundredth birthday in July 2021. In 2018, the global economy nearly ground to a halt after China had shifted from stimulus to policy tightening. The next time around, we doubt that a global recession will be avoided. The second half of 2020 may set up to be one tumultuous period. Bottom Line: In all likelihood, global risk assets should perform well this year, but we are living on borrowed time. In the background, equity valuations are deteriorating meaningfully, a phenomenon that will worsen once the Fed’s desired outcome comes to fruition: higher inflation. Wage pressures and higher interest rates will reveal how fully rotten stock valuations genuinely are. Compounding this effect, higher volatility and a resumption of China’s deleveraging efforts will likely achieve the coup de grace for stocks in the second half of 2020. Conclusion The FOMC wants to lift inflation expectations in order to defuse any lingering deflationary risk. Consequently, the Fed’s pause will last longer than we originally anticipated, but terminal rates are likely to climb higher than would have otherwise been the case. Before last week’s Fed meeting, the U.S. was already set to grow above trend. Now, the Fed will only extend the business cycle further, fanning greater inflationary pressures in the process. This potentially misguided reflationary impulse, which is echoed around the world, will contribute to a rebound in global growth that will become fully evident by the summer. Consequently, we expect risk assets to climb to new highs over the coming 12 months. Treasurys will likely underperform cash over that timeframe, as interest rate markets are currently too sanguine. Investors are facing a real dilemma. On one hand, the potential for elevated stock market returns is high over the coming 12 months. On the other, poor valuations will only grow more onerous, and the Fed will ultimately have to tighten policy even more following the on-hold period. Moreover, Chinese policymakers are unlikely to ignore the pressing danger created by misallocating capital for an extended period of time. Consequently, the outlook for long-term returns is deteriorating. As a result, we recommend more tactically minded investors to stay long stocks, with a growing preference for international equities that are both cheaper and more exposed to global growth than U.S. ones. However, longer-term asset allocators should use this period of strength to progressively move out of stocks and into safer alternatives. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 28, 2019 Next Report: April 25, 2019   II. The State Of Brexit So What? It makes sense for long-term investors to buy the GBP. However, short-term investors should instead buy the 2-year call while selling 3-month ones. Why? The U.K. electorate is not staunchly Euroskeptic. In fact, Bregret has already set in. Volatility is the only sure bet over the tactical and strategic time horizons. The most likely scenario is that Theresa May either resigns and is replaced by a soft-Brexit Tory, or that she agrees to a long-term extension to give the U.K. time to call a new election. Brexit is unsustainable over the secular time horizon. Our low-conviction view is that in the long term, the U.K. will remain inside the European Union. The hour is late in the ongoing Brexit saga. The original deadline, once spoken of with religious reverence, will be tossed aside for one, potentially two, extensions. In this analysis, we attempt to consider the state of Brexit from multiple time horizons. First, we offer our tactical view, what will happen in the next several weeks and months. Second, we offer our strategic view, surveying the Brexit process to the end of the year. Third, we consider the secular view and attempt to answer the question of whether the U.K. will ever fully exit the EU. We then assign investment recommendations across the three time horizons. How Did We Get Here? In March 2016, three months ahead of the fateful June referendum, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy published a joint report on the topic that drew three conclusions: The probability of Brexit was understated by the market. “According to our modeling results, roughly 64% of Tory undecided voters would have to swing to the “Stay” camp in order to ensure that the vote crosses the 50% threshold in favour of continued EU membership … Conventional wisdom suggests that the probability of Brexit is around 30%, anchoring to the 1975 referendum results. Our own analysis of current polling data suggests that it is much closer to 50%, as in too close to call.” The biggest loser of Brexit, domestically, would be the Conservative Party. “The risk is that the British populace realizes that leaving the EU was a sub-optimal result and that little sovereignty was recovered. As such, there could be a backlash against the Tories in the next general election. In this scenario, the winner would not necessarily be UKIP, but rather the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party – as close to the Michael Foot-led opposition in the early 1980s as any Labour Leadership.” The EU would survive, intact, with no further “exits.” “European integration is therefore a gambit for relevance by Europe’s declining powers. Brexit will not create centrifugal forces that tear the EU apart, and could in fact enhance the sinews that bind EU member states in a bid for 21st century geopolitical relevance.” Thus far, all three predictions have proven prescient. Not only was the probability of Brexit understated, but the electorate actually voted to exit the EU.1 The Conservative Party has wrapped itself into an intellectual pretzel trying to deliver on a referendum that the pro-Brexit Tories – a minority in the party – promised would not mean losing access to the Common Market. And the EU has not only seen no other “exits,” but has held firm and united in the negotiations with the U.K. while witnessing an increase in the support for its troubled currency union, both in the Euro Area in aggregate as well as in crisis-ridden Italy (Chart II-1). Chart II-1The Euro Area Stands Unified The net assessment we conducted in 2016 correctly gauged what the Brexit referendum was about and what it was not about. Our view was that behind the angst lay factors too general to be laid at the feet of European integration. Decades of supply-side reforms combined with competition from emerging economies led to a sharp rise in U.K. income inequality (Chart II-2), the erosion of its manufacturing economy (Chart II-3), and the ballooning of the country’s financial sector (Chart II-4). As a result, the U.K.’s income inequality and social mobility were, in 2016 as today, much closer to those of its Anglo-Saxon peer America than to those of its continental European neighbors (Chart II-5). Chart II-2Brits Saw Inequality Surge Chart II-3Manufacturing Jobs Collapsed Chart II-4The Financial Bubble Burst The underlying economic angst has continued to influence British politics since Brexit. Campaigning on an anti-austerity platform in the summer of 2017, the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn nearly won the general election, only underperforming the Conservative vote by 2% (Chart II-6). The election was supposed to politically recapitalize Theresa May and allow her to lead the U.K. out of the EU. But the failure to secure a single-party majority created the political math in the House of Commons that is today preventing the prime minister from executing on Brexit. There are simply not enough committed Brexiters in Westminster to deliver on the relatively hard Brexit – no access to the EU Common Market or customs union – that Prime Minister May has put on offer (Chart II-7). The decision not to pursue a customs union arrangement with the EU is particularly disastrous. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi – Chief Strategist of BCA’s European Investment Strategy – has pointed out, remaining in the customs union would have protected the cross-border supply chains that are vital to many U.K. businesses and would have avoided a hard customs border on the island of Ireland.2 However, the slim margin of the Tory victory in 2017 has boosted the influence of the 20-to-40 hard-Brexiters in the party. They pushed Theresa May to the extreme, where a customs union arrangement – let alone access to the Common Market – became politically unpalatable. Had the British electorate genuinely wanted “Brexit über alles,” or the relatively hard Brexit on offer today, the margin of victory for Leave would have been greater. Furthermore, the electorate would not have come so close to giving the far-left Corbyn – who nonetheless supports the softest-of-soft Brexits – a majority in mid-2017. The slim margin of victory effectively tied May’s hands in her subsequent negotiations with both the EU and her own party. But there was more to the 2016 referendum than just general malaise centered on the economy and inequality. There were idiosyncratic events that provided tailwinds for the Leave campaign. Or, as we put it in 2016: Certainly, a number of ills have befallen the continent in quick succession: the euro area sovereign debt crisis, Russian military intervention in Ukraine, rampant migrant inflows from Africa and the Middle East, and terrorist attacks in France. It is no surprise that the U.K. populace wants to think twice about tying itself even more closely to a Europe apparently on the run from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. The two issues we would particularly focus on were the migrant crisis and terrorist attacks in Europe. Data ahead of the referendum clearly gave credence to the view that the influx of migrants was raising “concerns about immigration and race.” This angst was primarily focused on EU migrants who came to the U.K. legally (Chart II-8), but the influx of millions of migrants into the EU in 2015 – peaking at 172,000 in the month of October – certainly bolstered the anxiety in the U.K. (Chart II-9).3 Chart II-8EU Migrants A Source Of Anxiety In 2016 Chart II-9The Refugee Crisis Boosted Brexit Vote Terrorism was another concern. In the 18 months preceding the referendum, continental Europe experienced 13 deadly terror attacks. Two were particularly egregious: the November 2015 Paris terror attack that led to 130 deaths, and the March 2016 Brussels terror attack that led to 32 deaths. Both the migration and terror crises, however, were temporary and caused by idiosyncratic variables with short half-lives. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy argued that both would eventually abate. The migration crisis would subside due to firming European attitudes towards asylum seekers and the exhaustion of the supply of migrants as the Syrian Civil War drew to its tragic close. The extremist Islamic terror attacks would dwindle due to the decrease in the marginal utility of terror that has been observed in previous waves of terrorism (Chart II-10). Neither forecast was popular with our client base, but both have been spot on. Chart II-10Fewer Attacks Due To Declining Marginal Utility Of Terror The point is that the British electorate was never as Euroskeptic as the Euroskeptics cheering on Brexit thought. Support for EU integration has waxed and waned for decades (Chart II-11). Instead, a combination of macro-malaise caused by the general plight of the middle class – the same factors that have given tailwinds to populist policymakers across developed markets – and idiosyncratic crises in the middle of this decade created the context in which the public voted to leave the EU. Whatever the vote was for, we can say with a high degree of certainty that it was not in favor of the current deal on offer, a relatively hard Brexit. After all, the pro-Leave Tories almost universally campaigned in favor of remaining in the Common Market post-Brexit.4 Chart II-11Data Does Not Support Euroskeptic U.K. Today, Bregret has clearly set in. Not only on the specific issue of whether the U.K. should leave the EU – where the gap between Bremorseful voters and committed Brexiters is now 8% (Chart II-12), a 12% swing since just after the referendum – but also on the more existential question of whether U.K. citizens feel European (Chart II-13). Chart II-12Bregret Has Set In... Chart II-13...And Brits Feeling More European The political reality of Bregret is the most important variable in predicting Brexit. Not only is it difficult for Prime Minister May to deliver her relatively hard Brexit in Westminster due to the mid-2017 electoral math, but it is especially the case when the electorate does not want it. Yes, the mid-2016 referendum is an expression of a democratic will that must be respected. But no policymaker wants to respect the referendum at the cost of disrespecting the current disposition