Fixed Income

Special Report

Highlights The upcoming changes to the Global Industry Classification Standard will substantially alter the sector composition of the MSCI China Investable index, by hollowing out the information technology sector (to the benefit of consumer discretionary and the new communication services sector). The new communication services sector will become a market-neutral (but barbelled) sector from the perspective of cyclicality, with high- and low-beta components. The inclusion of Alibaba in the consumer discretionary sector warrants the closure of our most successful trade over the past year: long consumer staples / short discretionary. Feature S&P Dow Jones and MSCI Inc. will be implementing major structural changes to the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS), effective after the market close on September 28, 2018. The changes are among the most significant since the GICS was launched in 1999, and there are meaningful implications for investors. In this brief special report, we summarize the key changes as they pertain to the Chinese investable equity benchmark, and provide a counterfactual simulation of historical performance had the upcoming changes been in effect over the past three years.1 For the MSCI China index, the main investable equity benchmark, the changes to the GICS structure will largely impact three sectors: information technology, consumer discretionary, and telecommunication services: The telecommunication services sector will be renamed to "communication services", and this new level 1 sector will be much broader in scope. Communication services will include companies that facilitate transformation in the way of communication, entertainment, and information seeking. In addition to the companies currently classified within telecommunication services, communication services will include media stocks formerly in the consumer discretionary sector, including advertising, broadcasting, cable & satellite, publishing, movies & entertainment sub-sectors. In addition, home entertainment software and some internet software & services companies, currently classified under the information technology sector, will also move to communication services. These include prominent stocks like Baidu, Tencent, Sina, and Sohu. The consumer discretionary sector will include online retailers, such as Alibaba, from information technology sector under its internet & direct marketing retail sub-sector. Chart 1 shows that these changes will have a very substantial impact on the sector composition of the MSCI China index. The weight of the information technology sector will drop dramatically from 37% to 3% after the GICS changes occur, because all three of the BAT stocks (Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent) will move to other sectors. The weight of consumer discretionary is set to rise from 8% to 20%, as the inclusion of Alibaba offsets the removal of media (Alibaba alone will account for 60% of the consumer discretionary sector after the GICS changes). Relative to the current weight of telecommunication services, the new communication services sector weight will be substantially higher, at 27% (versus its 5% current weight). Chart 2 provides both factual and counterfactual perspectives on what relative performance for these three sectors would have looked like since 2016, had the upcoming changes been in effect. The chart shows that the relative performance of consumer discretionary and communication services sector would have been considerably stronger, while the tech sector would have underperformed (in sharp contrast to what has actually occurred). Chart 3 provides some perspective on the cyclicality of China's new communication services sector. The telecommunication services sector is clearly a defensive sector, and has exhibited a beta less than 0.5 over the past year. However, the chart shows that communication services (had it existed), would have basically been a market-neutral sector in terms of market beta because of the offsetting impact of both including high-beta internet software & services companies and low-beta telecommunication services. In effect, the new communication services will become a barbelled sector from the perspective of cyclicality, with high- and low-beta components. Chart 1A Hollowing Out Of The Information Technology Sector Chart 2CD And Comm Services Would Have Outperformed Over The Past Three Years Chart 3Comm Services: A Market-Neutral, Barbelled Sector Finally, the beta of consumer discretionary sector would have been higher over the past two years in our counterfactual scenario, thanks to the inclusion of Alibaba. Consumer discretionary stocks have fared poorly in response to a trade war with the U.S., but the imminent inclusion of Alibaba in the discretionary sector will substantially alter the character of its future performance. As such, we have decided to close our long MSCI China Consumer Staples / short MSCI China Consumer Discretionary trade at a fantastic return of 47.6%. Qingyun Xu, Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com 1 For China, we proxy the upcoming changes to the GICS structure using a simple set of rules that aims to capture an overwhelming majority (but not all) of the upcoming changes. As such, investors should view our methodology as an approximation, rather than an exact application of the firm-by-firm changes that MSCI will make. Clients who are interested in a similar exercise for the global IMI benchmark should refer to Neeraj Dabake, Craig Feldman. (September, 2018) The New GICS Communication Services Sector. MSCI Research Paper, Retrieved from https://www.msci.com/www/research-paper/the-new-gics-communication/01107886967. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration: The housing market is the key channel through which monetary policy impacts the economy. As such, it is unlikely that Treasury yields will peak until housing shows meaningful weakness. While residential investment has decelerated in recent quarters, we expect this weakness will prove temporary and that Treasury yields have further cyclical upside. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Yield Curve: The Fed will maintain its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace for the time being, but could be forced to pause next year if weak foreign growth migrates to the U.S. via a stronger dollar. We recommend hedging this risk via a long position in the 7-year bullet versus a short position in the 1/20 barbell. Corporate Health: Strong profit growth - both organic and as a result of corporate tax cuts - has led to a significant improvement in corporate balance sheet health during the past few quarters. This improvement will not persist for much longer. We recommend only a neutral allocation to corporate bonds, both investment grade and junk. Feature This time last week the 10-year Treasury yield was bumping up against 3% and money markets were on the cusp of discounting an extra rate hike between now and the end of 2019. Both resistance levels broke during the past seven days. The 10-year yield is now 3.07% and the January 2020 fed funds futures contract is fully priced for four rate hikes (Chart 1). Chart 1Past Resistance Levels With the 10-year yield back above 3%, many investors are once again speculating about where it will ultimately peak for the cycle. Any answer to this question relies on an assumption about the neutral fed funds rate, the level of interest rates above which monetary policy turns restrictive and acts to slow economic growth and inflation. In past reports we have suggested several measures investors can track to help decide whether interest rates are close to breaking above neutral.1 In this week's report we focus on one particularly important indicator - the housing market. In his essential 2007 paper "Housing Is The Business Cycle", Edward Leamer notes that of the ten post-WWII U.S. recessions, eight were preceded by a significant slowdown in residential investment.2 Given that recessions are also typically preceded by tightening monetary policy, it is not a stretch to connect the two. In fact, there is good reason to believe that housing is the main channel through which monetary policy impacts the economy. Since leverage is employed in the acquisition of new homes, interest rates impact the cost of homeownership more directly than other assets. A similar claim could be made about leveraged investment from the corporate sector, but business investment is also beholden to swings in expected future demand. Households can easily postpone the acquisition of a new home if the interest rate environment makes it uneconomical, businesses need to act when the market demands it. But most importantly, Leamer's paper demonstrates that, unlike residential investment, weaker business investment does not consistently provide advance warning of recession. The State Of U.S. Housing Turning to the data, we see that Leamer's claim is validated by the top panel of Chart 2. Residential investment tends to decline in the year preceding a U.S. recession. Housing starts and new home sales display a similar pattern (Chart 2, panels 2 & 3). Chart 2The Housing Market Predicts Recessions What's