of the median voter, which is revealed through polls. Doing so will cost them in the next election. Reviewing “how we got here” is essential in forecasting the tactical, strategic, and secular time horizons in the ongoing Brexit imbroglio. To this task we now turn. Bottom Line: The U.K. electorate is not staunchly Euroskeptic: data clearly support this fact. The Brexit referendum simply came at the right time for the Leave vote, as the secular forces of middle-class discontent combined with idiosyncratic crises of migration and terror. Three years following the referendum, the discontent remains unaddressed by British policymakers while the idiosyncratic crises have abated. As such, Bregret has set in, creating a new reality that U.K. policymakers must respond to if they want to retain political capital. Where Are We Going? The Tactical And Strategic Time Horizons The EU has offered a two-step delay to the Article 50 deadline of March 29. The first option is a delay until May 22, but only if Theresa May successfully passes her Brexit plan through Westminster. The second option is a delay until April 12. This would come in effect if the House of Commons rejects the deal on offer. The short time frame is supposed to pressure London to come up with the next steps, which the EU has inferred would either be to get out of the bloc without a deal or to plan for a long-term extension. Although there are no official conditions to awarding a long-term extension, it is clear that the EU only envisages three options: Renegotiate the terms of Brexit, to include either a customs union or full Common Market membership (a softer Brexit); Hold a general election to break the impasse; Hold another referendum. The EU is suggesting that it could deny the U.K. an extension if London does not come back with a plan. There are two reasons why we would call the EU’s bluff. First, it is likely an attempt to help May get the deal through the House of Commons by creating a sense of urgency. Second, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in December 2018 that the U.K. could “revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing.”5 The only requirement is that the notification be sent to Brussels prior to March 29 (or, in the case of a mutually agreed upon extension, prior to April 12). It is increasingly likely that, after the deal on offer fails, Theresa May will have to go “hat-in-hand” to the EU to ask for a much longer extension. She will have until April 12 to ask for that extension, but it would require participation in the European Parliamentary (EP) elections on May 23. Prime Minister May has said that the U.K. will not hold those elections. We beg to differ. Not holding the election would allow the EU to end the U.K.’s membership in the bloc, which would by default mean contravening the Parliament’s will to reject a no-deal Brexit (which it did in a rebuke to the government in March). As such, the U.K. will absolutely hold an EP election in May. Yes, it will be a huge embarrassment to the Conservative government. And we would venture that the election would turn out a huge pro-EU majority from the U.K., given that it is the Europhile side of the aisle that is now excited and activated, further embarrassing the ruling government. The most likely scenario, therefore, is that Theresa May either resigns and is replaced by a soft-Brexit Tory, or that she agrees to a long-term extension to give the U.K. time to call a new election. As we have been arguing throughout the year, the only way to break the impasse without calling a referendum – is to call a new election. A new election would be contested almost exclusively on the issue of Brexit – unlike the 2017 election, which Jeremy Corbyn managed to be almost exclusively contested on the issue of austerity. As such, the winner would have a clear political mandate to pursue the Brexit of their choice. If it is Jeremy Corbyn, this would mean a second referendum, given his recent conversion to supporting one. If Theresa May remains prime minister, it would be her relatively hard Brexit option; if another Tory replaces her, it would potentially be a softer Brexit. Intriguingly, Theresa May is coming up to the average “expiry date” of a “takeover” prime minister, which is 3.3 years (Chart II-14). Why do we think that Theresa May would be replaced with a soft Brexit Tory? Because there are simply not enough members of parliament in the Conservative Party caucus to elect a hard Brexiteer. Furthermore, the current deal on offer, which is a form of hard Brexit, clearly has no chance of passing in the House of Commons. Theresa May herself did not support the Leave campaign, but she converted into a hard Brexiteer due to the pressures in the Conservative Party caucus. If, on the other hand, we are wrong and the Conservative Party elects a hard Brexit Tory as leader, the odds of losing the election to the Labour Party would increase. Furthermore, the impasse in the House of Commons would not be resolved as Theresa May would be replaced by a prime minister with essentially the same approach to Brexit. Confused? You are not alone. Diagram II-1 illustrates the complexity of the tactical (0-3 months) and strategic (3-12 months) time horizons. There are so many options over the next six months alone that we ran out of space in our diagram to consider the consequences of the general election. Needless to say, an election would induce volatility in the market as it would put Jeremy Corbyn close to the premiership. While he has now promised a second referendum, his government would also implement policies that could, especially in the short term, agitate the markets. Our forecasts of the currency moves alone suggest that volatility is the only sure bet over tactical and strategic time horizons. We do not have a high-conviction view on a directional call on the pound or U.K. equities. However, global growth concerns, combined with political uncertainty, should create a bond-bullish environment. Bottom Line: Over the course of the year, political uncertainty will remain high in the United Kingdom. A general election is the clearest path to breaking the current deadlock. However, it is not guaranteed, as Labour’s recent decline in the polls appears to be reversing since Jeremy Corbyn finally succumbed to the demands that he support a new referendum (Chart II-15). Chart II-15Labour Party Revives On Referendum Support The Secular Horizon BCA Geopolitical Strategy believes that the median voter is the price maker in the political market place. Politicians are merely price takers. This is why Theresa May’s notion that the sanctity of the 2016 referendum cannot be abrogated is doubly false. First, she cannot truly claim from the slim 52%-48% result that U.K. voters want her form of Brexit. The referendum therefore may be a sacred expression of the democratic will, but her “no customs union” Brexit option is not holy water: It is an educated guess at best, pandering to hard Brexit Tories (a minority of the electorate) at worst. Given that 48% of the electorate wanted to remain in the EU and that a large portion of Brexit voters wanted a Common Market membership as part of Brexit, it is mathematically obvious that the softest of soft Brexit options was the desire of the median voter in June 2016. Furthermore, polling data (presented in Chart II-12 and Chart II-13 on page 28) now clearly show that the median voter is migrating away from even the softest of soft Brexit options to the “Stay” camp. Bregret has set in and a strong plurality of voters no longer supports Brexit. The question behind Chart II-12 is unambiguous. It clearly asks, “In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?” What does all of this infer for the long term, or secular, horizon? First, an election this year could usher in a Labour government that delivers a new referendum. At this time, given the polling data and the geopolitical context, sans terror and migration crises, we would expect such a referendum to lead to a win for the Stay camp. Second, an election that produces a soft Brexit prime minister or negotiated outcome would allow the U.K. to leave the EU in an orderly fashion. A new Tory prime minister, pursuing a soft Brexit outcome, could even entice some Labour MPs to cross the aisle and support such an exit from the bloc. However, over a secular time horizon of the next two-to-three years, we doubt that a soft Brexit outcome would be viable. Investors have to realize that the vote on leaving the EU does not conclude the U.K. long-term deal with the bloc. That negotiating phase will last during the transition phase, over the next two-to-three years, and would conclude in yet another Westminster vote – and likely crisis – at the end of the period. If this deal entails membership in the Common Market, our low- conviction view over the long term is that it will ultimately fail. Take the financial community’s preferred soft Brexit option, the so-called super soft “Norway Plus” option. A Norway Plus option would entail the highest loss of sovereignty imaginable, given that the U.K. would essentially pay full EU membership fees with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. There is also a debate as to whether London would be able to constrict immigration from the EU under that option over the long term, a key demand of Brexiters.6 As such, the only viable option would be to switch to a customs union relationship. However, we fear that even this option may no longer be available to U.K. policymakers. Conservative Party leaders have wasted too much time and lost too much of the public’s good will. With only 40% of the electorate now considering Brexit the correct decision, it is possible that even a customs union arrangement will be unacceptable by the end of the transition period. Aside from the electorate’s growing Bregret, there is also the economic logic – or lack thereof – behind a customs union. A customs union would ensure the unfettered transit of goods between the U.K. and the continent, but not of services. This arrangement greatly favors the EU, not the U.K., as the latter has a wide (and growing) deficit in goods and an expanding surplus in services with the bloc (Chart II-16). Chart II-16Services Are Key For The U.K. The only logic behind selecting a customs union over the Common Market is that a customs union would allow the U.K. to conclude separate trade deals with the rest of the world. While that may be a fantasy of the few remaining laissez-faire free traders in the U.K. Conservative Party, the view hardly represents the desire of the median voter. Other than a potential trade deal with the U.S., it is practically inconceivable to expect the U.K. electorate to support a free trade agreement with China or India, both of which would likely entail an even greater loss of blue-collar jobs. Even a trade deal with the U.S. would likely face political opposition, given that the U.K. is highly unlikely to be given preferential treatment by an economy seven times its size.7 The fact of the matter is that the Conservative Party has wasted its window of opportunity to push a hard, or moderately hard (customs union), Brexit through Parliament. Bregret has set in, as the doyens of Brexit increasingly pursued an unpopular strategy. On the other hand, a Brexit that retains the U.K. membership in the Common Market has never had much logic to begin with. Where does this leave the U.K. in the long term? Given the time horizon and the uncertainty on multiple fronts, our low-conviction view is that it leaves the U.K. inside the European Union. Bottom Line: The combination of increasing Bregret, lack of economic logic behind a customs union membership alone, and the lack of a political logic behind a Common Market membership, suggests that Brexit is unsustainable over the secular time horizon. This imperils the ultimate deal between the U.K. and the EU, which we think will not be able to pass the House of Commons in two-to-three years when it comes up for approval. This is a low-conviction view, however, as political realities can change. Support for Brexit could turn due to exogenous factors, such as a global recession that renews the Euro Area economic imbroglio or a major geopolitical crisis. Both are quite likely over the secular time horizon. Investment Implications Today, cable is cheap, trading at an 18% discount to its long-term fair value as implied by purchasing-power parity models (Chart II-17). The growing probability that the U.K. may, down the road, remain in the European Union means that, at current levels the pound is indeed attractive, especially against the U.S. dollar. Chart II-17Cable Attractive On Higher Odds Of Bremain However, when it comes to short-term dynamics, the picture is much murkier. The low probability of a no-deal Brexit implies limited downside. However, the path to get the U.K. to abandon the current relatively hard Brexit is also one that involves a new election. This implies that before a resolution is reached, multiple scenarios are possible, including one where Corbyn becomes the next prime minister. Jeremy Corbyn could be the most left-of center leader of any G-10 nation since Francois Mitterrand in France in the early 1980s. Mitterrand’s audacious nationalization and left-leaning policies were met with a collapse in the French franc (Chart II-18). Chart II-18A Left-Wing Leader Bodes Ill For The Currency Global growth also has an impact on cable. Despite all the noise around Brexit, the reality remains that exports constitute 30% of U.K. GDP, a larger contribution to output than in the euro area. This means that if global growth deteriorates, GBP/USD will face another headwind. If, however, global growth improves, then cable would face a new tailwind. Since BCA is of the view that global growth will likely trough by the summer, we are inclined to be positive on the pound. Netting out all those factors, it makes sense for long-term investors to buy the GBP, using the dips along the way to build a larger position in this currency. Even on a six-to-twelve-month basis, the path of least resistance for cable is likely upward. The problem is that risk-adjusted returns are likely to be poor as volatility will remain very elevated. We therefore recommend that short-term investors instead buy the 2-year call while selling 3-month ones (Chart II-19). Chart II-19Volatility Will Be A Challenge For Short Term Investors Marko Papic Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts Equities have had a volatile month of March, something that was bound to happen after the violent rally witnessed from the end of December to the end of February. When a rally is being tested, it always make sense to review our indicators to gauge whether or not a trend change is in the offing. Generally, our indicators remain broadly positive. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators for the U.S. and the euro area continue to improve. Meanwhile, it has begun to hook back up in Japan. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The current readings in major advanced economies thus suggest that investors are still inclined to add to their stock holdings. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) has however once again deteriorated, suggesting that the period of churn in global equities prices could last a bit longer. This indicator is essentially saying that in order to resume their ascent, stocks need a bit more time to digest their previous surge. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. According to BCA’s Composite Valuation Indicator, an amalgamation of 11 measures, the U.S. stock market remains slightly overvalued from a long-term perspective. Nonetheless, despite this year’s rally, the S&P 500 offers a much more attractive risk/reward profile than it did in the fall. Moreover, our Monetary Indicator has shifted out of negative territory for stocks, and is now decisively in stimulative territory. The Fed’s dovish forward guidance last week only reinforces the message from this indicator. Our Composite Technical Indicator for stocks had broken down in December, but it is finally flashing a buy signal. This further confirms that the current period of churn is most likely to ultimately make way for a continued rally in the S&P 500. The 10-year Treasury yield remains within its neutral range according to our valuation model. Moreover, our technical indicator flags a similar picture. This means that without signs of improvements in global growth, price action alone will not be enough to lift bond yields higher. That being said, since BCA expects that over the next 24 months, the Fed will lift rates more than the OIS curve anticipates, and since the term premium is incredibly low, once green shoots for global growth become evident, bonds could suffer a violent selloff. The U.S. dollar is still very expensive on a PPP basis. Our Composite Technical Indicator is not as overbought as it once was, but it is far from having reached oversold levels either. This combination suggests that the greenback could experience further downside this year. However, for this downside to materialize, global growth will first have to stabilize. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1       At the time of publication of our March report, we still had a low-conviction view that the vote would swing towards Stay at the last moment. 2       Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Important Message From The Currency Markets,” dated March 14, 2019, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3       Trying to play up the threat of unchecked migration, the U.K. Independence Party ran a famous campaign poster showing hundreds of refugees on a road under the title of “Breaking Point – The EU has failed us all.” Despite the fact that the U.K. accepted only around 10,000 Syrian refugees since the 2015 crisis. Germany has accepted over 700,000 while Canada – which is located across the Atlantic Ocean on a different continent – accepted over 40,000. Even the impoverished Serbia has accepted more Syrian refugees than the U.K. 4       One of the most prominent Leave supporters, Boris Johnson, famously quipped after the referendum result that “There will continue to be free trade and access to the single market.” 5       Please see The European Court of Justice, “Judgement Of The Court,” In Case C-621/18, dated December 10, 2018, available at curia.europa.eu. 6       Proponents of the Norway Plus option point out that Article 112(1) of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement allows for restriction of movement of people within the area. However, these restrictions are intended to be used in times of “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties.” It certainly appears to be an option for London to restrict EU migration, but it is not clear whether Europe would agree for this to be a permanent solution. Liechtenstein has been using Article 112 to impose quantitative limitations on immigration for decades, but that is because its tiny geographical area is recognized as a “specific situation” that justifies such restrictions. 7       President Donald Trump may want to give the U.K. preferential trade terms on the basis of the filial Anglo-Saxon relationship alone, but it is highly unlikely that the increasingly protectionist Congress would do the same. There is also no guarantee that President Trump will be around to bring such trade negotiations across the finish line. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights Duration: None of the economic indicators that have reliably signaled peak interest rates in prior cycles are sending a signal at the moment. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that further Fed rate hikes are likely at some point before the end of the cycle. With the Fed now projecting an essentially flat path for interest rates, the next surprise from the Federal Reserve will probably be a hawkish one. Fed: The Fed is currently waging a war on two fronts. It wants to keep interest rates low enough to send inflation expectations higher, back to levels consistent with its 2% target. But it also wants to avoid excessively easy financial conditions that could threaten the sustainability of the economic recovery. We expect that easier financial conditions will cause the Fed to shift back toward a tightening bias near the end of this year. Yield Curve: Inversion of the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope is cause for concern, if it persists. But we expect it to reverse in the coming months as global growth recovers and the Fed remains accommodative. Eventually, after financial conditions have eased sufficiently, the Fed’s next move will be a hawkish surprise. Investors can profit from this move by entering positive carry yield curve trades: short the 5-year or 7-year bullet and go long a duration-matched barbell. Feature The Last Dovish Surprise Or The Beginning Of The End? Treasury yields moved sharply lower following last week’s Fed meeting, as FOMC participants made larger-than-anticipated downward revisions to their interest rate projections. As of last December, 11 out of 17 Fed members expected to lift rates at least twice in 2019. Now, 11 out of 17 expect to keep rates flat (Chart 1). Chart 1Fed Sees No Hikes This Year Judging from the bond market’s reaction, the Fed clearly managed to deliver a dovish surprise at last week’s meeting. Now, the relevant question for investors becomes whether that dovish surprise can be repeated. With the Fed signaling an essentially flat path for interest rates, a dovish surprise from these levels would involve the suggestion of rate cuts. History tells us that rate cuts are only likely to occur if the economy is headed into recession, an event that still seems relatively far off. As such, we expect that the next surprise from the Fed will be a hawkish one, and that the next large move in Treasury yields will be higher. Our conviction that the economy is not yet close to recession comes from our analysis of economic markers that have reliably signaled peak interest rates in past cycles.1 For example, one such marker is when year-over-year nominal GDP growth falls below the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 2). At present, year-over-year nominal GDP growth is running at 5.3%. That growth rate is bound to slow during the next few quarters, but it would need to slow a lot before it falls below the current 10-year Treasury yield of 2.40%. Chart 2GDP Growth Suggests That Monetary Policy Remains Accommodative The New York Fed’s GDP Nowcast projects that real GDP growth will be 1.29% in the first quarter. Incorporating 2% inflation, that is roughly 3.3% in nominal terms. If Q1 turns out to be the trough in growth for the year, it suggests that interest rates still have considerable room to rise before the economic recovery ends. Second, we have observed that peak interest rates tend to coincide with material declines in the 12-month moving averages of single-family housing starts and new home sales. While the housing data weakened somewhat in 2018, the data have rebounded sharply since mortgage rates fell near the end of last year. Housing starts have already jumped back above their 12-month moving average, as has the weekly Mortgage Application Purchase index (Chart 3). Chart 3Housing & Employment Support Higher Rates Finally, we have noted that peak interest rates tend to coincide with an uptrend in initial jobless claims. Much like with housing, the initial claims data sent a warning near the end of last year. But that tentative increase in claims has already reversed course (Chart 3, bottom panel). None of those historically reliable indicators suggest that we have reached peak interest rates for the cycle.  We will continue to keep a close eye on nominal GDP growth, the housing data and initial jobless claims. But all in all, none of those historically reliable indicators suggest that we have reached peak interest rates for the cycle. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that further Fed rate hikes are likely at some point and that the next surprise from the Federal Reserve will probably be a hawkish one. Given this skewed risk/reward trade-off, we recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios on the view that the next large move in Treasury yields will be higher. The difficult part is timing when that move will occur. In the remainder of this report we provide some thoughts on how to think about that timing, and also some trade ideas that should be profitable in the meantime. The New Battleground: Inflation Expectations Vs. Financial Conditions Recent remarks from Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and other FOMC participants have made it clear that an important rationale for the Fed’s pause is a desire to re-anchor inflation expectations at a level closer to the Fed’s target. For example, here is Chairman Powell from last week’s press conference: So, if inflation expectations are below two percent, they’re always going to be pulling inflation down, and we’re going to be paddling upstream and trying to, you know, keep inflation at two percent … And here is what the Chairman said about inflation expectations in his recent congressional testimony: In our thinking, inflation expectations are now the most important driver of actual inflation. With that in mind, consider that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have been below “well anchored” levels for pretty much the entire post-crisis period, as have long-term inflation expectations from the University of Michigan Consumer survey (Chart 4). Chart 4The Fed Wants Higher Inflation Expectations The Fed has clearly made the re-anchoring of inflation expectations a priority, meaning that we should monitor TIPS breakeven inflation rates and survey measures of inflation expectations to assess when rate hikes might re-start. However, we don’t think that higher inflation expectations are absolutely necessary before the Fed resumes hiking. Consider what Fed officials were saying as recently as December: Governor Lael Brainard on December 7, 2018:2 The last several times resource utilization approached levels similar to today, signs of overheating showed up in financial-sector imbalances rather than in accelerating inflation. Chairman Powell on June 20, 2018:3 Indeed, the fact that the two most recent U.S. recessions stemmed principally from financial imbalances, not high inflation, highlights the importance of closely monitoring financial conditions.   