worrying is that residential investment has barely grown at all during the past year (Chart 2, bottom panel). If this weakness continues it would signal that interest rates are too high for the housing market, and that we are likely very close to the cyclical peak in bond yields. However, we doubt the current weakness will persist. For one, the recent decline in construction activity has been concentrated in the multi-family sector while single-family construction continues to expand at a steady rate (Chart 3). This could simply reflect a shift in demand away from multi-family toward single-family, reversing the trend witnessed between 2010 and 2012. It's possible that some households who were forced into the rental market in the aftermath of the Great Recession now find themselves able to switch back. But even if we focus on the multi-family sector exclusively, there is little reason to believe that construction will see significantly more downside. The rental vacancy rate remains very low, and the National Multi Housing Council's Survey of Apartment Market Conditions suggests that there is no strong upward or downward pressure on the vacancy rate at the moment (Chart 3, bottom 2 panels). The fact that single-family housing starts have not declined casts some doubt on the notion that higher mortgage rates are to blame for the deceleration in residential investment. This is further borne out by the fact that, while higher mortgage rates have certainly increased the cost of homeownership, mortgage payments as a percent of median income are not stretched compared to history (Chart 4). The demand back-drop for housing also remains robust, with household formation in a clear uptrend (Chart 4, panel 2) and homebuilders as optimistic as ever about future sales activity (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3A Temporary Weakness In Residential Investment Chart 4Higher Mortgage Rates Are Not The Culprit We conclude that interest rates are still too low to meaningfully impact the housing market. Residential investment will re-accelerate in the coming quarters and Treasury yields have plenty of room to rise before reaching their cyclical peak. Bottom Line: The housing market is the key channel through which monetary policy impacts the economy. As such, it is unlikely that Treasury yields will peak until housing shows meaningful weakness. While residential investment has decelerated in recent quarters, we expect this weakness will prove temporary and that Treasury yields have further cyclical upside. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Hedging Weak Foreign Growth With Steepeners The resilience of the U.S. housing market makes it likely that interest rates will continue to rise for quite some time. However, this does not preclude weak foreign growth - and the resultant dollar strength - from forcing the Fed to slow its 25 basis point per quarter rate hike pace at some point during the next 6-12 months. In fact, we have flagged in recent reports that, since 1993, every time the Global (ex. U.S.) Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) has fallen below zero, the U.S. LEI has eventually followed (Chart 5).3 Unless foreign growth suddenly recovers, it is quite likely that dollar strength will drag the U.S. LEI lower in the first half of next year. At that point, the Fed may be forced to pause its rate hike cycle in order to take some shine off the dollar, allowing the recovery to continue. Chart 5Weak Global Growth Could Bring Down The U.S. Drops in the U.S. LEI to below zero almost always coincide with a recommendation for easier monetary policy from our Fed Monitor (Chart 5, bottom panel). Although one notable exception did occur in 2005. An examination of the three components of our Fed Monitor reveals that a falling LEI caused the economic growth component of our monitor to decline in 2005 (Chart 6). However, this was offset by an elevated inflation component and extremely easy financial conditions (Chart 6, bottom 2 panels). Chart 6The Three Components Of Our Fed Monitor As in 2005, inflation pressures are once again elevated and financial conditions remain accommodative. It follows that it could take a significant deterioration in economic growth before the Fed is forced to pause its 25 bps per quarter rate hike cycle, one that is not yet evident in the data. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the risk that weak foreign growth will infiltrate the U.S. via a stronger dollar, forcing the Fed to pause. With only two 25 basis point rate hikes currently discounted for 2019, some pause is already in the price. This makes us reluctant to advocate shifting away from below-benchmark portfolio duration. We think a better way to hedge the risk of a Fed pause is through yield curve steepeners. Since short-dated yields are more heavily influenced by the expected near-term pace of rate hikes than long-dated yields, any Fed pause will cause the yield curve to steepen. Steepeners are also very attractively priced at the moment, meaning that they should even perform well in a mild curve flattening environment.4 Our preferred method for implementing a curve steepener is to go long a bullet maturity near the middle of the curve and short a duration-matched barbell consisting of the very short and very long ends of the curve.5 With that in mind, we can determine the best yield curve trade to implement by answering the following two questions: Which bullet over barbell combination offers the most attractive value? Which bullet over barbell combination is most likely to outperform in the "Fed pause" scenario we are trying to hedge? In response to the first question, we consider the 2-year, 3-year, 5-year and 7-year bullet maturities all relative to a duration-matched 1/20 barbell. All of those butterfly spreads offer approximately the same yield pick-up (Chart 7). They also all offer approximately the same yield pick-up relative to our fair value models, which are based on regressions of the butterfly spread versus the 1/20 slope of the curve (Chart 8).6 To answer the second question, we try to identify which of the 2-year, 3-year, 5-year or 7-year yields is likely to decline the most in response to the market pricing-in a pause in Fed rate hikes. To do this we look at the historical correlations between different yield curve slopes and our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter - the change in the fed funds rate that is priced into the market for the next 12 months. The correlations are displayed in Chart 9, and they show that monthly changes in the 7/10 slope are almost always negatively correlated with monthly changes in the 12-month discounter. In other words, when the discounter falls, the 7-year yield falls by more than the 10-year yield. Chart 7Different Bullets, Similar Yield Pick-Up I Chart 8Different Bullets, Similar Yield Pick-Up II Chart 9Hedging The "Fed Pause" Scenario Monthly changes in the 5/7 slope are also usually negatively correlated with changes in the discounter, though the correlation has been closer to zero in recent years. This makes it difficult to say with certainty whether the 5-year or 7-year yield would fall by more in response to a decline in the discounter. Chart 9 also shows that changes in both the 2/3 and 3/5 slopes are positively correlated with changes in the 12-month discounter. This means that when the discounter falls, the 3-year yield falls by more than the 2-year yield and the 5-year yield falls by more than the 3-year yield. In general, we can safely conclude that the 5-year and 7-year bullets are better hedges against a Fed pause than the 2-year or 3-year bullets. The 7-year in particular appears to be a safe bet. Given that the differences in valuation between the different options are miniscule, we are inclined to maintain our current yield curve position: long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell. This week we also close our recommendation to favor the 5/30 barbell over the 10-year bullet for a small loss of 2 bps. This trade was designed to hedge the risk of Fed overtightening leading to an inverted yield curve. This trade would underperform in the event of a Fed pause, which we now view as the greater risk. Bottom Line: The Fed will maintain its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace for the time being, but could be forced to pause next year if weak foreign growth migrates to the U.S. via a stronger dollar. We recommend hedging this risk via a long position in the 7-year bullet versus a short position in the 1/20 barbell. Corporate Balance Sheet Reprieve Last week's release of the second quarter U.S. Financial Accounts (formerly Flow of Funds) allows us to update our indicators of nonfinancial corporate balance sheet health. Overall, there has been a significant improvement in our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) since the end of 2016. It has fallen from deep in "deteriorating health" territory to close to the "improving health" zone (Chart 10). By far, the biggest driver of the CHM's improvement has been the sharp increase in after-tax cash flows (Chart 10, panel 2). This is partly due to the recent corporate tax cuts, but also reflects a significant rebound in