In other words, until recently the Fed seemed more concerned with financial conditions than with inflation expectations. What changed? Quite simply, financial markets sold off and financial conditions no longer appear excessively easy (Chart 5). Chart 5The Fed Doesn’t Want An Asset Bubble The Financial Conditions component of our Fed Monitor remains “easier” than its historical average, but shows that conditions have tightened significantly since last October (Chart 5, top panel). Junk spreads have widened since last October (Chart 5, panel 2), as has the excess corporate bond risk premium after accounting for expected default risk (Chart 5, panel 3). 4 The S&P 500’s 12-month forward Price/Earnings ratio is down to 16.5, from 17 last October and a 2018 peak of 18.8 (Chart 5, bottom panel). If financial markets rally during the next few months, then it is quite possible that financial conditions will once again force the Fed’s hand. In essence, financial asset valuations appear somewhat reasonable and are not an immediate cause for concern. This means that the Fed can turn its attention toward trying to drive inflation expectations higher. However, if financial markets rally during the next few months, then it is quite possible that financial conditions will once again force the Fed’s hand. The Outlook For Financial Conditions & Global Growth The Fed’s dovish policy shift should support a rally in risk assets in the coming months, though such a rally may also require evidence of improvement in global growth. Right now that evidence is scant. March Flash PMIs for the U.S. and Eurozone both fell last week, while Japan’s stayed flat below the 50 boom/bust line. This means that the Global Manufacturing PMI’s downtrend will almost certainly continue when the final March data are released next week (Chart 6). Chart 6Global Growth Is Weak ... However, while the coincident PMI data continue to soften, we have recently noticed some green shoots in leading global growth indicators (Chart 7). Chart 7... But Leading Indicators Are Improving First, our Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) Diffusion Index has moved above 50%, meaning that a majority of countries are seeing improvement in their LEIs for the first time since early 2018 (Chart 7, top panel). Second, our China Investment Strategy service’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator – a composite of six indicators of Chinese money and credit growth – has stabilized. While a 2016-style surge in credit growth is unlikely, even a stabilization in this leading indicator will help prop up global growth in 2019 (Chart 7, panel 2). We do not think that 3-month/10-year curve inversion will last very long.  Finally, the CRB Raw Industrials index has rebounded smartly during the past few weeks, and is now threatening to break above its 200-day moving average (Chart 7, bottom panel). Investment Implications The Fed is currently waging a war on two fronts. It wants to keep interest rates low enough to send inflation expectations higher, back to levels consistent with its 2% target. But it also wants to avoid excessively easy financial conditions that could threaten the sustainability of the economic recovery. Asset prices are not extended at the moment, so the Fed can maintain an accommodative policy focused on driving inflation expectations higher. However, at some point the combination of accommodative policy and improving global growth will cause the Fed’s attention to turn back toward financial conditions. That will put rate hikes back on the table and send Treasury yields higher. Timing when that shift will occur is difficult, which is why we recommend that investors enter positive carry yield curve trades to boost returns while we await a hawkish surprise from the Fed later this year (see next section). What The Yield Curve Is Telling Us The Fed’s dovish surprise sent Treasury yields lower last week and also led to significant changes in the shape of the yield curve. In particular, investors have focused on the fact that the 10-year yield is now below the 3-month T-bill rate. That focus is not surprising, given that curve inversion has been a reliable leading indicator of recession in past cycles. We use the 2-year/10-year and 3-year/10-year slopes in our research into the phases of the cycle (Chart 8), and while both of those slopes remain positive – consistent with a “Phase 2” environment – we will keep a close eye on the 3-month/10-year slope in the coming weeks.5 Historically, inversion of the different curve segments has occurred at around the same time. Chart 8Still In Phase 2 Given that the Fed has already signaled a much more dovish policy stance and that global growth is likely to improve later this year, we do not think that 3-month/10-year curve inversion will last very long. However, if we are wrong and the 2-year/10-year and 3-year/10-year slopes are eventually pulled down into negative territory, then we may have to re-visit some of our asset allocation positions. But for now, we find the 5-year and 7-year maturities to be the most interesting points on the yield curve (Chart 9). In fact, the 5-year and 7-year yields are so low that investors can earn more yield by entering duration-matched barbells consisting of the long and short ends of the curve. For example, the 5-year Treasury note offers a lower yield than a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. Similarly, the 7-year note offers less yield than a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year note and 30-year bond (Chart 10). Chart 10Barbells Are Positive Carry Further, we have also observed that the 5-year and 7-year yields are most sensitive to changes in 12-month rate hike expectations. Chart 11 shows that when our 12-month discounter rises, the yield curve tends to steepen out to the 7-year maturity, and flatten thereafter. This means that the 5-year and 7-year yields have the most upside when rate hikes are eventually priced back into the curve. Chart 11Yield Curve Correlations Taken together, positive carry in the barbells and the sensitivity of 5-year and 7-year yields to 12-month rate expectations mean that investors should enter short positions in the 5-year or 7-year notes today, offset by long positions in duration-matched barbells (eg. the 2/10 or 2/30). These trades will earn significant capital gains when the Fed ultimately delivers a hawkish surprise, sending the 5-year and 7-year yields higher, and will also earn positive carry in the meantime, while we wait for financial conditions to ease enough to shift the Fed’s reaction function. We have also observed that the 5-year and 7-year yields are most sensitive to changes in 12-month rate hike expectations. These long barbell / short 5-year or 7-year bullet positions will only lose money if the market prices-in further rate cuts going forward. With the market already priced for 32 bps of cuts during the next 12 months, a further decline would be consistent with economic recession. This remains the least likely scenario. Bottom Line: Inversion of the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope is cause for concern, if it persists. But we expect it to reverse in the coming months as global growth recovers and the Fed remains accommodative. Eventually, after financial conditions have eased sufficiently, the Fed’s next move will be a hawkish surprise. Investors can profit from this move by entering positive carry yield curve trades: short the 5-year or 7-year bullet and go long a duration-matched barbell.   Ryan Swift,  U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Running Room,” dated January 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20181207a.htm 3  https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20180620a.htm 4 The Gilchrist and Zakrajsek (GZ) Excess Bond Premium is a measure of the excess spread available in a sample of nonfinancial corporate bonds, after removing a bottom-up estimate of expected default losses for each security. Default losses are estimated based on the Merton Default model, using each firm’s market value of equity and face value of debt. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2016/files/… 5 Our research into the different phases of the cycle based on the slope of the yield curve can be found in U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income,” dated December 18, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Dovish Central Banks: Central bankers have successfully talked down bond yields, in an effort to prevent an even deeper pullback in global growth. Government bonds now look overvalued relative to likely outcomes on growth and inflation over the next year. A moderate below-benchmark medium-term duration exposure is warranted on a risk/reward basis, as the next large yield move from current levels is more likely up than down. U.S. Treasuries: The Fed is now signaling no more rate hikes for the rest of 2019, but this newly dovish language merely brings their own interest rate forecasts closer to current market pricing. Lower bond yields and easier financial conditions will help underwrite a recovery in U.S. growth, just as a stabilization of the global economy is starting to materialize. The current downturn in Treasury yields, which is looking technically stretched, should soon begin to bottom out. Feature Another Panic Hits Global Bond Markets The message from central banks to the financial markets is now very loud and clear – global monetary policy is firmly on hold for at least the rest of 2019. Fears over slowing global growth, persistent geopolitical uncertainty and underwhelming inflation have put policymakers on a more cautious footing. The messaging from central banks has become highly synchronized, with even the same buzz words (“patience”, “uncertainty”, “data dependent”) being bandied about in speeches and policy statements. Bond yields have responded to the dovish forward guidance in recent weeks from the Fed, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and others. Our “Major Countries” measure of 10-year government bond yields in the largest developed economies has fallen to 1.3%, the lowest level since May 2017. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield now sits at 2.40%, below the fed funds rate and triggering investor angst over the traditionally negative economic message of an inverted yield curve. Global equity markets, however, seem less concerned. The MSCI World Equity Index is only 5% from the 2018 highs after rallying 16% so far from the late 2018 low. This gap between robust equity prices and depressed bond yields is unusual, but not unprecedented. Similar divergences have occurred as recently as 2016 and 2017 (Chart of the Week). During those episodes, central banks responded to uncertainty (the July 2016 Brexit vote followed by currency volatility in China) or sluggish inflation readings (the unexpected 2017 dip in U.S. core inflation) by shifting to an easier monetary stance. This was largely done through delayed interest rate hikes or more dovish forward guidance, with the result being lower bond yields, diminished market volatility and easier financial conditions. Better global growth and more stable inflation expectations soon followed. Chart of the WeekWill Bonds Lose This Battle Once Again? With tentative signs emerging that global growth momentum is bottoming out, the next major move in global bond yields is likely up. Those prior gaps between low bond yields and high stock prices were eventually resolved through higher yields – an outcome that we think will be repeated in the current episode. Already, bond markets have aggressively repriced expectations of future monetary policy with even some rate cuts now discounted in the U.S., Canada and Australia. With tentative signs emerging that global growth momentum will soon bottom out and recover in the latter half of 2019 (Chart 2), the next major move in global bond yields is likely up, not down. Chart 2Global Bond Yields Are Too Pessimistically Priced The decline in yields over the past few months has obviously challenged our recommended strategic below-benchmark global duration stance. The two primary factors that drive our medium-term duration calls on any country can be summed up by the following questions: Do we expect greater or fewer rate hikes than are discounted in money market curves? Do we expect bond yields to rise above or below the current pricing in forward yield curves? In aggregate, we do not expect the major central banks to deliver more monetary easing than is currently priced according to our 12-month discounters, although we think that is most likely in the U.S. where the market is pricing in -21bps of cuts over the next year. Also, the 12-month-ahead forwards for 10-year bond yields in the U.S. (2.51%), Canada (1.69%), Germany (0.13%), Japan (0.02%), U.K. (1.16%) and Australia (1.82%) are not particularly high. Although, once again, we have the greatest confidence that those yield levels will be surpassed in the U.S. The timetable to generate a positive payoff by positioning for higher yields has been stretched out by the renewed dovishness of central banks. By switching their focus from tight labor markets and accelerating wage growth to slowing economies and softening inflation expectations, policymakers are creating a backdrop of lower volatility and more market-friendly stock/bond correlations (Chart 3). Chart 3Stock/Bond Yield Correlation Negative Once Again The goal is to underwrite additional rallies in risk assets to ease financial conditions and stimulate economic activity. This will eventually sow the seeds for a return to a more hawkish bias, but the timing of that switch is uncertain and will most likely coincide with some evidence of faster Chinese economic growth and an end to the downturn in global trade activity – an outcome that is unlikely to occur until the latter half of 2019. Bottom Line: Central bankers have successfully talked down bond yields, in an effort to prevent an even deeper pullback in global growth. Government bonds now look overvalued relative to likely outcomes on growth and inflation over the next year. A moderate below-benchmark medium-term duration exposure is warranted on a risk/reward basis, as the next large yield move from current levels is more likely up than down. The Fed’s more dovish forward guidance only brought the Fed’s rate forecasts down closer to current market pricing. U.S. Treasury Yields Should Soon Bottom Out U.S. Treasury yields moved sharply lower following last week’s Fed meeting, as the FOMC delivered a dovish surprise with its new set of interest rate projections. As of last December, 11 out of 17 Fed members expected to lift rates at least twice in 2019. Now, 11 out of 17 expect to keep rates flat. This was enough to lower the median “dot” by 50bps for 2019, essentially forecasting an unchanged funds rate this year with only one hike expected in 2020. While these are significant dovish changes to the Fed’s forward guidance, it only brought the Fed’s forecasts down to current market pricing on interest rate expectations (Chart 4). Yet bond yields fell sharply in response, tipping the Treasury curve into inversion. The cautious language from Fed Chairman Powell in the post-meeting press conference, which included a reference to Japan-style deflation risks as a threat if the Fed ignored the message from below-target U.S. inflation expectations, likely helped fuel the bullishness of Treasury market participants. Chart 4Fed Is Just Catching Up To Market Pricing It seems clear that the arguments of the more dovish members of the FOMC (John Williams, Richard Clarida, James Bullard, Neil Kashkari) have won over the more pragmatic members of the committee, including Jay Powell. Yet our own Fed Monitor is still not suggesting that rate cuts are necessary (Chart 5), although the growth component of the Monitor is tracking the last downturn seen in 2014/15. More importantly, the inflation elements of the Monitor are not pointing to a need for easier policy, while financial conditions are still in the “tighter money required” zone. Chart 5Markets Pricing In Fed Easing That Is Not Required The Fed is likely to ignore the risks to financial stability stemming from the new dovish slant to its monetary policy, as financial conditions have not yet fully unwound the tightening seen in the risk asset selloff in late 2018. Does that mean that the Fed wants to see U.S. equities hit new highs and U.S. corporate credit spreads return to previous lows? If that means a deeper U.S. economic slowdown can be avoided, the answer is most likely “yes”. They can always return to targeting overvalued asset markets if and when the U.S. and global economy is on more stable footing. In terms of the U.S. economic outlook, we think the current concerns over the recession risks stemming from an inverted Treasury curve are overstated. In a Special Report we published last July, we looked at the relationship between monetary policy, yield curves and economic growth and came to the following conclusions:1 Curve inversion, on a sustained basis, occurs when the Fed lifts the real (inflation-adjusted) funds rate above the neutral rate of interest, “r-star” (Chart 6); Chart 6Too Soon For Sustained U.S. Treasury Curve Inversion Once the Treasury yield curve does invert on a sustained basis, a recession starts seventeen months later, on average; Curve inversion, on a sustained basis, occurs when the Fed lifts the real funds rate above the neutral rate of interest, “r-star” At the moment, the Fed has paused its rate hiking cycle with a real funds rate that is just shy of the Williams-Laubach estimate of r-star, which is 0.5%. Considering that the “Williams” in “Williams-Laubach” is the current president of the New York Fed and Number Two on the FOMC, we should not be surprised that the Fed chose to pause now! The more important point is that it seems too early to look for a classic late-cycle Treasury curve inversion with the Fed on hold – unless, of course, U.S. inflation falls and pushes the real fed funds rate above r-star. That would require a much sharper slowing of U.S. growth to a below-potential pace that is not indicated by current data. Reliable cyclical indicators like the ISM Manufacturing index have fallen from the heady 2018 peaks, but remain at levels consistent at least trend U.S. economic growth (Chart 7). Additionally, the Conference Board’s leading economic indicator, as well as our own models for U.S. employment and capital spending growth, are suggesting that only some cooling of U.S. growth should be expected in the next few quarters (Chart 8), but not to a below-potential pace (i.e. significantly less than 2%). Chart 7UST Yields Should Soon Stabilize Chart 8A Big U.S. Slowdown In 2019 Is Unlikely So how much lower can Treasury yields go in this current rally? Looking at the individual valuation components of yields, the answer is “not much”. The real component of Treasury yields has already fallen sharply since the 2018 peak, and is now approaching 2017 resistance levels. At the same time, 10-year inflation expectations are drifting higher and are now around 25bps below the highs seen in 2018 (Chart 9). At best, we can see real yields and inflation expectations fully offsetting each other and keeping yields unchanged. The more likely outcome, however, is that inflation expectations continue to move higher while real yields stabilize as the U.S. economy moves away from the Q1 growth slowdown, meaning that we are close to the floor in yields now. Chart 9Inflation Expectations Will Lead UST Yields Higher How much lower can Treasury yields go in this current rally? Looking at the individual valuation components of yields, the answer is “not much”. The current downturn in Treasury yields is already looking stretched from a technical perspective (Chart 10). The 26-week total return of the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Treasury index is now approaching the highs seen during all previous Treasury rallies since the Fed ended its QE program in 2014. The same signal comes from the size of the deviation of the 10-year Treasury yield below its 200-day moving average. Duration positioning is quite long, as well, according to the J.P. Morgan client survey. Chart 10UST Rally Looking Stretched In The Near-Term Not all the technical indicators are as stretched, as the Market Vane Treasury sentiment survey remains depressed and net speculative positioning on 10-year Treasury futures is only neutral (after a very large short position was covered). On balance, however, the indicators suggest that the current Treasury rally is looking over-extended. One other factor to consider is global growth. Much of the current decline in Treasury yields is a result of the prolonged weakness in non-U.S. growth that has pulled down all global bond yields. Yet according to the latest readings from cyclical indicators like the ZEW survey, expectations of future economic growth are now bottoming out, even as current growth continues to slow (Chart 11). This bodes well for a potential bottoming of global growth momentum that could put a floor underneath bond yields. Chart 11Early Signs Of Growth Stabilization? One final note – any signs of stabilization of European growth could also help global bond yields find a floor. Not only are the ZEW surveys in Europe starting to bottom out, the widely-followed German IFO survey is also starting to show modest improvement. If these trends continue, that would help end the drag on global yields from weakening European growth which has pulled German Bunds back to the 0% level (Chart 12). Chart 12Bunds & JGBs Have Been A Drag On Global Yields Any signs of stabilization in European growth could also help global bond yields find a floor. Bottom Line: The Fed is now signaling no more rate hikes for the rest of 2019, but this newly dovish language merely brings their own interest rate forecasts closer to current market pricing. Lower bond yields and easier financial conditions will help underwrite a recovery in U.S. growth, just as a stabilization of the global economy is starting to materialize. The current downturn in Treasury yields, which is looking technically stretched, should soon begin to bottom out. Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy/U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Three Frequently Asked Questions About Global Yield Curves”, dated July 31st, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com and usbs.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Corporate sector selling price inflation is nil while leading wage inflation indicators signal additional labor cost increases in the coming months. The risk is that profit margins have already peaked for the cycle. We reiterate our tactically cautious overall equity market view. Galloping higher private and public sector software outlays, a structurally enticing software demand backdrop and ongoing industry M&A all signal that it still pays to be bullish software stocks Recent Changes Last Thursday we downgraded the S&P railroads index to underweight. Also last Thursday we trimmed the S&P air freight & logistics index to neutral. Table 1 Feature The SPX stalled last week, digesting the now-complete Fed pivot. Our sense is that the Fed’s dovish turn is now fully reflected in equities. Importantly, the longer and wider the dichotomy between stocks and bonds gets, the more painful the ramifications from the eventual snap will be, likely with equities yielding to the bond market (Chart 1). As we first posited on March 4, short-term equity market caution is still warranted.1 Chart 1Time To Get Back Together While the Fed meeting and sharp decline in Treasury yields dominated headlines last week, it was the NFIB’s latest release that really caught our attention. Importantly, it revealed that taxes and big government are no longer the biggest problems facing small and medium business owners, but labor is: “Twenty-two percent of owners cited the difficulty of finding qualified workers as their Single Most Important Business Problem, only 3 points below the record high. Ten percent of owners find labor costs as their biggest problem, a record high for the 45-year survey.”2 Historically, such extreme tightness in the SME labor market is a precursor of a yield curve inversion (NFIB cost of labor shown inverted, Chart 2). The link is clearer if we show this same NFIB series with the Labor Department’s average hourly earnings monthly release that is currently running at a 3.4%/annum clip (Chart 3). In other words, a tight labor market is conducive to corporations