pre-tax cash flows (Chart 10, bottom panel). Despite the rebound in profits, we remain cautious on the outlook for corporate balance sheets going forward. First, our bottom-up samples of firms included in the investment grade and high-yield Bloomberg Barclays bond indexes both show that the median firm's net debt-to-EBITDA has improved in recent quarters, but remains elevated compared to history (Chart 11). Chart 10After-Tax Cash Flows Drive CHM Improvement Chart 11Debt Levels Still High Second, we see increasing headwinds to profit growth going forward. The positive impact from tax cuts is set to wane, while the stronger dollar and faster wage growth will both weigh on pre-tax profits during the next year.7 It is important to note that it will not take much deceleration in pre-tax profits for corporate balance sheets to worsen. Our measure of gross leverage - total debt over pre-tax profits - has only managed to flatten-off during the past few quarters, even as profit growth has surged. This means that the rapid gains in profits have only managed to keep pace with the rate of debt growth. Even a small deceleration in profits will cause leverage to rise, and rising leverage tends to occur alongside an increasing default rate (Chart 12). Chart 12Gross Leverage And Corporate Defaults Bottom Line: Strong profit growth - both organic and as a result of corporate tax cuts - has led to a significant improvement in corporate balance sheet health during the past few quarters. This improvement will not persist for much longer. We recommend only a neutral allocation to corporate bonds, both investment grade and junk. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Tracking The Two-Stage Treasury Bear", dated August 14, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2http://www.nber.org/papers/w13428 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "An Oasis Of Prosperity?", dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Playing Catch-Up", dated September 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresesarch.com 5 For further details on why we prefer this trade construction, please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 We calculate the butterfly spread as: the bullet yield minus the yield of the duration-matched barbell. 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Go To Neutral On Spread Product", dated June 26, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Highlights The Global Golden Rule (GGR): The gap between market expectations of global central bank policy rates and realized interest rate outcomes is a reliable predictor of government bond returns. Thus, "getting the policymaker call right" is the key to outperformance for bond investors. Implied Government Bond Yields: Given the strong correlation between policy rate surprises and government bond yield changes, we can use the GGR to forecast yields one year from now based on our own assumptions of how many rate hikes (cuts) will be delivered versus what is discounted in money market yield curves. Total Return Forecasts: We can use implied government bond yield changes from the GGR to generate expected 12-month total returns for government bond indexes of different maturities, taking into account different rate hike assumptions for various central banks. Feature Chart 1Global Monetary Divergences? This month marked the ten-year anniversary of the 2008 Lehman Brothers default, which set off a worldwide financial crisis and a massive easing of global monetary policy. Extraordinary measures - zero (or negative) interest rates, large-scale asset purchases and dovish forward guidance from policymakers - were all successful in suppressing both global bond yields and volatility over time, helping the global economy slowly heal from the crisis. Now, a decade later, such hyper-easy monetary policies are no longer required given low unemployment rates and rising inflation in the major developed economies. That can be seen today with the Federal Reserve shifting to "quantitative tightening" (letting bonds run off its swollen balance sheet) alongside steady rate hikes, the European Central Bank (ECB) set to stop net new buying of euro area bonds at year-end, and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) dramatically slowing its pace of asset purchases. BCA's Central Bank Monitors, which assess the cyclical pressure on policymakers to tighten or ease monetary policy, have collectively been calling for interest rate increases since the start of 2017. Yet our Central Bank Monetary Barometer, which measures the percentage of central banks that have tightened policy over the previous three months, shows that only 1 in 5 banks have actually delivered rate hikes of late (Chart 1). Thus, the risks are tilted towards more countries moving away from highly accommodative monetary conditions given tightening labor markets and rising inflation pressures. This now-global shift towards policy normalization has major implications for global bond investing. The focus is now returning back to more traditional drivers of government bond returns, like changes in central bank policy rates. We recently shared a Special Report published by our colleagues at our sister BCA service, U.S. Bond Strategy, describing a methodology they dubbed "The Golden Rule of Bond Investing".1 That report introduced a numerical framework that translates actual changes in the U.S. fed funds rate relative to market expectations into return forecasts for U.S. Treasuries. The historical results convincingly showed that investors who "get the Fed right" by making correct bets on changes in the funds rate versus expectations were very likely to make the right call on the direction of Treasury yields. In this Special Report, we extend that Golden Rule analysis to government bonds in the other major developed markets (DM). Our conclusion is that utilizing a "Global Golden Rule" (GGR) framework that links bond returns to unexpected changes in policy rates can help bond investors correctly forecast changes in non-U.S. bond yields. The report is set up in two sections. First, we illustrate how the GGR works and how it empirically tends to generally succeed over time for different DM bond markets. In the second section, we make use of the GGR to generate expected return forecasts for non-U.S. government bonds for a variety of interest rate "surprise" scenarios. ECB Policy Rate Surprises Dovish surprises from the ECB do reliably coincide with positive German government bond excess returns versus cash (Chart 2A). Chart 2AECB Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 2BECB Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II The 12-month ECB policy rate surprise and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays German Treasury index yield displays a strong positive correlation (Chart 2B). The excess returns during periods of dovish surprises is 14.4% on average and are positive 85% of the time. Hawkish surprises on the other hand, coincide with negative average excess returns of -1.5% (Chart 2C). In terms of total return, the picture is roughly the same except that under hawkish surprises, the average total return you would expect is now positive, given that it factors in coupon income (Chart 2D). Chart 2CGermany: Government Bond Index Excess Return & ECB Policy Rate Surprises (2004 - Present) Chart 2DGermany: Government Bond Index Total Return & ECB Policy Rate Surprises (2004 - Present) Table 1Germany: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (2004 - Present) Looking ahead, the ECB should not deviate from its current dovish forward guidance of no interest rate hikes until at least the third quarter of 2019. That is somewhat consistent with the reading of the ECB monitor being almost equal to zero. Bank Of England (BoE) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR works well for the U.K. as can be seen in Chart 3A. Chart 3ABoE Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 3BBoE Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II The 12-month BoE policy rate surprise and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays U.K. Treasury index yield displays a strong positive correlation except for a major divergence in 1997-1998 (Chart 3B). Dovish surprises coincide with positive excess returns over cash 78% of the time and are on average equal to 6.2% over the full sample (Chart 3C and Chart 3D). As you would expect if the GGR applies, hawkish surprises coincide with negative excess returns. Chart 3CU.K.: Government Bond Index Excess Return & BoE Policy Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Chart 3DU.K.: Government Bond Index Total Return & BoE Policy Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Table 2U.K.: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Looking ahead, outcomes will be biased toward dovish surprises over the next six months given the uncertain outcome of the U.K.-E.U. Brexit negotiations. Against that backdrop, the BoE will remain accommodative despite inflationary pressures building up. Bank Of Japan (BoJ) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR does not seem to work when it comes to the Japanese bond market. This reflects the fact that both the markets and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) have understood that chronic low inflation has required no changes in BoJ policy rates (Chart 4A, second panel). Chart 4ABoJ Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 4BBoJ Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II While the 12-month BoJ policy rate surprise and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays Japan Treasury index yield displayed a strong positive correlation pre-1998, the correlation has broken down since then (Chart 4B). Negative excess returns over cash both coincide with dovish and hawkish surprises, on average over time. Further, dovish surprises coincide with positive excess returns only 45% of the time (Chart 4C and Chart 4D). Chart 4CJapan: Government Bond Index Excess Return & BoJ Policy Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Chart 4DJapan: Government Bond Index Total Return & BoJ Policy Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Table 3Japan: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Looking ahead, given that the BoJ will in all likelihood maintain its ultra-accommodative monetary policy stance in the near future, we do not expect the GGR to become more effective when applied to the Japanese bond market. Bank Of Canada (BoC) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR works relatively well for the Canadian bond market (Chart 5A). Chart 5ABoC Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 5BBoC Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II We observe a tight correlation between 12-month BoC policy rate surprises and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays Canada Treasury index yield, especially post-2010 (Chart 5B). Dovish surprises coincide with positive excess returns 81% of the time and 94% of the time if we look at total returns (Chart 5C and Chart 5D). Chart 5CCanada: Government Bond Index Excess Return & BoC Policy Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Chart 5DCanada: Government Bond Index Total Return & BoC Policy Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Table 4Canada: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Looking ahead, the BoC will most likely continue to follow the tightening path of the Federal Reserve, admittedly with a lag. However, accelerating inflation at a time when there is no spare capacity in the Canadian economy suggests that the BoC could deliver more rate hikes than are already priced for the next 12 months. As shown in Table 4, hawkish surprises from the BoC do coincide with negative monthly excess returns of -2.8%. Reserve Bank Of Australia (RBA) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR applies extremely well to the Australian bond market (Chart 6A). Chart 6ARBA Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 6BRBA Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II The 12-month RBA policy rate surprise and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays Australia Treasury index yield displays the tightest correlation out of all the countries covered (Chart 6B). Dovish surprises coincide with positive excess returns 83% of the time and 96% of the time if we look at total returns (Chart 6C and Chart 6D). Turning to hawkish surprises, they reliably coincide with negative excess returns. Chart 6CAustralia: Government Bond Index Excess Return & RBA Policy Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Chart 6DAustralia: Government Bond Index Total Return & RBA Policy Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Table 5Australia: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) As can be seen on the bottom panel of Chart 6A, the RBA Monitor has been rapidly falling since 2016 and now stands in the "easier monetary policy" required. However, the RBA will likely have to see a rise in unemployment or a decline in realized inflation before it considers cutting rates, which raises a risk of "hawkish" surprises if the market begins to price in rate cuts. Reserve Bank Of New Zealand (RBNZ) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR works fairly well for Nez Zealand (NZ) government bonds (Chart 7A). Chart 7ARBNZ Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 7BRBNZ Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II 12-month RBNZ policy rate surprises and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays NZ Treasury yield exhibit a decent correlation (Chart 7B). Unusually, NZ is the only bond market covered in this report where both dovish and hawkish surprises coincide with positive excess returns on average, although positive episodes are much less frequent for hawkish surprises than for dovish surprises; respectively 55% and 86% (Chart 7C and Chart 7D). Chart 7CNZ: Government Bond Index Excess Return & RBNZ Policy Rate Surprises (2000 - Present) Chart 7DNZ: Government Bond Index Total Return & RBNZ Policy Rate Surprises (2000 - Present) Table 6New Zealand: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (2000 - Present) Looking ahead, the RBNZ has already provided forward guidance indicating that the Overnight Cash Rate (OCR) will most likely stay flat until 2020 - an assessment that we agree with, so the odds are against any policy surprises over at least the next 6-12 months. Using The Global Golden Rule To Forecast Government Bond Returns The practical application of the GGR is that it can be used as a framework for generating expected changes in yields and calculating total return forecasts for global government bond indices. The strong correlation demonstrated in the previous section between the 12-month policy rate surprises and the 12-month change in the average yield from the government bond indexes allows us to translate our "assumed" policy rate surprise over the next 12 months into expected changes in yields along the curve. With these expected yield changes, we can simply generate expected total returns using the following formula: Expected Total Return = Yield - (Duration*Expected Change In Yield) + 0.5*Convexity*E(DY2) E(DY2) = 1-year trailing estimate of yield volatility It is important to note that we would not give too much importance to what this analysis yields for longer-dated bonds. As shown in the Appendices, once we move into longer government bond maturities, the correlation between the policy rate surprise and the change in yields declines or even becomes non-existent for some countries. This result should not be surprising, as longer-term yields are driven by other factors besides simply changes in interest rate expectations. Inflation expectations, government debt levels and demand from longer-term investors like pension funds all can have a more outsized influence on the path of longer-term bond yields relative to the shorter-end. That results in much more uncertainty when it comes to the total return forecasts for long-dated maturities calculated with this framework. Practically speaking, we are not encouraging our readers to blindly follow that yield and return expectations generated by the GGR, even for bond markets where it clearly seems to be working over time. Rather, the GGR can be integrated in a larger asset-allocation framework for a global fixed-income portfolio by providing one possible set of bond market outcomes. On a total return basis, the results presented below, interpreted alongside the readings on the BCA Central Bank monitors, suggest that investors should be underweight core Euro Area (Germany, France and Italy), Australia and New Zealand while remaining overweight the U.K. and Canada over the next twelve months. As for Japan, given the likelihood that BoJ will leave its policy rate flat, the results hint at a neutral allocation. Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremie@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: Divergences Opening Up," dated September 19, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Global Golden Rule: Germany In light of the forward guidance ECB President Mario Draghi has been providing to the markets, it appears that the most likely scenario over the next 12 months is for the ECB to keep interest rates on hold. Based on the strong relationships between 12-month ECB policy rate surprises and 12-month changes in yields along the curve (Appendix A), a flat interest rate scenario would be bond bearish for German government bonds especially at the short end of the curve with the 1-year German yield expected to rise by 16bps (Table 7A). Table 7AGermany: Expected Changes In Bund Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) Using the expected change in yields thus inferred by the policy rate surprise, the German government bond aggregate index is forecasted to return 0.45% over the next 12 months (Table 7B). Table 7BGermany: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: U.K. Markets are currently discounting only 21bps of rate hikes in the U.K. over the next year. Thus, even a scenario where the BoE delivers only a single 25bp rate hike would be bearish for U.K. Gilts, especially at the short-end of the curve. Applying the GGR, 1- and 3-year Gilt yields would be expected to rise by 20bps and 10bps respectively (Table 8A). Table 8AU.K.: Expected Changes In Gilt Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) Interpolating