bidding up the price of labor which in turn causes the Fed to raise interest rates, eventually inverting the yield curve. Chart 2Cycle Is Long In The Tooth Chart 3Wage Growth... This macro backdrop is slightly unnerving and our biggest concern is the S&P 500’s profit margins (Chart 4). Q3/2018 marked the all-time peak in SPX quarterly margins according to Standard & Poor’s,3 and in Q4/2018 margins have deflated from a high mark of 12.13% to 10.11%, or a 16.7% q/q drop. Chart 4...Denting Margins Undoubtedly, last year’s fiscal easing-induced all-time highs in SPX margins is unsustainable, and a tight labor market is a warning shot. Using the same NFIB series on cost of labor being the most important problem SMEs face and subtracting it from our corporate pricing power proxy, we constructed an equity market margin proxy, shown as a Z-score in Chart 5. Historically, the y/y change in SPX profit margins move in lockstep with our margin proxy and the current message is grim (Chart 5). Chart 5Margin Trouble Ahead Before getting too bearish though, we want to make three salient points: First, while the NFIB survey’s labor related indicators are disconcerting, unit labor costs – the best measure of wage growth – remain muted as productivity growth has ramped up recently. Second, using empirical evidence dating back to the 1960s, the ultimate SPX profit margin mean reversion occurs during recessions, when EPS suffer a major setback. The implication is that margins can move sideways or grind lower in the coming year. As a reminder, BCA’s review remains that the U.S. will avoid recession in the next 12 months. Third, the most important yield curve slope, the 10/2, has not yet inverted, and even when it does invert, investors will have time to start positioning defensively; we have shown in recent research that the S&P peaks after the yield curve inverts.4 On a related note, we use this opportunity to update our corporate pricing power proxy, and Table 2 summarizes the sectorial results. Table 2Industry Group Pricing Power Corporate sector selling price inflation has ground to a halt at a time when wage inflation is rearing its ugly head. Worrisomely, our pricing power diffusion index’s breadth sunk below the 50% line, whereas our wage growth diffusion index spiked higher; 70% of the 44 industries we track are struggling with rising wages (second & third panels, Chart 6). Taken together, there is evidence that broad-based profit margin pressures are escalating, the mirror image of what our gauges were signaling in our last update late-last year.5 Chart 6Margins Have Likely Peaked Digging beneath the surface of our corporate pricing power proxy is revealing. As a reminder, we calculate industry group pricing power from the relevant CPI, PPI, PCE and commodity growth rates for each of the 60 industry groups we track. Table 2 also highlights shorter term pricing power trends and each industry's spread to overall inflation. 57% of the industries we cover are lifting selling prices, but only 27% are raising prices at a faster clip than overall inflation. Both figures are lower than our early-November report. Outright deflating sectors increased by eight to twenty four since our last update, fifteen of which are deflating at 1%/annum pace or lower. One third of the industries we cover are experiencing a downtrend in selling price inflation, representing a 43% increase since our most recent report (Table 2). Deep cyclicals/commodity-related industries (ex-oil) continue to dominate the top ranks, occupying the top six slots (Table 2). Despite the ongoing global manufacturing deceleration and still unresolved U.S./China trade tussle, the commodity complex's ability to increase prices remains resilient. On the flip side, energy-related industries occupy the bottom of the ranks as WTI crude oil is still 22% lower than the most recent peak in October 2018. In sum, business sector selling price inflation is nil while leading wage inflation indicators signal additional labor cost increases in the coming months. The risk is that profit margins have already peaked for the cycle. We reiterate our tactically cautious overall equity market view. This week we update a high-conviction overweight tech subgroup and recap our transportation subsurface moves from last Thursday. Buy The Software Breakout Software stocks are on fire and leading profit indicators suggest that more gains are in store in the coming months. Last week, we published a table ranking all the sectors and subsectors by 12-month forward profit growth estimates (please refer to Table 2 from the March 18 Weekly Report). While the broad tech sector is on an even keel with the SPX, software EPS are racing at twice the speed of the broad market, roughly 14%. Keep in mind, when growth gets scarce, investors flock to industries with accelerating profit prospects. The software profit juggernaut is intact and we reiterate our high-conviction overweight recommendation. Sustained capital outlays on software are a key driver of industry profits (bottom panel, Chart 7). In an otherwise muted Q4 GDP release, rising non-residential fixed investment in general and surging investment in software in particular suggest that our bullish software capex thesis is alive and kicking (middle panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Software On A Tear The move to cloud computing and SaaS, the proliferation of AI, machine learning and augmented reality are not fads but enjoy a secular growth profile, and signal that capital outlays on software are also in a structural uptrend. Not only private sector software capex is near all-time highs as a share of total outlays, but also government investment in software is reaccelerating at the fastest pace since the tech bubble. When productivity gains are anemic, both the business and government sectors resort to software upgrades in order to boost productivity. Cyber security is another more recent source of software related demand as governments are taking such risks extremely seriously the world over (second panel, Chart 8). Chart 8Earnings Led Advance Meanwhile, fear of missing out has rekindled industry M&A and both the dollar amount and number of deals are sky high, with acquirers bidding up premia to the stratosphere (Chart 9). This supply reduction is bullish for industry pricing power. Chart 9M&A Frenzy Granted the M&A frenzy has pushed relative valuations on the expensive side especially on a forward P/E basis, but on EV/EBITDA software stocks are trading below the historical mean and still significantly lower than the late-1990s peak valuation (bottom panel, Chart 8). If our bullish software profit thesis continues to pan out, then software stocks will grow into their pricey valuations. Finally, shareholder friendly activities are ongoing in this key tech subsector and buybacks in particular provide an added layer of artificial EPS growth (bottom panel, Chart 9). Adding it up, galloping higher private and public sector software outlays, a structurally enticing software demand backdrop and ongoing industry M&A, all signal that it still pays to be bullish software stocks. Bottom Line: Buy the software breakout. The S&P software index remains a high-conviction overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT – MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, INTU, ADSK, RHT, CDNS, SNPS, ANSS, SYMC, CTXS, FTNT. Tweaking Transport Subgroup Positioning The S&P transports index’s recovery rally has stalled recently and is a cause for concern for the overall market. In more detail, the recent gulf between relative share prices and the SPX has widened and warns that the overall market is at a risk of suffering a pullback (Chart 10). Chart 10Engine Trouble Thus on Thursday last week, we made two subsurface transport changes, downgrading a subgroup to underweight that commands lofty valuations at a time when leading profit indicators are flashing red, and also downgrading to neutral a globally exposed transport sub-index. Get Off The Rails In our downgrade of the S&P railroads index late last year to a benchmark allocation, we highlighted that two of our key industry Indicators, the Railroad Indicator and our Rail Shipment Diffusion Indicator, had turned negative.6 These indicators have continued to deteriorate, including total rail shipments which have now started to contract for the first time since the 2015-16 manufacturing recession (third panel, Chart 11). Intermodal shipments in particular have nosedived, likely a result of weak retail sales, as we highlighted earlier this month.7 Chart 11Downgrade Rails To... This contraction would be far less concerning were it not for the rapid degradation of industry balance sheets as firms have sought to increase relatively cheap leverage in order to retire equity. Railroads are now significantly more indebted than the broad market which itself has not shown an aversion to adding leverage (bottom panel, Chart 11). Such a change in railroad capital structure has kept EPS growth rates artificially high while simultaneously adding an extra measure of equity risk premium that does not yet appear fully reflected in relative share prices. Moreover, when we downgraded the S&P railroads index to neutral last year, deteriorating Indicators were offset by exceptionally healthy pricing power.8 After a multi-year expansion, selling price inflation has now rolled over (second panel, Chart 12), taking away the remaining pillar supporting a neutral view which compelled us to move to an underweight allocation last week. Chart 12...Underweight Pricing power is one of the key determinants in our earnings model that, when combined with the previously noted contracting volumes, is indicating the end to the industry’s above-trend earnings growth is nigh (third panel, Chart 12). With relative earnings growth slowing and rising leverage adding incremental risk, the S&P railroads index’s premium valuation multiple looks increasingly dicey (bottom panel, Chart 12). Bottom Line: Broad based declines in traffic volumes, falling pricing power and high leverage suggest that earnings will underwhelm. Accordingly, last Thursday we moved to an underweight recommendation on the S&P railroads index as we expect a de-rating phase to materialize. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5RAIL - UNP, CSX, NSC, KSU. Air Freight Had Its Wings Clipped We have been offside on the high-conviction overweight call on the S&P air freight & logistics index and the recent FedEx warning suggests that profits will come under pressure for this index for the rest of the year and will trail the SPX. As such, we trimmed exposure to neutral late-last week and removed it from the high-conviction overweight list for a loss of 14%. Chart 13 shows that all the profit drivers we had identified in early December last year have taken a sharp turn for the worse. Energy costs are no longer in deflation as oil prices have jumped from $42/bbl to near $60/bbl. Not only is global growth still decelerating, but also U.S. growth is in a softpatch: the manufacturing shipments-to-inventory ratio is on the verge of contraction, warning that delivery services’ selling prices are in for a turbulent ride (second panel, Chart 13). In addition, definitive news of Amazon becoming a formidable competitor in courier delivery services is structurally negative for the industry. Chart 13Air Freight: Move To The Sidelines Nevertheless, we refrain from turning outright bearish as air freight stocks are technically oversold and valuations are trading at the steepest discount to the broad market since mid-2002. Bottom Line: Last Thursday we downgraded the S&P air freight & logistics index to neutral and also removed it from the high-conviction overweight list. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRF - UPS, FDX, CHRW, EXPD.