these expected yield changes, the 1-3 year government bond index total return forecast would be 0.46%. On the other hand, if the BoE prefers to keep rates on hold given the uncertainty of the Brexit outcome, that same 1-3 year government bond index is forecasted to deliver 0.97% of total return over the next 12 months (Table 9B). This is our current base case scenario for Gilts. Table 8BU.K.: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: Japan Despite many rumors to the contrary earlier this year, the base case view remains that the BoJ will not change its stance on monetary policy anytime soon. As such, the expected changes in JGB yields under a flat interest rate scenario over the next 12 months are close to zero at the short end of the curve and rather bond bullish at the longer end of the curve; for instance, the 30-year JGB yield would be expected to rally by 9bps (Table 9A). Table 9AJapan: Expected Changes In JGB Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) In that most likely scenario, the Japanese government bond index is forecasted to deliver 0.83% of total return over the next 12 months. In the event that the BoJ surprises the markets by delivering one rate hike of 25bps, it would be bond bearish for JGBs and the total return forecasts for the government bond indices would be negative, regardless of the maturity (Table 9B). Table 9BJapan: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: Canada Will the Bank of Canada follow the footsteps of the Fed? The markets certainly seem to think so, with more than three 25bps rate hikes priced in for next 12 months in the OIS curve. Table 10ACanada: Expected Changes In Government Bond Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) That scenario would be outright bearish for Canadian government bonds, with 1- and 2-year yields rising by 16bps and 21bps, respectively (Table 10A). In terms of total returns, the GGR framework forecasts that with 75bps of rate hikes, the Canadian government bond aggregate index would deliver a positive return of 2.35% (Table 10B). This is because 75bps of hikes are currently discounted in the Canadian OIS curve, thus it would neither be a hawkish nor dovish surprise. Table 10BCanada: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: Australia The RBA Monitor just dipped below the zero line, implying that easier monetary policy is required based on financial and economic data. Table 11A shows that a rate cut delivered by the RBA in the next 12 months would be bond bullish for Aussie yields, especially at the long end of the curve, where the 30-year Aussie bond yield would fall by 34bps. Table 11AAustralia: Expected Changes In Aussie Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) Of all the interest rate scenarios presented in Table 11B, the two rate cut scenarios would return the highest total returns. For instance, the Australian government bond aggregate index would return 2.80% and 3.90% in the event of one and two 25bps rate hikes, respectively. Table 11BAustralia: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: New Zealand Our view is that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand will stay on hold for a while longer, which is broadly the same message conveyed by the RBNZ Monitor being positive, but very close to 0. With that in mind, a flat interest rate scenario appears to be bond bearish for the NZ bond yields, except for the longer end of the curve (Table 12A). Table 12ANew Zealand: Expected Changes In NZ Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) Table 12BNew Zealand: Government Bond Index Total For New Zealand, the government bond aggregate bond index is the only index provided by Bloomberg Barclays, as opposed to the other countries in our analysis where different maturities are given. In the flat interest rate scenario, the total return forecast for the overall index would be of 2.53% over the next 12 months. Appendix A: Germany Chart 1Change In 1-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 2Change In 2-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 3Change In 3-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 4Change In 5-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 5Change In 7-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 6Change In 10-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 7Change In 30-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Appendix B: France Chart 8Change In 1-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 9Change In 2-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 10Change In 3-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 11Change In 5-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 12Change In 7-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 13Change In 10-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 14Change In 30-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Appendix C: Italy Chart 15Change In 1-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 16Change In 2-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 17Change In 3-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 18Change In 5-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 19Change In 7-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 20Change In 10-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 21Change In 30-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Appendix D: U.K. Chart 22Change In 1-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 23Change In 2-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 24Change In 3-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 25Change In 5-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 26Change In 7-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 27Change In 10-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 28Change In 30-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Appendix E: Japan Chart 29Change In 1-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 30Change In 2-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 31Change In 3-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 32Change In 5-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 33Change In 7-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 34Change In 10-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 35Change In 30-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Appendix F: Canada Chart 36Change In 1-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 37Change In 2-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 38Change In 3-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 39Change In 5-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 40Change In 7-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 41Change In 10-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 42Change In 30-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Appendix G: Australia Chart 43Change In 1-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 44Change In 2-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 45Change In 3-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 46Change In 5-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 47Change In 7-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 48Change In 10-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Appendix H: New Zealand Chart 49Change In 1-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 50Change In 2-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 51Change In 3-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 52Change In 5-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 53Change In 7-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 54Change In 10-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise

Special Report

Highlights Rates are going higher ... : Flight-to-quality episodes aside, the bond bear market that began in July 2016 remains in force. Investors should maintain below-benchmark Treasury duration. ... but that doesn't necessarily spell immediate trouble for stocks: Consistent with our work on the fed funds rate cycle, it appears that the level of rates matters more for equity returns than their direction. Empirical evidence of a rates tipping point is elusive ... : The notion that investors migrate from stocks to bonds at a particular level of rates exerts a powerful intuitive appeal, but the data fail to validate it. ... but a 10-year yield Treasury of 3.75 - 4% might halt the bull market in its tracks: Higher rates reliably slow equities only when they rise enough to slow the economy. We estimate that the pinch point is somewhere in the neighborhood of a 3.75 - 4% 10-year Treasury yield. Feature A share of stock is a pro rata claim on the future earnings of the company that issued it. Holding future earnings constant, the price an investor will be willing to pay for a share is wholly a function of the rate used to discount its earnings back to the present day. The simplicity and ubiquity of this valuation approach suggest that equity returns should be predictably related to moves in interest rates. It may also point the way to a tipping point - either in the level of rates, or the magnitude of their rise - at which capital and savings migrate from stocks to bonds. This Special Report reviews the historical record to see how U.S. equities have interacted with real 10-year Treasury yields. It considers the key variables that would logically seem to bear on equity performance and investors' propensity to rotate between asset classes. We find that the relationship between rates and equity returns is conditional, depending on which crosscurrent dominates in any given episode. We did not uncover any predictable rotation pattern. Do The Math As noted above, valuing a stream of future cash flows is a simple mechanical process once one settles on an appropriate discount rate for converting future dollars to current dollars. According to the security analysis textbooks, then, moves in stock prices are inversely related to changes in interest rates. But the textbooks leave out one key point: changes in interest rates don't occur in a vacuum. When they change, earnings estimates are likely to change, too, most often in the same direction as real rates. To be sure, the denominator discounting future cash flows rises when real rates rise, but the future-earnings numerator most likely rises, too. If real rates are rising, the economy is probably gaining momentum, and earnings estimates should probably be revised higher as well. Conversely, falling rates lead to a higher earnings multiple (ex-the not insignificant animal-spirits wild card), but will regularly be accompanied by downward revisions in future earnings. The net effect is uncertain, and depends on whether the multiple change outweighs the change in earnings or vice versa. Bonds Are A Snap Compared To Stocks It's far simpler to compute the impact on a bond portfolio from a given increase in interest rates because the denominator is the only variable that changes. The future-cash-flows numerator is contractually fixed, and it takes a big shift in the state of the economy to spark an economy-wide change in perceived repayment potential.1 This is why bonds' sensitivity to changes in interest rates can be captured in a single universal metric (duration). Stocks are pulled in so many different directions by factors affecting future cash flows that duration has no equity analogue. Investors should therefore be cautious about pinning too much on interest rates as they relate to equities. Bonds move in fixed orbits around the interest-rate sun, according to strictly ordered rules that establish a very clear cause-and-effect relationship. Equities improvise as they go along, taking their cues from a rotating cast of variables that interact differently over time. Attempts to stretch the concept of interest-rate sensitivity beyond bonds regularly trip up equity investors; we cannot know in advance how rates will come together with the other factors that influence equities. Confounding Intuition, Part 1: Equities Prefer Rising Rates (And Multiples Don't Care) U.S. postwar history makes it clear that equity investors need not run from rising rates. The S&P 500 has fared considerably better when real 10-year yields have risen by at least 100 basis points ("bps") than it has when they've declined by that magnitude (Chart 1), gaining 9.4% and 5%, respectively (Chart 2). Rates do not exhibit any sort of a consistent relationship with either forward (Chart 3) or trailing (Chart 4) S&P 500 multiples, though extremely high and extremely low real yields are both associated with lower trailing P/Es. Negative real yields carry an unwelcome whiff of deflation, and their scatterplot data points tend to cluster at below-the-mean forward and trailing multiples. Chart 1Stocks Actually Do Better When Rates Rise ... Chart 2... Considerably Better When Do Higher Rates Hurt The Economy? Charts 3 and 4 show that both forward and trailing multiples almost always decline when real 10-year Treasury yields cross above 5%. What's bad for multiples isn't necessarily bad for earnings, however, and a 5% real threshold is irrelevant to today's cycle. The steady decline in the average fed funds rate over the last several completed cycles (Chart 5) makes it clear that neutral rate thresholds are not constant across time periods. Assessing interest rates' impact on the economy over time requires a sliding scale. Chart 3Hard To See A Trend Through The Windshield ... Chart 4... Or The Rear-View Mirror Estimates of potential economic growth provide a useful yardstick for measuring the impact of real yields. Comparing real long rates to potential output offers insight into the burden of servicing debt across the economy. If real rates exceed the economy's potential growth rate by a material amount, several marginal borrowers are likely to be gasping for air, and their travails will weigh on the economy. Conversely, servicing debt should be easy when real rates are below potential growth, and investors are more likely to invest, businesses are more likely to expand, and consumers are more likely to spend. Chart 5One Size Does Not Fit All There have been 22 instances in the postwar era when real 10-year Treasury yields have increased by at least 100 bps, and Table 1 lists all of them, grouped by their relationship to real GDP's potential five-year growth rate. There are three possible states for interest rate increases in relation to potential output: starting and ending below trend growth, starting below trend growth and ending above it, and starting and ending above trend. The S&P 500 comfortably tops its overall postwar returns when rates go from Below-to-Below and Below-to-Above, but declines outright when rates start above potential growth and go even higher. Earnings consistently rise when rates start below potential growth, making multiples the swing factor - when they expand, S&P 500 gains tend to be very large (Box 1). Table 1Real Rates Versus Potential GDP Growth Box 1 Decomposing S&P 500 Returns Table 2 details the decomposition of S&P 500 returns during rising real rate episodes occurring after S&P 500 earnings estimates began to be compiled in 1979. Except in the crucible of 2009, when they were flat, forward earnings estimates have always risen when rates rise from a below-trend starting point, putting a tailwind behind the S&P 500 that regularly overcomes the multiple contraction that occurs in half of the Below/Above instances. Multiples are the swing factor; when they expand in conjunction with rising earnings estimates, U.S. equities soar. They always contract when rates go from high to higher, dragging stocks down against a mixed earnings expectations backdrop. The action is consistent with our fed funds rate cycle work: stocks do best when rates are below equilibrium and falling because earnings and multiples expand in tandem in that setting, but they do nearly as well after rate hikes commence, in spite of multiple contraction. Earnings surge when the Fed is confident enough about the economy to embark on a tightening cycle, but has not yet hiked enough to choke off the expansion. Multiple expansion in a majority of the Below/Above instances reveals that investors do not rotate out of equities en masse when rates rise, even by a considerable amount. The rotation story has intuitive appeal, but it doesn't show up in these data. Table 2Decomposition Of S&P 500 Returns During Rising Rate Periods A Little More Slicing And Dicing (Potential GDP Matters) Chart 6Mind The Gap Defining Below-to-Below and Below-to-Above states is easy in hindsight, but an investor cannot know in real time where a rising-rate instance that begins with rates below potential output will end. Earnings rise no matter where rates end relative to potential GDP, but re-rating in Below/Below can flip to de-rating in Below/Above, slamming the brakes on phase gains. The empirical data say investors should lighten up on S&P 500 exposure when real rates cross above real potential GDP. S&P 500 returns trounce their overall postwar gain when rates rise from below potential GDP to potential GDP but lag it once rates cross above potential GDP (Chart 6). Confounding Intuition, Part 2: Institutional Investors Don't Rotate Even if S&P 500 returns fail to demonstrate any consistent relationship with interest rates, one would expect that professional investors' asset-class positioning would. Bonds and stocks are alternatives for one another, and institutional investors presumably shift their allocations in line with the asset classes' relative prospects. We examine Pension Funds', Life Insurers', and Mutual Funds' asset-allocation profiles over time using balance-sheet data from the Federal Reserve's quarterly Flow of Funds report. The data show that asset-allocation decisions are made without apparent regard for relative valuations, at least as proxied by the equity risk premium. Pension funds' steady increase in equity allocations across the '90s appears to have been less a function of rate moves than buying into the bull market (Chart 7). Since the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, bond and equity allocations have mainly reflected the performance tides. The extended trend in pension funds' equity-to-bond allocation ratio suggests that the funds set a long-range goal and grind steadily toward achieving it, regardless of relative valuation movements. It also suggests that the funds may not bother with rebalancing, much less dynamic asset allocation. Life insurers kept their fixed income and equity allocations more or less fixed across the '70s (not shown) and most of the '80s. They then reduced equity exposure for three years after 1987's Black Monday, assiduously built it up across the '90s, and have more or less let it drift since the millennium (Chart 8). The equity risk premium does not appear to have been a consideration. Asset-allocation stasis may simply be a reflection of life insurers' stringent regulatory constraints, but their portfolio managers' limited discretion precludes opportunistic allocation shifts. Mutual fund allocations tend to depend much more on past events than future expectations. Equity holdings peak when the equity risk premium bottoms and bottom when the equity risk premium peaks (Chart 9). The problem is that mutual fund managers are structurally hostage to their investors' whims. They are sorted into narrow silos and then straitjacketed by the rigid allocation rules written into their fund prospectuses. Even if they think asset-class rotation is a great idea, only a tiny minority of fund managers can act upon it. Chart 7Pension Funds Don't Allocate Based On Yields Or The ERP ... Chart 8... While Life Insurers Appear To Allocate In Defiance Of Them Chart 9Mutual Funds##BR##Obey Their Owners ... Confounding Darwin's Intuition: Human Investors Never Learn Chart 10... Who Act On Real Emotion, Not Real Yields Kahneman and Tversky's groundbreaking research into decision-making under uncertainty revealed that our species is wired to make suboptimal investment decisions. Prospect theory, loss aversion and an unhealthy fixation on recent data all encourage retail investors to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot. When it comes to asset allocation, households appear to focus exclusively on the action in the rear-view mirror (Chart 10). Retail investors as a group rotate between equities and fixed income retroactively, in response to recent past returns, not proactively in response to cues about future relative-return prospects. Investment Implications Despite the compelling intuition that investors should set their course by the interest-rate stars, there is no evidence in the flow of funds data that they have done so in the past. We posit that structural constraints on institutional investors, combined with humans' durable cognitive biases, offer no reason to expect that they will do so in the future. While there may not be any predictable rotation pattern, rising rates have given rise to a predictable performance pattern. Equities reliably perform better when real rates are rising by at least 100 basis points than they do when they're falling. Decomposition of S&P 500 returns indicates that the pattern holds because earnings rise a good bit more in rising-rate periods than multiples decline. And multiples don't always decline when rates rise, anyway; sometimes emotion overrides cash flow discounting mechanics. Investors should lighten up on Treasury allocations, while keeping the exposures they do hold at below-benchmark duration. They should not flee equities, however. Rates have not yet risen enough to cool off the economy in any material way, and we judge that they won't until somewhere around a 3.75% 10-year Treasury yield.2 Tight supplies in labor and goods markets will eventually stoke realized inflation and provoke the Fed into tightening enough to cut off the rally, but it hasn't happened yet, and it is far too early to de-risk portfolios on account of interest rates. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 An unusually large drop in rates may well be associated with economic distress, but default-adjusted bond payment streams are much less variable than near- and intermediate-term earnings estimates. 2 Based on the evolution of the Congressional Budget Office's longer-run estimates of real potential GDP growth, and the trend in our own model of long-term inflation expectations, it appears as if nominal potential GDP growth will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.75-4% next year. This is a much lower estimate than one would get from adding the Fed's 2% inflation target to the current rate of GDP growth, but we need to look past the immediate boost of the stimulus package to get a read on its longer-run effects. As with all of the estimates produced by our models, we look to it for a general guide to the future, not a precise point estimate.

Highlights We review last year's "Three Tantalizing Trades" and offer four additional ones: Trade #1: Long June 2019 Fed funds futures contract/short Dec 2020 Fed funds futures contract Trade #2: Long USD/CNY Trade #3: Short AUD/CAD Trade #4: Long EM stocks with near-term downside put protection Feature A Review Of Last Year's "Three Tantalizing Trades" I had the pleasure of speaking at BCA's last Annual Investment Conference on September 25th, 2017, where I presented the following three trade ideas (Chart 1): 1. Short December 2018 Fed funds futures We closed this trade for a profit of 70 basis points. Had we held on, it would be up 92 basis points as of the time of this writing. 2. Long global industrial equities/short utilities We closed this trade on February 1st for a gain of 12%, as downside risks to global growth began to mount. This proved to be a timely decision, as the trade would be up only 6.1% had we kept it on. We would not re-enter this trade at present. 3. Short 20-year JGBs/long 5-year JGBs This trade struggled for much of 2018 but sprung back to life in August. It is up 0.6% since we initiated it. We still like the trade over the long haul. Investors are grossly underestimating the risk that Japanese inflation will move materially higher as an aging population creates a shortage of workers and a concomitant decline in the national savings rate. We also think the government will try to egg on any acceleration in consumer prices in order to inflate away its debt burden. In the near term, however, the trade could struggle if a combination of weaker EM growth and an increase in the value of the trade-weighted yen cause inflation expectations to decline. Four Additional Trades Trade #1: Long June 2019 Fed funds futures contract/short December 2020 Fed funds futures contract Investors expect U.S. short-term rates to rise to 2.38% by the end of 2018 and 2.85% by the end of 2019. The 47 basis points in tightening priced in for next year is less than the 75 basis points in hikes implied by the Fed dots. Investors appear to have bought into Larry Summers' secular stagnation thesis. They are convinced that short rates will not be able to rise above 3% without triggering a recession (Chart 2). Chart 1Revisiting Last Year's Three Tantalizing Trades Chart 2Markets Expect No Fed Hikes Beyond Next Year Regardless of what one thinks of Summers' thesis, it must be acknowledged that it is a theory about the long-term drivers of the neutral rate of interest. Over a shorter-term cyclical horizon, many factors can influence the neutral rate. Critically, most of these factors are pushing it higher: Fiscal policy is extremely stimulative. The IMF estimates that the U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit will reach 6.8% of GDP in 2019 compared to 3.6% of GDP in 2015. In contrast, the euro area is projected to run a deficit of only 0.8% of GDP next year, little changed from a deficit of 0.9% it ran in 2015 (Chart 3). The relatively more expansionary nature of U.S. fiscal policy is one key reason why the Fed can raise rates while the ECB cannot. Credit growth has picked up. After a prolonged deleveraging cycle, private-sector nonfinancial debt is rising faster than GDP (Chart 4). The recent easing in The Conference Board's Leading Credit Index suggests that this trend will continue (Chart 5). Wage growth is accelerating. Average hourly earnings surprised on the upside in August, with the year-over-year change rising to a cycle high of 2.9%. This followed a stronger reading in the Employment Cost Index in the second quarter. A simple correlation with the quits rate suggests that there is plenty of upside for wage growth (Chart 6). Faster wage growth will put more money into workers pockets who will then spend it. The savings rate has scope to fall. The personal savings rate currently stands at 6.7%, more than two percentage points higher than what one would expect based on the current ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income (Chart 7). If the savings rate were to fall by two points over the next two years, it would add 1.5% of GDP to aggregate demand. Chart 3U.S. Fiscal Policy Is More Expansionary Than The Euro Area Chart 4U.S. Private-Sector Nonfinancial Debt Is Rising At Close To Its Historic Trend Chart 5U.S. Credit Growth Will Remain Strong Chart 6Quits Rate Is Signaling That There Is Upside For Wage Growth Chart 7The Personal Savings Rate Has Room To Fall A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that these cyclical factors will permit the Fed to raise rates to 5% by 2020, almost double what the market is discounting.1 A more hawkish-than-expected Fed will bid up the value of the