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Good, The Bad And The Ugly” dated March 4, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2https://www.nfib.com/assets/jobs0219hwwd.pdf 3https://ca.spindices.com/documents/additional-material/sp-500-eps-est.xlsx?force_download=true 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Signal Vs. Noise” dated December 17, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Recuperating” dated November 5, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Critical Reset“, dated October 29, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Good, The Bad And The Ugly“, dated March 4, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Critical Reset“, dated October 29, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights Analysis on Turkey is published below. The key reason why we believe the ongoing EM rally will falter is that EM corporate earnings have begun to contract. When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates typically do not prevent share prices from selling off. The recent pick-up in China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse suggests the bottom in EM corporate profit growth will only occur toward the end of 2019. There are several key differences between the economic backdrops and financial markets signposts between now and 2016. The current profiles of both EM and DM share prices are a close match to those in 2011-2012 when the strong rally in the first quarter was followed by a major selloff in the second quarter. Feature The common narrative in the market is that the current policy backdrop – a pause by the Fed and policy stimulus from China – is a repeat of early 2016. As such, market participants expect moves in global risk assets to be analogous to those during that period. We too could easily adopt this simple narrative, and recommend investors to chase EM higher. Instead, we have chosen to take on the very difficult task of expounding why 2019 is not a repeat of 2016 in EM and China-related financial markets. Based on this, our view remains that investors should not be chasing the current EM rally. The essential pillar of our negative thesis on EM is that their corporate profits will contract this year. This will be bad news not only for EM share prices but also for EM credit markets and currencies. Chart I-1 illustrates that during the past 10 years, EM stock prices plunged every time profit contraction commenced. Having rallied meaningfully in the past three months, EM financial markets will sell off as EM corporate earnings begin to shrink. Chart I-1EM EPS Is Beginning To Contract The basis for EM profit contraction is the continued slowdown in China. Chart I-2 illustrates that China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse leads EM EPS growth by about 12 months. Hence, the recent pick-up in the former entails the bottom in the latter only toward the end of 2019. Chart I-2EM EPS Growth Will Bottom Only Toward The End Of 2019 In brief, even assuming China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse has bottomed and will improve going forward, EM EPS contraction will deepen for now. EM share prices are unlikely to embark on a cyclical bull market until EM EPS growth bottoms. Earnings Versus Interest Rates Lower interest rates are typically bullish for both equity and credit markets so long as corporate profits do not contract. However, when EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates usually do not prevent share prices from selling off. In general, when discussing the effect of interest rates on equities, one should differentiate between economic and financial linkages. Given the cornerstone narrative of this EM rally has been declining U.S. interest rate expectations, we examine the nexus between EM risk assets and U.S. interest rates. The economic link refers to the impact of borrowing costs on aggregate spending, and hence corporate profits. The pertinent question is as follows: Was the Fed tightening responsible for the growth deceleration in EM/China in 2018? The short answer is not really. Chart I-3 illustrates that as of the end of February, while Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese and Singaporean exports to the U.S. expanded by 10% from a year ago, their shipments to China contracted by 10%. Chart I-3Global Trade Slowed Due To China Not The U.S Hence, the slowdown in EM corporate profits has not been caused by Fed policy. U.S. domestic demand in general and imports in particular have so far been expanding at a healthy pace and they have not been instrumental to EM corporate earnings cycles (Chart I-4). This signifies that lower U.S. interest rates should not have a material impact on EM growth, and thereby corporate profits. Chart I-4EM EPS Growth Has Not Been Driven By Sales To U.S. Notably, one can argue that the economic and financial market dynamics that prevailed in 2018 worked in the opposite direction: It was China’s slowdown that ultimately imperiled U.S. manufacturing growth, causing U.S. equity and credit markets to sell off, thereby forcing a reversal in the Fed’s stance. The financial link refers to a declining discount rate for EM risk assets as U.S. interest rates drop. A drop in the discount rate lifts the present value of future cash flows and boosts risk asset prices. However, EM equity multiples have not been historically negatively correlated with U.S. bond yields, as shown on the top panel of Chart I-5. Besides, EM credit spreads do not always positively correlate with U.S. borrowing costs, as widely expected (Chart I-5, middle panel). Chart I-5U.S. Bond Yields And EM: No Stable Relationship Further, EM currencies have not been negatively correlated with either U.S. bond yields or with the interest rate differential between the U.S. and EM (Chart I-5, bottom panel). As to EM local bond yields, especially in high-yielding markets, it is EM exchange rates that drive EM domestic bond yields and their differential over U.S. Treasurys. When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates usually do not prevent share prices from selling off. Finally, Chart I-6 illustrates the relationship between the returns on EM assets on one hand and U.S. bond yields on the other. This chart corroborates the evidence from Chart I-5 – that the relationship between U.S. interest rates and EM asset markets is not stable. Chart I-6U.S. Bond Yields And EM Risk Assets: No Stable Relationship Even though in the short term financial markets in developing countries seem to react to changes in U.S. interest rates, in the medium and long run there is no stable relationship between EM risk assets and U.S. Treasury yields. In short, lower U.S. interest rate expectations is not a sufficient condition to be positive on EM risk assets. How do we explain the absence of a strong relationship between these financial and economic variables? Our take is as follows: When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates typically do not prevent share prices and credit markets from selling off. That is why there is no clear and strong relationship between EM risk assets and U.S. interest rates. Was the Fed tightening responsible for the growth deceleration in EM/China in 2018? The short answer is not really. Corporate earnings are the key to sustaining this EM rally. What is needed for EM corporate profits to recover is a revival in Chinese demand. The latter is not yet imminent, implying that EM assets will likely hit an air pocket before a more durable bottom occurs. Are lower interest rates in China a justification for the latest EM equity rebound? Chart I-7 demonstrates that both EM and Chinese investable stock indexes positively correlate with interest rates in China. The reason is because all of them are driven by Chinese growth: When growth accelerates, these share prices and Chinese local bond yields rise, and vice versa. Chart I-7Chinese Interest Rates And EM / China Share Prices: Positive Correlation Bottom Line: Lower interest rates in the U.S. or in China in and of themselves do not constitute sufficient conditions for a cyclical rally in EM share prices. The primary driver of EM share prices in the past 10 years has been Chinese growth, because the latter has a considerable bearing on EM corporate profits. For now, there have been no substantive signs of a growth revival in China. How 2019 Is Different From 2016 We elaborated in detail on how the current round of policy stimulus in China differs from the one in 2015-‘16 in our report titled, Dissecting China’s Stimulus, and will not discuss it here. Instead, we offer several economic and financial signposts illustrating how the EM/China outlook and financial market dynamics in 2019 will differ from those of 2016: Presently, there is no meaningful policy stimulus for the real estate market in China, and property sales will continue to shrink (Chart I-8). This is the opposite of what occurred in 2015-‘16 when the Chinese central bank literally monetized excessive housing inventories by financing residential real estate via its Pledged Supplementary Lending (PSL) facility. The ensuing surge in property demand substantially contributed to the business cycle recovery on the mainland in 2016-‘17. Chart I-8A Downbeat Outlook For Chinese Housing EM share prices have been underperforming the DM equity index since late December. In contrast, EM began outperforming DM in January 2016 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9EM Equities Have Been Underperforming DM Ones Since Late December In early 2016, the pace of EM profit contraction stabilized after 18 months of deepening shrinkage (Chart I-1 on page 1). What’s more, investor sentiment on EM was very downbeat in early 2016. Presently, the EM profit contraction is just commencing, and its rate of change will bottom only in late 2019, as per Chart I-2 on page 2. In the meantime, investors are ill prepared for bad news, as their sentiment on EM is extremely buoyant. Finally, the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar began selling off in early 2016, corroborating the EM rally. This year the broad measure of the trade-weighted dollar has not sold off. Hence, the dollar has not yet confirmed the EM rebound (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The U.S. Dollar And EM Share Prices Is 2019 Akin To 2012? In terms of share-price patterns, the current profiles of both EM and DM are a close match to those in 2011-2012 (Chart I-11). Following a major plunge in the second half of 2011, share prices bottomed in December 2011 and rallied sharply in the following three months. Not only is the duration similar to what transpired with share prices in 2011-’12, but also the magnitude (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Is 2018-19 Akin To 2011-12? As to the economic backdrop in 2011-‘12, the euro area was in the midst of a credit crisis and China/EM growth was slowing due to the preceding Chinese policy tightening. After the strong rally in January-March 2012, both EM and DM bourses sold off sharply in the second quarter of 2012, re-testing their late 2011 lows. Critically, like the present and unlike early 2016, EM stocks were underperforming DM ones during the early 2012 rally. Lower U.S. interest rate expectations is not a sufficient condition to be positive on EM risk assets. On the surface, it appears that the magic words of the European Central Bank President Mario Draghi that “…the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro” that halted the global selloff. Yet, in reality, Draghi’s speech was the trigger for – not the cause of – the markets’ reversal. In retrospect, the primary reason for a major bottom in global risk assets in June 2012 was the bottom in the global business cycle in the second half of 2012 (Chart I-12, top panel). Chart I-12Global Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed As can be seen on this panel, global equity prices are often coincident with “soft” economic data like global manufacturing PMI. Global stocks typically lead “hard” economic data and corporate profits but do not always lead “soft” data. Presently, the bottom in global manufacturing and trade is not yet in sight. The bottom panel of Chart I-12 shows that Taiwanese exports of electronics products parts are still nose-diving, and they typically lead global manufacturing PMI by a few months. These electronics parts are inputs into final goods; when producers of these goods plan to increase production they first order these parts. As a result, trade in these electronics parts lead the broader trade/manufacturing cycle. Taiwanese exports of electronics products parts are still nose-diving, and they typically lead global manufacturing PMI by a few months. On the whole, odds are that China’s business cycle as well as global trade and manufacturing have not yet hit a durable bottom and are not about to recover. Countries/industries leveraged to China will experience a meaningful profit contraction. Hence, there is a significant probability that EM stocks re-test their recent lows akin to what transpired in 2012. Investment Considerations There is no meaningful evidence indicating that China’s business cycle and global trade and manufacturing have bottomed. Global cyclical equity sectors have rebounded but have not yet decisively broken above their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-13). Crucially, their relative performance to the overall global index has been rather sluggish (Chart I-14). This corroborates the lack of global growth tailwinds behind this global equity rally. Chart I-13Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Absolute Performance Chart I-14Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Relative Performance Asset allocators should continue to underweight EM stocks and credit markets within their global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. Without an improvement in the global business cycle, the rebound in EM currencies is not durable. As China’s growth disappoints, EM currencies will depreciate versus the dollar, the euro and the yen. Renewed currency depreciation will erode returns on EM local currency bonds for international investors. For dedicated EM local bond portfolios, our recommended overweights are Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Russia, central Europe, Thailand and Korea (Chart I-15). Our underweights are South Africa, Indonesia, India and today we are downgrading Turkish local bonds to underweight (please refer to section on Turkey starting on the next page). Chart I-15Favor These Local Currency Bond Markets Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkey: Brewing Policy Reversal? The odds of a policy reversal in Turkey are rising. The government’s patience with tight monetary policy may be running thin. The nation’s GDP contracted by 3% in the final quarter of 2018 from a year ago. Further contraction is in the cards. Chart II-1 signifies that monetary policy is indeed tight: Lira-denominated bank loan growth is at zero, and in real (inflation-adjusted) terms bank lending has shrunk by about 18% from a year ago. The ongoing painful economic retrenchment (Chart II-2) and rising unemployment may lead the authorities to loosen monetary policy/liquidity conditions via “backdoor” liquidity easing – something the Turkish central bank has done often over the current decade. Specifically, the central bank’s liquidity provisions to the banking system will likely begin to rise (Chart II-3). The severe liquidity tightening, underway since October 2018 via reduced lending to banks, has been partially responsible for the stability in the exchange rate. As the central bank augments liquidity provisions to the banking system, the lira will again come under renewed selling pressure. Rising unemployment may lead the authorities to loosen monetary policy/liquidity conditions via “backdoor” liquidity easing. The goal of liquidity provisioning would be to bring down interbank rates and, ultimately, lending rates. Presently, the spread between commercial banks’ lending rates and the interbank rate is negative (Chart II-4, top panel). This is unsustainable. The authorities have forced banks to bring down their lending rates in recent months. As a result, the gap between banks’ lending and deposit rates has also narrowed considerably (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This will weigh on the banks’ profitability. Consequently, we are closing our tactical long Turkish banks / short EM banks trade. The government cannot force banks to reduce their lending rates further without reducing their cost of funding. Hence, the central bank might opt to inject excess reserves into the system to bring down interbank rates. Thereafter, the authorities could “guide” banks to further lower their lending rates. Policy easing might not be in the form of outright policy rate cuts to avoid a negative reaction from financial markets. Instead, the central bank could push down inter-bank rates by way of obscure liquidity injections into the banking system. To be sure, the odds of the currency reacting poorly to such loosening of liquidity are non-trivial. This, along with the ongoing recession, the shrinking bank net interest margins and the slow pace of bank loan restructuring, are leading us to downgrade the Turkish bourse that is heavy in bank stocks. Investment Recommendations Downgrade Turkish stocks and local currency bonds back to underweight. We closed our short/underweight positions in the Turkish currency, bonds and equities on August 15, 2018. For details, please see the report Turkey: Booking Profits On Shorts. This has proved to be a timely move as Turkish markets have rebounded notably and outperformed their EM peers (Chart II-5). In our opinion, it is now time to downgrade it again. ​​​​​​​ We are also closing our tactical long Turkish banks / short EM banks trade. This position has netted a modest 2.3% gain since its initiation on November 29, 2018. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Investors should use the following dynamic for tactical asset allocation: 1. Sum the 10-year yields on the T-bond, German bund, and JGB. 2. When the sum is near 4 percent, it is prudent to de-risk portfolios and sit aside, at least for a while. It is a good level to buy a mixed portfolio of high-quality 10-year government bonds. 3. Just below this level, a sum in the 3-4 percent range defines a kind of ‘no man’s land’ in which equities drift sideways. 4. When the sum is near 3 percent, the seemingly rich valuations of equities versus bonds is fully justified. And it is appropriate to redeploy tactically from bonds to equities (Chart of the Week). 5. Use the 65-day fractal dimension to pinpoint the precise transition points between asset-classes: as for example, successfully achieved for the DAX versus German bunds. Right now, with the sum near 3 percent, it is still appropriate to be overweight equities versus bonds, and our preferred expression is overweight the DAX versus the German long bund. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Rule Of 4 Becomes The Rule Of 3 The global long bond yield recently hit a two-year low (Chart I-2). This is the direct result of central banks’ pivot to dovish – a commitment to keep policy rates at current levels, rather than to hike, for the foreseeable future. Chart I-2The Global Long Bond Yield Recently Hit A Two-Year Low One consequence is that high-quality bonds have become riskier. Consider a German bund or a JGB which is yielding zero percent. The short-term potential for capital appreciation – nominal or real – has almost vanished, while the potential for vicious losses has increased dramatically. The technical term for this negative asymmetry is negative skew. Years of research in a field of behavioural economics called Prospect Theory concludes that negative skew is the metric that best encapsulates investment risk. The Correct Way Of Thinking About Investment Risk A great misunderstanding of finance is to equate risk with volatility. Risky assets, such as equities, are risky not because they are volatile in the conventional sense. After all, who minds when their asset price goes up sharply? Risky assets are risky because they have the propensity to experience much larger short-term losses than short-term gains – captured in the saying: equities climb up the stairs on the way up, but they jump out of the window on the way down. High-quality bonds have become riskier. Another great misunderstanding of finance is the idea that bonds offer a diversification benefit and, therefore, that investors should accept a lower return from them. This argument is also flawed. The bond market is bigger than the equity market, and just as bonds are a diversifier for equity investments, equities are a diversifier for bond investments. Indeed, equities have protected bond investors during vicious sell-offs in the bond market such as after Trump’s shock victory in 2016. So we could equally argue that equities offer a diversification benefit. In fact, the correct way of thinking about investment risk is as follows: An investment’s risk depends on the negative asymmetry of its short-term returns. At very low bond yields, bond returns develop the same negative asymmetry as equity returns (Chart I-3). This means that equities lose their excess riskiness versus bonds, requiring equity valuations to experience a phase transition sharply higher (Chart I-4). But when bond yields normalize, equities regain their excess riskiness versus bonds – and their valuations must suffer a phase transition sharply lower. The phase transition in equity valuations is most pronounced when the global 10-year bond yield goes up or down through 2 percent (Chart I-5). This dynamic proved to be the biggest driver of asset allocation in 2018, and is likely to be a big driver in 2019 too. Essentially, higher bond yields can suddenly and viciously undermine the valuation support of equities, triggering a plunge in the stock market and other risk-assets which threatens a disinflationary impulse. The unsurprising response from central banks is to pivot back to dovish, pulling back bond yields to previous lows. These lower bond yields then push up equity (and other risk-asset) valuations back to previous highs. An investment’s risk depends on the negative asymmetry of its short-term returns. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or decline further. But the longer-term danger is that these rich valuations are hyper-sensitive to rising bond yields. The Bubble In Everything The current episode of elevated risk-asset valuations is not unprecedented, but there is a crucial difference. Previous episodes of elevated risk-asset valuations tended to be localised, either by geography or sector: 1990 was focussed in Japan; 2000 was focussed in the dot com related sectors; 2008 was focussed in the U.S. mortgage and credit markets. Extraordinary monetary policy has boosted the valuations of all risk-assets across all geographies and all asset-classes. By comparison, the post-2008 global experiment with quantitative easing, and zero and negative interest rate policy has boosted the valuations of all risk-assets across all geographies and all asset-classes – equities (Chart I-6), credit (Chart I-7), and real estate (Chart I-8). This makes it considerably more dangerous, because we estimate that the total value of global risk-assets including real estate is $400 trillion, equal to about five times the size of the global economy.1 Chart I-6Equities Remain Richly Valued Chart I-7Credit Remains Richly Valued Chart I-8The EM Real Estate Boom Happened After 2008 Let’s say you had a risk-asset that was priced to generate 5 percent a year over the next decade. Now imagine that the valuation boost from ultra-accommodative monetary policy capitalises all of those future returns to today. For those future returns to drop to zero, today’s price must surge by 63 percent.2 If you were prudent, you might amortise today’s windfall to generate the original 5 percent a year over the next decade. But if you were imprudent, you might spend a large amount of the windfall today. The total value of global risk-assets equals five times the size of the global economy. Now let’s imagine a valuation derating moves the risk-asset’s returns back to the future. For those that had prudently amortised the original windfall, nothing has really changed and future spending patterns would not be impacted. But not everybody is prudent. For those that had imprudently spent the original windfall, future spending would inevitably suffer a nasty recession. The Rule Of 4 Becomes The Rule Of 3 How can we sense the crucial 2 percent level in the global 10-year bond yield? The answer is that it broadly equates to when the sum of the 10-year yields on the T-bond, German bund and JGB is at a 4 percent level (Chart I-9). This is the genesis of our very successful ‘Rule of 4’. In 2019, just as in 2018, investors should use the following dynamic for tactical asset allocation. The rule of 4 identifies when the global 10-year bond yield is at 2 percent. Chart I-9When The Sum Of 10-Year Yields On The T-Bond, Bund, And JGB Equals 4 Percent, The Global 10-Year Yield Equals 2 Percent  Sum the 10-year yields on the T-bond, German bund, and JGB. When the sum is near 4 percent, it is prudent to de-risk portfolios and sit aside, at least for a while. It is a good level to buy a mixed portfolio of high-quality 10-year government bonds. Just below this level, a sum in the 3-4 percent range defines a kind of ‘no man’s land’ in which equities drift sideways.  When the sum is near 3 percent, the seemingly rich valuations of equities versus bonds is fully justified. And it is appropriate to redeploy tactically from bonds to equities. Use the 65-day fractal dimension to pinpoint the precise transition points between asset-classes: as for example, successfully achieved for the DAX versus German bunds (Chart I-10). Overweight equities versus bonds. With the sum of the three 10-year yields now near 3 percent, the rule of 4 has, in a sense, become the rule of 3. It is still appropriate to be tactically overweight equities versus bonds, and our preferred expression is to overweight the DAX versus the German long bund. Chart I-10Use The 65-Day Fractal Dimension To Pinpoint The Precise Transition Points Between Asset-Classes   Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Trapped: Have Equities Trapped Bonds?”, September 13, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 5 percent compounded over ten years.