greenback. A stronger dollar, in turn, will undermine emerging markets, which have seen foreign-currency debts balloon over the past six years (Chart 8). The deflationary effects of a stronger dollar and falling commodity prices could temporarily cause investors to price out some hikes over the next few quarters. With that in mind, we recommend shorting the December 2020 Fed funds futures contract, while going long the June 2019 contract. The first leg of the trade captures our expectation that the market will revise up its estimate the terminal rate, while the second leg captures near-term risks to global growth. The gap between the two contracts has widened over the past few days as we have prepared this report, but at 21 basis points, it has plenty of room to increase further (Chart 9). Chart 8EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart 9U.S. Rate Expectations Are Too Low Beyond Mid-2019 Trade #2: Long USD/CNY China's economy is slowing, which has prompted the government to inject liquidity into the financial system. The spread in 1-year swap rates between the U.S. and China has fallen from about 3% earlier this year to 0.6% at present, taking the yuan down with it (Chart 10). It is doubtful that China will be willing to match - let alone exceed - U.S. rate hikes. This suggests that USD/CNY will appreciate. China's real trade-weighted exchange rate has weakened during the past four months, but is up 25% over the past decade (Chart 11). U.S. tariffs on $250 billion (and counting) of Chinese imports threaten to erode export competitiveness, making a further devaluation necessary. Chart 10USD/CNY Has Tracked China-U.S. Interest Rate Differentials Chart 11The RMB Is Still Quite Strong President Trump will oppose a weaker yuan. However, just as China's actions earlier this year to strengthen its currency did not prevent the U.S. from imposing tariffs, it is doubtful that efforts by the Chinese authorities to talk up the yuan would appease Trump. Besides, China needs a weaker currency. The Chinese economy produces too much and spends too little. The result is excess savings, epitomized most clearly in a national savings rate of 46%. As a matter of arithmetic, national savings need to be transformed either into domestic investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus. China has concentrated on the former strategy over the past decade. The problem is that this approach has run into diminishing returns. Chart 12 shows that the capital stock has risen dramatically as a share of GDP. As my colleague Jonathan LaBerge has documented, the rate of return on assets among Chinese state-owned companies, which have been the main driver of rising corporate leverage, has fallen below their borrowing costs (Chart 13).2 Chart 12China's Capital Stock Has Grown Alongside Rising Debt Levels Chart 13China: Rate Of Return On Assets Below Borrowing Costs For State-Owned Companies Now that the economy is awash in excess capacity, the authorities will need to steer more excess production abroad. This will require a larger current account surplus which, in turn, will necessitate a relatively cheap currency. The dollar is currently working off overbought technical conditions, a risk we flagged in our August 31st report.3 That process should be complete over the next few weeks. Meanwhile, hopes of a massive Chinese stimulus focused on fiscal/credit easing will fade. The combination of these two forces will push up USD/CNY above the psychologically-critical 7 handle by the end of the year. Trade #3: Short AUD/CAD A weaker yuan will raise raw material costs to Chinese firms. This will hurt commodity prices. Industrial metals are much more vulnerable to slower Chinese growth than oil. Chart 14 shows that China consumes close to half of all the copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, and iron ore produced in the world, compared to only 15% of oil output. Our expectation that developed economy growth will hold up better than EM growth over the next few quarters implies that oil will outperform industrial metals. Oil is also supported by a tighter supply backdrop, particularly given the downside risks to Iranian and Venezuelan crude exports. A bet on oil over metals is a bet on DM over EM growth in general, and the Canadian dollar over the Australian dollar specifically (Chart 15). Canada exports more oil than metals, while Australian exports are dominated by ores and metals. In terms of valuations, the Canadian dollar is still somewhat cheap relative to the Aussie dollar based on our FX team's long-term valuation model (Chart 16). Chart 14China Is A More Dominant Consumer Of Metals Than Oil Chart 15Oil Over Metals = CAD Over AUD Chart 16Canadian Dollar Still Somewhat Cheap Versus The Aussie Dollar The loonie has been weighed down by ongoing fears that Canada will be left out of a renegotiated NAFTA. However, our geopolitical strategists believe that the Trump administration is trying to focus more on China, against whom the case for unfair trade practices is far easier to make. The U.S. has already negotiated a trade deal with Mexico and an agreement with Canada is more likely than not. If a new deal is struck, the Canadian dollar will rally. We recommended going short AUD/CAD on June 28. The trade is up 3.4%, carry-adjusted, since then. Stick with it. Trade #4: Long EM stocks with near-term downside put protection It is too early to call a bottom in EM assets. Valuations have not yet reached washed-out levels (Chart 17). Bottom fishers still abound, as evidenced by the fact that the number of shares outstanding in the MSCI iShares Turkish ETF has almost tripled since early April (Chart 18). However, at some point - probably in the first half of next year - investors will liquidate their remaining bullish EM bets. During the 1990s, this capitulation point occurred shortly after the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management in September 1998. EM equities fell by 26% between April 21, 1998 and June 15, 1998. After a half-hearted attempt at a rally, EM stocks tumbled again in July, falling by 35% between July 17 and September 10. The second leg of the EM selloff brought down the S&P 500 by 22%. Thanks to a series of well-telegraphed Fed rate cuts, global markets stabilized on October 8th (Chart 19). The S&P 500 surged by 68% over the next 18 months. The MSCI EM index more than doubled in dollar terms over this period. EM stocks outperformed U.S. equities by a whopping 71% between February 1999 and February 2000. Europe also outperformed the U.S. starting in mid-1999. Value stocks, which had lagged growth stocks over the prior six years, also finally gained the upper hand. Chart 17EM Assets: Valuations Not Yet At Washed Out Levels Chart 18EM Bottom Fishers Still Abound Chart 19The ''Great Equity Rotation'' Is Coming: A Roadmap From The 1990s The "Great Equity Rotation" is coming. All the trades that have suffered lately - overweight EM, long Europe/short U.S., long cyclicals/short defensives, long value/short growth - will get their day in the sun. Investors can prepare for this inflection point by scaling into EM equities today, but guarding against near-term downside risk by buying puts. With that in mind, we are going long the iShares MSCI Emerging Market ETF (EEM), while purchasing March 15, 2019 out-of-the-money puts with a strike price of $41. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Depending on which specification of the Taylor rule one uses, a one percent of GDP increase in aggregate demand will increase the neutral rate of interest by half a point (John Taylor's original specification) or by a full point (Janet Yellen's preferred specification). Fiscal policy is currently about 3% of GDP too simulative compared to a baseline where government debt-to-GDP is stable over time. Assuming a fiscal multiplier of 0.5, fiscal policy is thus boosting aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Nonfinancial private credit has increased by an average of 1.5 percentage points of GDP per year since 2016. Assuming that every additional one dollar of credit increases aggregate demand by 50 cents, the revival in credit growth is raising aggregate demand by 0.75% of GDP, compared to a baseline where credit-to-GDP is flat. The labor share of income has increased by 1.25% of GDP from its lows in 2015. Assuming that every one dollar shift in income from capital to labor boosts overall spending on net by 20 cents, this would have raised aggregate demand by 0.25% of GDP. Lastly, if the savings rate falls by two points over the next two years, this would raise aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Taken together, these factors are boosting the neutral rate by anywhere from 2% (Taylor's specification) to 4% (Yellen's specification). This is obviously a lot, and easily overwhelms other factors such as a stronger dollar that may be weighing on the neutral rate. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Policymakers: Facing A Trade-Off Between Growth And Leveraging," dated August 29, 2018. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar And Global Growth: Are The Tables About To Turn?" dated August 31, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades