Market Returns

Highlights Like in any currency board, Hong Kong dollar money supply is not fully backed by foreign currency (FX) reserves. Yet, the Hong Kong authorities have large FX reserves to defend the currency peg for now. Regardless, mounting capital outflows and the ensuing currency defense will lead to higher interest rates. Contrary to Hong Kong, Singapore has a flexible exchange rate regime and will begin easing monetary policy soon. Interest rates in Singapore will drop relative to Hong Kong. We are therefore reiterating our short Hong Kong / long Singaporean property stocks strategy. Feature The recent popular protests in Hong Kong against the extradition bill will likely mark a regime shift – not only in the territory’s socio-political dynamics but also in its financial outlook. It seems the local authorities are still considering an adoption of the extradition bill. For now, the bill has been suspended, but it has not been withdrawn outright. In light of elevated political uncertainty over the one-country, two-systems model, it is reasonable to assume that capital outflows from Hong Kong will rise in the coming year or so.  In light of elevated political uncertainty over the one-country, two-systems model, it is reasonable to assume that capital outflows from Hong Kong will rise in the coming year or so. The question therefore becomes whether or not the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has sufficient foreign currency (FX) reserves to defend the Hong Kong dollar’s peg. Even though Hong Kong's broad money supply is not fully backed by FX reserves, we see no major risk to the currency peg at the moment. That said, mounting capital outflows will necessitate higher interest rates, as least relative to U.S. ones, to defend the peg. This is negative for Hong Kong’s property market and share prices. Are Hong Kong Dollars Fully Backed By FX Reserves? Hong Kong operates a linked-exchange rate system, which stipulates that its monetary base must be fully backed by FX reserves. The monetary base includes (Table I-1): The balance of the clearing accounts of banks kept with the HKMA (called the Aggregate Balance, which represents commercial banks’ excess reserves). Exchange Fund bills and notes – securities issued by the Exchange Fund to manage excess reserves/liquidity in the interbank market. Certificates of Indebtedness which are equivalent to currency in circulation. These certificates are held by note-issuing banks in exchange for their FX deposits at the Exchange Fund. The Exchange Fund is a balance sheet vehicle of the HKMA. Government-issued coins in circulation. Chart I- Presently, Hong Kong’s FX reserves-to-monetary base ratio is 2.2 (Chart I-1on page 1). This ratio is well above the stipulated currency board rule of one: a unit of monetary base can be issued only when it is backed by an equivalent foreign currency asset. Chart I-1HK: FX Coverage Of Monetary Base Is Well Above 1 HK: FX Coverage Of Monetary Base Is Well Above 1 HK: FX Coverage Of Monetary Base Is Well Above 1 The reason the ratio is currently more than double where it technically should be is because the HKMA’s foreign exchange reserves also include the fiscal authorities’ foreign currency deposits at the Exchange Fund. Hence, the large pool of fiscal assets converted into foreign currency and sitting in the Exchange Fund has pushed the monetary base’s coverage ratio above two. As of December 31, 2018, the Exchange Fund’s foreign currency assets consisted of HK$743 billion of its own foreign currency reserves (net FX reserves), HK$1.17 trillion of the fiscal authorities’ foreign currency deposits, and HK$485 billion of foreign currency deposits by money issuing commercial banks (Table I-1). However, broad money supply in Hong Kong is not fully backed by foreign currency reserves (Chart I-2). At 0.45, this coverage ratio entails that each HK dollar of broad money supply is backed by 0.45 USD foreign currency reserves within the Exchange Fund. Broad money supply includes currency in circulation, demand, savings and time deposits, and negotiable certificates of deposits (NCDs) issued by licensed banks. Chart I-2HK: FX Coverage Of HK Dollars Is Only 0.45 HK: FX Coverage Of HK Dollars Is Only 0.45 HK: FX Coverage Of HK Dollars Is Only 0.45 Crucially, broad money supply does not include commercial banks’ reserves at the central bank in any economy, including Hong Kong. The pertinent measure of any exchange rate backing is the ratio of FX reserves to broad money supply (all local currency deposits plus cash in circulation). The motive is that households and companies can use not only cash in circulation but also their deposits to acquire foreign currency. With the ratio standing at 0.45, the Hong Kong monetary authorities do not have sufficient amounts of U.S. dollars to guarantee the exchange of each unit of local currency (cash in circulation and all deposits) into U.S. dollars in the event of a full-blown flight out of HK dollars. It is essential to clarify that the monetary authorities in Hong Kong have not deviated from the original framework of the currency board. This exchange rate mechanism was devised in 1983 in such a way that only the monetary base – not broad money supply – was supposed to be backed by foreign currency. In short, any currency board entails that only the monetary base – not broad money supply - is backed by FX reserves. Hong Kong is not an exception. Nevertheless, there is widespread perception in the financial community and among economists that all Hong Kong dollars are backed by foreign currency reserves, which is incorrect. Like in any banking system, when commercial banks in Hong Kong grant loans or buy assets from non-banks, they create local currency deposits “out of thin air.” These deposits are not backed by foreign currency, and commercial banks that create these deposits are not obliged to deposit FX reserves at the Exchange Fund. The credit boom in Hong Kong has accelerated since 2009 (Chart I-3, top panel). Consistently, since that time, the amount of local currency deposits has mushroomed – these deposits are not backed by foreign currency (Chart I-3, bottom panel).  Chart I-3Banks' Loans And Deposit Growth Go Hand-In-Hand Banks' Loans And Deposit Growth Go Hand-In-Hand Banks' Loans And Deposit Growth Go Hand-In-Hand On the whole, the currency board system in Hong Kong and elsewhere cannot guarantee full convertibility of broad money supply (all types of deposits). Therefore, these currency regimes are ultimately based on confidence. If and when confidence in the exchange rate plummets and economic agents rush to exchange a large share of their local currency cash in circulation and deposits into foreign currency, the monetary authorities’ FX reserves will not be sufficient. That said, there is presently no basis to argue that close to 45% of Hong Kong broad money supply (cash and coins in circulation and deposits of all types) is poised to panic-flood the currency market. Hence, we do not foresee a de-pegging of the HKD exchange rate for now. The currency will continue to trade within its HKD/USD 7.75-7.85 band. Bottom Line: Like in any currency board, the Hong Kong dollars are not fully backed by its FX reserves. However, the Hong Kong authorities have large FX reserves to defend the currency peg for some time. Liquidity Strains? According to the Impossible Trinity thesis, in an economy with an open capital account, the monetary authorities can control either interest rates or the exchange rate, but not both simultaneously. Provided Hong Kong has both an open capital account and a fixed exchange rate, the monetary authorities have little control over interest rates. Balance-of-payment (BoP) dynamics determine whether the HKMA has to buy or sell foreign currency to preserve the exchange rate peg. When the BoP is in surplus, the HKMA accumulates FX reserves, and vice versa.  The odds are rising that Hong Kong will begin experiencing capital outflows due to heightening political uncertainty over the one-country, two-systems model. Consistently, the BoP will swing from recurring surpluses to deficits and the HKMA will have to finance them by selling FX reserves (Chart I-4). By doing so, the monetary authorities will drain banks’ excess reserves, thereby tightening interbank liquidity. Chart I-4Balance Of Payments And FX Reserves Balance Of Payments And FX Reserves Balance Of Payments And FX Reserves Chart I-5Falling Excess Reserves = Higher Interbank Rates Falling Excess Reserves = Higher Interbank Rates Falling Excess Reserves = Higher Interbank Rates Notably, the HKMA’s FX reserves have plateaued, commercial banks’ excess reserves (the Aggregate Balance at the HKMA) have shrunk and money market rates have risen since 2016 (Chart I-5). Importantly, the latter has continued, even as U.S. interest rates have dropped over the past six months (Chart I-5, bottom panel). These dynamics are set to continue. To defend the HKD’s fixed exchange rate, interest rates in Hong Kong should rise and stay above those in the U.S. This will be the equivalent of pricing in a risk premium in Hong Kong rates due to higher political uncertainty in domestic politics as well as the ongoing U.S.-China trade confrontation. To defend the HKD’s fixed exchange rate, interest rates in Hong Kong should rise and stay above those in the U.S. On a positive note, the HKMA has ample room to mitigate liquidity strains resulting from FX interventions. In years when the BoP was in surplus, to prevent HKD appreciation the authorities purchased substantial amounts of U.S. dollars. As a result, the aggregate balance/excess reserves swelled, and Exchange Fund bills and notes were issued to absorb excess reserves (Chart I-6). Chart I-6HK Authorities Have Large Liquidity Firepower HK Authorities Have Large Liquidity Firepower HK Authorities Have Large Liquidity Firepower Going forward, with capital outflows causing tightening liquidity, the HKMA can redeem its own bills and notes to replenish the Aggregate Balance. This will ease interbank liquidity and preclude interest rates from shooting up dramatically. The HKMA’s liquidity firepower is sizable: the amount of Exchange Fund bills and notes is more than HK$1 trillion. This compares with aggregate balance (excess reserves) of HK$55 billion. Hence, potential interbank liquidity is HK$1.1 trillion (the Aggregate Balance plus the Exchange Fund’s bills and notes) (Chart I-6, top panel). There is no way to guesstimate potential capital outflows from Hong Kong. Hence, it is difficult to know what the equilibrium level of the interest rate spread over U.S. rates will be. The market will be re-balancing continuously, and the interest rate differential will fluctuate – i.e., it will be a moving target that ensures the fixed value of the currency. Bottom Line: Odds are that market-based interest rates in Hong Kong have to rise and stay above the U.S. ones for now. Heading Into Recession? With non-financial private sector debt close to 300% of GDP (Chart I-7) and property/construction and financial services sectors accounting for a large share of the economy, the Hong Kong economy is extremely sensitive to interest rates. Chart I-7Hong Kong: Leverage And Debt Servicing Hong Kong: Leverage And Debt Servicing Hong Kong: Leverage And Debt Servicing Chart I-8HK Economy Is In A Cyclical Downtrend HK Economy Is In A Cyclical Downtrend HK Economy Is In A Cyclical Downtrend Economic conditions have already been worsening, and any further rise in interest rates will escalate the economic downtrend: Private credit growth has decelerated and is probably heading into contraction (Chart I-8, top panel). The property market is one of the most expensive in the world. Property transactions have plunged and real estate prices will likely deflate (Chart I-8, middle panels). China’s weakening economy and subsiding Hong Kong business and investor confidence will hurt domestic demand. Retail sales volumes are already contracting (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Investment Implications The interest rate differential between Hong Kong and the U.S. has recently become positive after two and a half years of lingering below zero (Chart I-9). Odds are that it will remain positive at least over the next couple years. Therefore, even if U.S. interest rates decline further, Hong Kong rates will not. This has major investment ramifications: Hong Kong stocks will likely underperform U.S. and EM equity benchmarks, as its interest rate differential with the U.S. stays on the positive side and widens further (Chart I-10).  Chart I-9HK Interest Rate Spread Over U.S. Will Rise And Stay Positive HK Interest Rate Spread Over U.S. Will Rise And Stay Positive HK Interest Rate Spread Over U.S. Will Rise And Stay Positive Chart I-10Higher HK Interest Rates Herald HK Equity Underperformance Higher HK Interest Rates Herald HK Equity Underperformance Higher HK Interest Rates Herald HK Equity Underperformance The MSCI Hong Kong stock index is composed of financials (36% of market cap) and property stocks (26% of market cap). Therefore, domestic stocks are very sensitive to interest rates. Hong Kong companies are also very exposed to mainland growth. A recovery in the latter is not yet imminent. As a market neutral trade, we are reiterating our short Hong Kong property / long Singapore property stocks strategy. Chart I-11Favor Singapore Stocks Versus Hong Kong Ones Favor Singapore Stocks Versus Hong Kong Ones Favor Singapore Stocks Versus Hong Kong Ones All of this leads us to maintain our underweight stance on Hong Kong domestic stocks versus U.S. and EM equity indexes (Chart I-10). As a market neutral trade, we are reiterating our short Hong Kong property / long Singapore property stocks strategy. Hong Kong interest rates will rise above Singapore’s, leading to the former’s equity underperformance versus the latter across property, banks and probably the overall stock index (Chart I-11). For a more detailed discussion of Singapore, please see below.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com           Singapore: Monetary Easing Is Imminent Singapore’s stock market is at risk of selling off in absolute terms. However, the monetary authorities (MAS) will soon commence policy easing. This will differentiate Singapore from Hong Kong. While both Singapore and Hong Kong suffer from property and credit excesses and are facing a cyclical downtrend, the former – unlike the latter – can and will lower interest rates and allow its currency to depreciate to reflate the system. As a result, we are reiterating our short Hong Kong / long Singaporean property stocks strategy. Cyclical Headwinds Persist While both Singapore and Hong Kong suffer from property and credit excesses and are facing a cyclical downtrend, the former – unlike the latter – can and will lower interest rates and allow its currency to depreciate to reflate the system. Singapore’s cyclical growth outlook is worsening: Chart II-1 shows that the narrow money impulse is in deep contraction and the private domestic banks loans impulse is dipping into negative territory anew. The property sector – which is an important driver of Singapore’s economy – is depressed. Residential units sold has dipped, the high-end condominium market is virtually frozen and housing mortgage growth has stalled. These create formidable risks for Singapore’s real estate stocks’ absolute performance (Chart II-2). The latter account for 15% of the Singaporean stock market. Chart II-1Singapore: Money / Credit Impulses Singapore: Money / Credit Impulses Singapore: Money / Credit Impulses Chart II-2Singapore: Real Estate Stocks Are At Risk Singapore: Real Estate Stocks Are At Risk Singapore: Real Estate Stocks Are At Risk Meanwhile, there has been no signs of improvement in both domestic demand and exports. The top panel of Chart II-3 shows that the marginal propensity to spend among both consumers and non-financial businesses is diminishing. Specifically, the impulse for overall consumer loans is negative, while retail sales are contracting (Chart II-3, bottom panel). As for the business sector, it is also slowing down. Manufacturing PMI and new orders are in a contraction zone (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Private Consumption Is Weakening Private Consumption Is Weakening Private Consumption Is Weakening Chart II-4Business Sector Is Hit Hard Business Sector is Hit Hard Business Sector is Hit Hard Finally, corporate profitability of listed non-financial and non-property firms has massively deteriorated in the last decade. Chart II-5 illustrates that both return on assets (ROA) and return-on-equity (ROE) have been in a downward trend and have lately plunged. Shrinking profit margins have been the result of escalating unit labor costs (Chart II-6). In other words, productivity gains among listed non-financial companies have lagged behind wage increases. Chart II-5Corporate Profitability Is At 20-Year Low Corporate Profitability Is At 20-Year Low Corporate Profitability Is At 20-Year Low Chart II-6Rising Unit Labor Costs = Shrinking Profit Margins Rising Unit Labor Costs = Shrinking Profit Margins Rising Unit Labor Costs = Shrinking Profit Margins Monetary Policy Will Be Relaxed Chart II-7The Central Bank Has Been Withdrawing Liquidity The Central Bank Has Been Withdrawing Liquidity The Central Bank Has Been Withdrawing Liquidity The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) conducts monetary policy by controlling the currency and by default allowing domestic interest rates to find their own equilibrium. Currently, the MAS’s monetary policy setting is restrictive – i.e. it is aiming to gradually appreciate the trade-weighted Singaporean dollar by withdrawing excess reserve from the banking system (Chart II-7, top panel). This in turn, is causing commercial banks to bid interbank rates higher (Chart II-7, bottom panel). Nevertheless, with the domestic growth deceleration intensifying and the private sector highly leveraged, the MAS will soon opt for policy easing. It will guide the trade-weighted exchange rate lower by injecting liquidity into the banking system and lowering interest rates. Bottom Line: The Singaporean economy needs lower rates and the MAS is not constrained by the currency peg as the HKMA is. Consequently, interest rates in Singapore will decline both in absolute terms and relative to Hong Kong ones. Investment Conclusion The cyclical downturn will deepen and Singapore share prices will drop in absolute U.S. dollar terms. Relative to the EM or the Asian benchmarks, we continue to recommend a neutral position on overall Singaporean equities for now. Importantly, Singapore is better positioned than Hong Kong because the former’s monetary authorities can lower interest rates and allow the currency to depreciate. Hong Kong monetary authorities cannot tolerate lower interest rates due to their peg to the U.S. dollar and budding capital outflows. Interest rates in Singapore will drop relative to Hong Kong. We are therefore reiterating our short Hong Kong / long Singaporean property stocks strategy (Chart I-11 on page 10).   Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations Image Image Equity Recommendations  

Highlights We update our long-range forecasts of returns from a range of asset classes – equities, bonds, alternatives, and currencies – and make some refinements to the methodologies we used in our last report in November 2017. We add coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, and include Emerging Markets debt, gold, and global Real Estate in our analysis for the first time. Generally, our forecasts are slightly higher than 18 months ago: we expect an annual return in nominal terms over the next 10-year years of 1.7% from global bonds, and 5.9% from global equities – up from 1.5% and 4.6% respectively in the last edition. Cheaper valuations in a number of equity markets, especially Japan, the euro zone, and Emerging Markets explain the higher return assumptions. Nonetheless, a balanced global portfolio is likely to return only 4.7% a year in the long run, compared to 6.3% over the past 20 years. That is lower than many investors are banking on. Feature Since we published our first attempt at projecting long-term returns for a range of asset classes in November 2017, clients have shown enormous interest in this work. They have also made numerous suggestions on how we could improve our methodologies and asked us to include additional asset classes. This Special Report updates the data, refines some of our assumptions, and adds coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, as well as gold, global Real Estate, and global REITs. Our basic philosophy has not changed. Many of the methodologies are carried over from the November 2017 edition, and clients interested in more detailed explanations should also refer to that report.1 Our forecast time horizon is 10-15 years. We deliberately keep this vague, and avoid trying to forecast over a 3-7 year time horizon, as is common in many capital market assumptions reports. The reason is that we want to avoid predicting the timing and gravity of the next recession, but rather aim to forecast long-term trend growth irrespective of cycles. This type of analysis is, by nature, as much art as science. We start from the basis that historical returns, at least those from the past 10 or 20 years, are not very useful. Asset allocators should not use historical returns data in mean variance optimizers and other portfolio-construction models. For example, over the past 20 years global bonds have returned 5.3% a year. With many long-term government bonds currently yielding zero or less, it is mathematically almost impossible that returns will be this high over the coming decade or so. Our analysis points to a likely annual return from global bonds of only 1.7%. Our approach is based on building-blocks. There are some factors we know with a high degree of certainly: such as the return on U.S. 10-year Treasury yields over the next 10 years (to all intents and purposes, it is the current yield). Many fundamental drivers of return (credit spreads, the small-cap premium, the shape of the yield curve, profit margins, stock price multiples etc.) are either steady on average over the cycle, or mean revert. For less certain factors, such as economic growth, inflation, or equilibrium short-term interest rates, we can make sensible assumptions. Most of the analysis in this report is based on the 20-year history of these factors. We used 20 years because data is available for almost all the asset classes we cover for this length of time (there are some exceptions, for example corporate bond data for Australia and Emerging Markets go back only to 2004-5, and global REITs start only in 2008). The period from May 1999 to April 2019 is also reasonable since it covers two recessions and two expansions, and started at a point in the cycle that is arguably similar to where we are today. Some will argue that it includes the Technology bubble of 1999-2000, when stock valuations were high, and that we should use a longer period. But the lack of data for many assets classes before the 1990s (though admittedly not for equities) makes this problematic. Also, note that the historical returns data for the 20 years starting in May 1999 are quite low – 5.8% for U.S. equities, for example. This is because the starting-point was quite late in the cycle, as we probably also are now.   We make the following additions and refinements to our analysis: Add coverage of the U.K., Australia, and Canada for both fixed income and equities. Add coverage of Emerging Markets debt: U.S. dollar and local-currency sovereign bonds, and dollar-denominated corporate credit. Among alternative assets, add coverage of gold, global Direct Real Estate, and global REITs. Improve the methodology for many alt asset classes, shifting from reliance on historical returns to an approach based on building blocks – for example, current yield plus an estimation of future capital appreciation – similar to our analysis of other asset classes. In our discussion of currencies, add for easy reference of readers a table of assumed returns for all the main asset classes expressed in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD (using our forecasts of long-run movements in these currencies). Added Sharpe ratios to our main table of assumptions. The summary of our results is shown in Table 1. The results are all average annual nominal total returns, in local currency terms (except for global indexes, which are in U.S. dollars). Table 1BCA Assumed Returns Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Unsurprisingly, given the long-term nature of this exercise, our return projections have in general not moved much compared to those in November 2017. Indeed, markets look rather similar today to 18 months ago: the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield was 2.4% at end-April (our data cut-off point), compared to 2.3%, and the trailing PE for U.S. stocks 21.0, compared to 21.6. If anything, the overall assumption for a balanced portfolio (of 50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% equal-weighted alts) has risen slightly compared to the 2017 edition: to 4.7% from 4.1% for a global portfolio, and to 4.9% from 4.6% for a purely U.S. one. That is partly because we include specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia, and Canada, where returns are expected to be slightly higher than for the markets we limited our forecasts to previously, the U.S, euro zone, Japan, and Emerging Markets (EM). Equity returns are also forecast to be higher than 18 months ago, mainly because several markets now are cheaper: trailing PE for Japan has fallen to 13.1x from 17.6x, for the euro zone to 15.5x from 18.0x, and for Emerging Markets to 13.6x from 15.4x (and more sophisticated valuation measures show the same trend). The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, based on our analysis, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. We include Sharpe ratios in Table 1 for the first time. We calculate them as expected return/expected volatility to allow for comparison between different asset classes, rather than as excess return over cash/volatility as is strictly correct, and as should be used in mean variance optimizers. Chart 1Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns For volatility assumptions, we mostly use the 20-year average volatility of each asset class. As discussed above, historical returns should not be used to forecast future returns. But volatility does not trend much over the long-term (Chart 1). We looked carefully at volatility trends for all the asset classes we cover, but did not find a strong example of a trend decline or rise in any. We do, however, adjust the historic volatility of the illiquid, appraisal-based alternative assets, such as Private Equity, Real Estate, and Farmland. The reported volatility is too low, for example 2.6% in the case of U.S. Direct Real Estate. Even using statistical techniques to desmooth the return produces a volatility of only around 7%. We choose, therefore, to be conservative, and use the historic volatility on REITs (21%) and apply this to Direct Real Estate too. For Private Equity (historic volatility 5.9%), we use the volatility on U.S. listed small-cap stocks (18.6%). Looking at the forecast Sharpe ratios, the risk-adjusted return on global bonds (0.55) is somewhat higher than that of global equities (0.33). Credit continues to look better than equities: Sharpe ratio of 0.70 for U.S. investment grade debt and 0.62 for high-yield bonds. Nonetheless, our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. Over the past 20 years a global balanced portfolio (defined as above) returned 6.3% and a similar U.S. portfolio 7.0%. We expect 4.7% and 4.9% respectively in future. Investors working on the assumption of a 7-8% nominal return – as is typical among U.S. pension funds, for example – need to become realistic. Below follow detailed descriptions of how we came up with our assumptions for each asset class (fixed income, equities, and alternatives), followed by our forecasts of long-term currency movements, and a brief discussion of correlations. 1. Fixed Income We carry over from the previous edition our building-block approach to estimating returns from fixed income. One element we know with a relatively high degree of certainty is the return over the next 10 years from 10-year government bonds in developed economies: one can safely assume that it will be the same as the current 10-year yield. It is not mathematical identical, of course, since this calculation does not take into account reinvestment of coupons, or default risk, but it is a fair assumption. We can make some reasonable assumptions for returns from cash, based on likely inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate in different countries. After this, our methodology is to assume that other historic relationships (corporate bond spreads, default and recovery rates, the shape of the yield curve etc.) hold over the long run and that, therefore, the current level reverts to its historic mean. The results of our analysis, and the assumptions we use, are shown in Table 2. Full details of the methodology follow below. Table 2Fixed Income Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Projected returns have not changed significantly from the 2017 edition of this report. In the U.S., for the current 10-year Treasury bond yield we used 2.4% (the three-month average to end-April), very similar to the 2.3% on which we based our analysis in 2017. In the euro zone and Japan, yields have fallen a little since then, with the 10-year German Bund now yielding roughly 0%, compared to 0.5% in 2017, and the Japanese Government Bond -0.1% compared to zero. Overall, we expect the Bloomberg Barclays Global Index to give an annual nominal return of 1.7% over the coming 10-15 years, slightly up from the assumption of 1.5% in the previous edition. This small rise is due to the slight increase in the U.S. long-term risk-free rate, and to the inclusion for the first time of specific estimates for returns in the U.K., Australia, and Canada. Fixed Income Methodologies Cash. We forecast the long-run rate on 3-month government bills by generating assumptions for inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate. For inflation, in most countries we use the 20-year average of CPI inflation, for example 2.2% in the U.S. and 1.7% in the euro zone. This suggests that both the Fed and the ECB will slightly miss their inflation targets on the downside over the coming decade (the Fed targets 2% PCE inflation, but the PCE measure is on average about 0.5% below CPI inflation). Of course, this assumes that the current inflation environment will continue. BCA’s view is that inflation risks are significantly higher than this, driven by structural factors such as demographics, populism, and the advent of ultra-unorthodox monetary policy.2 But we see this as an alternative scenario rather than one that we should use in our return assumptions for now. Japan’s inflation has averaged 0.1% over the past 20 years, but we used 1% on the grounds that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) should eventually see some success from its quantitative easing. For the equilibrium real rate we use the New York Fed’s calculation based on the Laubach-Williams model for the U.S., euro zone, U.K., and Canada. For Japan, we use the BoJ’s estimate, and for Australia (in the absence of an official forecast of the equilibrium rate) we take the average real cash rate over the past 20 years. Finally, we assume that the cash yield will move from its current level to the equilibrium over 10 years. Government Bonds. Using the 10-year bond yield as an anchor, we calculate the return for the government bond index by assuming that the spread between 7- and 10-year bonds, and between 3-month bills and 10-year bonds will average the same over the next 10 years as over the past 20. While the shape of the yield curve swings around significantly over the cycle, there is no sign that is has trended in either direction (Chart 2). The average maturity of government bonds included in the index varies between countries: we use the five-year historic average for each, for example, 5.8 years for the U.S., and 10.2 years for Japan. Spread Product. Like government bonds, spreads and default rates are highly cyclical, but fairly stable in the long run (Chart 3). We use the 20-year average of these to derive the returns for investment-grade bonds, high-yield (HY) bonds, government-related securities (e.g. bonds issued by state-owned entities, or provincial governments), and securitized bonds (e.g. asset-backed or mortgage-backed securities). For example, for U.S. high-yield we use the average spread of 550 basis points over Treasuries, default rate of 3.8%, and recovery rate of 45%. For many countries, default and recovery rates are not available and so we, for example, use the data from the U.S. (but local spreads) to calculate the return for high-yield bonds in the euro zone and the U.K. Inflation-Linked Bonds. We use the average yield over the past 10 years (not 20, since for many countries data does not go back that far and, moreover, TIPs and their equivalents have been widely used for only a relatively short period.) We calculate the return as the average real yield plus forecast inflation. Chart 2Yield Curves Yield Curves Yield Curves Chart 3Credit Spreads & Default Rates Credit Spreads & Defaykt Rates Credit Spreads & Defaykt Rates     Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Bond Indexes. We use the weights of each category and country (from among those we forecast) to derive the likely return from the index. The composition of each country’s index varies widely: for example, in the euro zone (27% of the global bond index), government bonds comprise 66% of the index, but in the U.S. only 37%. Only the U.S. and Canada have significant weightings in corporate bonds: 29% and 50% respectively. This can influence the overall return for each country’s index. Table 3Emerging Market Debt Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Emerging Market Debt. We add coverage of EMD: sovereign bonds in both local currency and U.S. dollars, and USD-denominated EM corporate debt. Again, we take the 20-year average spread over 10-year U.S. Treasuries for each category. A detailed history of default and recovery is not available, so for EM corporate debt we assume similar rates to those for U.S. HY bonds. For sovereign bonds, we make a simple assumption of 0.5% of losses per year – although in practice this is likely to be very lumpy, with few defaults for years, followed by a rush during an EM crisis. For EM local currency debt, we assume that EM currencies will depreciate on average each year in line with the difference between U.S. inflation and EM inflation (using the IMF forecast for both – please see the Currency section below for further discussion on this). After these calculations, we conclude that EM USD sovereign bonds will produce an annual return of 4.7%, and EM USD corporate bonds 4.5% – in both cases a little below the 5.6% return assumption we have for U.S. high-yield debt (Table 3).   2. Equities Our equity methodologies are largely unchanged from the previous edition. We continue to use the return forecast from six different methodologies to produce an average assumed return. Table 4 shows the results and a summary of the calculation for each methodology. The explanation for the six methodologies follows below. Table 4Equity Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined The results suggest slightly higher returns than our projections in 2017. We forecast global equities to produce a nominal annual total return in USD of 5.9%, compared to 4.6% previously. The difference is partly due to the inclusion for the first time of specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia and Canada, which are projected to see 8.0%, 7.4% and 6.0% returns respectively. The projection for the U.S. is fairly similar to 2017, rising slightly to 5.6% from 5.0% (mainly due to a slightly higher assumption for productivity growth in future, which boosts the nominal GDP growth assumption). Japan, however, does come out looking significantly more attractive than previously, with an assumed return of 6.2%, compared to 3.5% previously. This is mostly due to cheaper valuations, since the growth outlook has not improved meaningfully. Japan now trades on a trailing PE of 13.1x, compared to 17.6x in 2017. This helps improve the return indicated by a number of the methodologies, including earnings yield and Shiller PE. The forecast for euro zone equities remains stable at 4.7%. EM assumptions range more widely, depending on the methodology used, than do those for DM. On valuation-based measures (Shiller PE, earnings yield etc.), EM generally shows strong return assumptions. However, on a growth-based model it looks less attractive. We continue to use two different assumptions for GDP growth in EM. Growth Model (1) is based on structural reform taking place in Emerging Markets, which would allow productivity growth to rebound from its current level of 3.2% to the 20-year average of 4.1%; Growth Model (2) assumes no reform and that productivity growth will continue to decline, converging with the DM average, 1.1%, over the next 10 years. In both cases, the return assumption is dragged down by net issuance, which we assume will continue at the 10-year average of 4.9% a year. Our composite projection for EM equity returns (in local currencies) comes out at 6.6%, a touch higher than 6.0% in 2017. Equity Methodologies Equity Risk Premium (ERP). This is the simplest methodology, based on the concept that equities in the long run outperform the long-term risk-free rate (we use the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield) by a margin that is fairly stable over time. We continue to use 3.5% as the ERP for the U.S., based on analysis by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton of the average ERP for developed markets since 1900. We have, however, tweaked the methodology this time to take into account the differing volatility of equity markets, which should translate into higher returns over time. Thus we use a beta of 1.2 for the euro zone, 0.8 for Japan, 0.9 for the U.K., 1.1 for both Australia and Canada, and 1.3 for Emerging Markets. The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. Growth Model. This is based on a Gordon growth model framework that postulates that equity returns are a function of dividend yield at the starting point, plus the growth of earnings in future (we assume that the dividend payout ratio stays constant). We base earnings growth off assumptions of nominal GDP growth (see Box 1 for how we calculate these). But historically there is strong evidence that large listed company earnings underperform nominal GDP growth by around 1 percentage point a year (largely because small, unlisted companies tend to show stronger growth than the mature companies that dominate the index) and so we deduct this 1% to reach the earnings growth forecast. We also need to adjust dividend yield for share buybacks which in the U.S., for tax reasons, have added 0.5% to shareholder returns over the past 10 years (net of new share issuance). In other countries, however, equity issuance is significantly larger than buybacks; this directly impacts shareholders’ returns via dilution. For developed markets, the impact of net equity issuance deducts 0.7%-2.7% from shareholder returns annually. But the impact is much bigger in Emerging Markets, where dilution has reduced returns by an average of 4.9% over the past 10 years. Table 5 shows that China is by far the biggest culprit, especially Chinese banks. Table 5Dilution In Emerging Markets Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined BOX 1 Estimating GDP Growth We estimate nominal GDP growth for the countries and regions in our analysis as the sum of: annual growth in the working-age population, productivity growth, and inflation (we assume that capital deepening remains stable over the period). Results are shown in Table 6. Table 6Calculations Of Trend GDP Growth Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined For population growth, we use the United Nations’ median scenario for annual growth in the population aged 25-64 between 2015 and 2030. This shows that the euro zone and Japan will see significant declines in the working population. The U.S. and U.K. look slightly better, with the working population projected to grow by 0.3% and 0.1% respectively. There are some uncertainties in these estimates. Stricter immigration policies would reduce the growth. Conversely, greater female participation, a later retirement age, longer working hours, or a rise in the participation rate would increase it. For emerging markets we used the UN estimate for “less developed regions, excluding least developed countries”. These countries have, on average, better demographics. However, the average number hides the decline in the working-age population in a number of important EM countries, for example China (where the working-age population is set to shrink by 0.2% a year), Korea (-0.4%), and Russia (-1.1%). By contrast, working population will grow by 1.7% a year in Mexico and 1.6% in India. For productivity growth, we assume – perhaps somewhat optimistically – that the decline in productivity since the Global Financial Crisis will reverse and that each country will return to the average annual productivity growth of the past 20 years (Chart 4). Our argument is that the cyclical factors that depressed productivity since the GFC (for example, companies’ reluctance to spend on capex, and shareholders’ preference for companies to pay out profits rather than to invest) should eventually fade, and that structural and technical factors (tight labor markets, increasing automation, technological breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, big data, and robotics) should boost productivity. Based on this assumption, U.S. productivity growth would average 2.0% over the next 10-15 years, compared to 0.5% since 1999. Note that this is a little higher than the Congressional Budgetary Office’s assumption for labor productivity growth of 1.8% a year. Chart 4AProductivity Growth (I) Productivity Growth (I) Productivity Growth (I) Chart 4BProductivity Growth (II) Productivity Growth (II) Productivity Growth (II) Our assumptions for inflation are as described above in the section on Fixed Income. The overall results suggest that Japan will see the lowest nominal GDP growth, at 0.9% a year, with the U.S. growing at 4.4%. The U.K. and Australia come out only a little lower than the U.S. For emerging markets, as described in the main text, we use two scenarios: one where productivity grow continues to slow in the absence of reforms, especially in China, from the current 3.2% to converge with the average in DM (1.1%) over the next 10-15 years; and an alternative scenario where reforms boost productivity back to the 20-year average of 4.1%.   Growth Plus Reversion To Mean For Margins And Profits. There is logic in arguing that profit margins and multiples tend to revert to the mean over the long term. If margins are particularly high currently, profit growth will be significantly lower than the above methodology would suggest; multiple contraction would also lower returns. Here we add to the Growth Model above an assumption that net profit margin and trailing PE will steadily revert to the 20-year average for each country over the 10-15 years. For most countries, margins are quite high currently compared to history: 9.2% in the U.S., for example, compared to a 20-year average of 7.7%. Multiples, however, are not especially high. Even in the U.S. the trailing PE of 21.0x, compares to a 20-year average of 20.8x (although that admittedly is skewed by the ultra-high valuations in 1999-2000, and coming out of the 2007-9 recession – we would get a rather lower number if we used the 40-year average). Indeed, in all the other countries and regions, the PE is currently lower than the 20-year average. Note that for Japan, we assumed that the PE would revert to the 20-year average of the U.S. and the euro zone (19.2), rather than that of Japan itself (distorted by long periods of negative earnings, and periods of PE above 50x in the 1990s and 2000s).  Earnings Yield. This is intuitively a neat way of thinking about future returns. Investors are rewarded for owning equity, either by the company paying a dividend, or by reinvesting its earnings and paying a dividend in future. If one assumes that future return on capital will be similar to ROC today (admittedly a rash assumption in the case of fast-growing companies which might be tempted to invest too aggressively in the belief that they can continue to generate rapid growth) it should be immaterial to the investor which the company chooses. Historically, there has been a strong correlation between the earnings yield (the inverse of the trailing PE) and subsequent equity returns, although in the past two decades the return has been somewhat higher that the EY suggested, and so in future might be somewhat lower. This methodology produces an assumed return for U.S. equities of 4.8% a year. Shiller PE. BCA’s longstanding view is that valuation is not a good timing tool for equity investment, but that it is crucial to forecasting long-term returns. Chart 5 shows that there is a good correlation in most markets between the Shiller PE (current share price divided by 10-year average inflation-adjusted earnings) and subsequent 10-year equity returns. We use a regression of these two series to derive the assumptions. This points to returns ranging from 5.4% in the case of the U.S. to 12.5% for the U.K. Composite Valuation Indicator. There are some issues that make the Shiller PE problematical. It uses a fixed 10-year period, whereas cycles vary in length. It tends to make countries look cheap when they have experienced a trend decline in earnings (which may continue, and not mean revert) and vice versa. So we also use a proprietary valuation indicator comprising a range of standard parameters (including price/book, price/cash, market cap/GDP, Tobin’s Q etc.), and regress this against 10-year returns. The results are generally similar to those using the Shiller PE, except that Japan shows significantly higher assumed returns, and the U.K. and EM significantly lower ones (Chart 6). Chart 5Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Chart 6Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return     3. Alternative Investments We continue to forecast each illiquid alternative investment separately, but we have made a number of changes to our methodologies. Mostly these involve moving away from using historical returns as a basis for our forecasts, and shifting to an approach based on current yield plus projected future capital appreciation. In direct real estate, for example, in 2017 we relied on a regression of historical returns against U.S. nominal GDP growth. We move in this edition to an approach based on the current cap rate, plus capital appreciation (based on forecasts of nominal GDP growth), and taking into account maintenance costs (details below). We also add coverage of some additional asset classes: global ex-U.S. direct real estate, global ex-U.S. REITs, and gold. Table 7 summarizes our assumptions, and provides details of historic returns and volatility. Table 7Alternatives Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined It is worth emphasizing here that manager selection is far more important for many alternative investment classes than it is for public securities (Chart 7). There is likely to be, therefore, much greater dispersion of returns around our assumptions than would be the case for, say, large-cap U.S. equities. Chart 7For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key Hedge Funds Chart 8Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge fund returns have trended down over time (Chart 8). Long gone is the period when hedge funds returned over 20% per year (as they did in the early 1990s). Over the past 10 years, the Composite Hedge Fund Index has returned annually 3.3% more than 3-month U.S. Treasury bills. But that was entirely during an economic expansion and so we think it is prudent to cut last edition’s assumption of future returns of cash-plus-3.5%, to cash-plus-3% going forward. Direct Real Estate Our new methodology for real estate breaks down the return, in a similar way to equities, into the current cash yield (cap rate) plus an assumption of future capital growth. For the cap rate, we use the average, weighted by transaction volumes, of the cap rates for apartments, office buildings, retail, industrial real estate, and hotels in major cities (for example, Chicago, Los Angeles, Manhattan, and San Francisco for the U.S., or Osaka and Tokyo for Japan). We assume that capital values grow in line with each’s country’s nominal GDP growth (using the IMF’s five-year forecasts for this). We deduct a 0.5% annual charge for maintenance, in line with industry practice. Results are shown in Table 8. Our assumptions point to better returns from real estate in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Not only is the cap rate in the U.S. higher, but nominal GDP growth is projected to be higher too. Table 8Direct Real Estate Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined REITs We switch to a similar approach for REITs. Previously we used a regression of REITs against U.S. equity returns (since REITs tend to be more closely correlated with equities than with direct real estate). This produced a rather high assumption for U.S. REITs of 10.1%. We now use the current dividend yield on REITs plus an assumption that capital values will grow in line with nominal GDP growth forecasts. REITs’ dividend yields range fairly narrowly from 2.9% in Japan to 4.7% in Canada. We do not exclude maintenance costs since these should already be subtracted from dividends. The result of using this methodology is that the assumed return for U.S. REITs falls to a more plausible 8.5%, and for global REITs is 6.2%. Private Equity & Venture Capital Chart 9Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around It makes sense that Private Equity returns are correlated with returns from listed equities. Most academic studies have shown a premium over time for PE of 5-6 percentage points (due to leverage, a tilt towards small-cap stocks, management intervention, and other factors). However, this premium has swung around dramatically over time (Chart 9). Over the past 10 years, for example, annual returns from Private Equity and listed U.S. equities have been identical: 12%. However, there appears to be no constant downtrend and so we think it advisable to use the 30-year average premium: 3.4%. This produces a return assumption for U.S. Private Equity of 8.9% per year. Over the same period, Venture Capital has returned around 0.5% more than PE (albeit with much higher volatility) and we assume the same will happen going forward.   Structured Products In the context of alternative asset classes, Structured Products refers to mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securities. We use the projected return on U.S. Treasuries plus the average 20-year spread of 60 basis points. Assumed return is 2.7%. Farmland & Timberland Chart 10Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP As with Real Estate and REITs, we move to a methodology using current cash yield (after costs) plus an assumption for capital appreciation linked to nominal GDP forecasts. The yield on U.S. Farmland is currently 4.4% and on Timberland 3.2%. Both have seen long-run prices grow significantly more slowly than nominal GDP growth. Since 1980, for example, farm prices have risen at a compound rate of 3.9% per acre, compared to U.S. nominal GDP growth of 5.2% and global GDP growth of 5.5% (Chart 10). We assume that this trend will continue, and so project farm prices to grow 1.5 percentage points a year more slowly than global GDP (using global, not U.S., economic growth makes sense since demand for food is driven by global factors). This produces a total return assumption of 6%. For timberland, we did not find a consistent relationship with nominal GDP growth and so assumed that prices would continue to grow at their historic rate over the past 20 years (the longest period for which data is available). We project timberland to produce an annual return of 4.8%. Commodities & Gold For commodities we use a very different methodology (which we also used in the previous edition): the concept that commodities prices consistently over time have gone through supercycles, lasting around 10 years, followed by bear markets that have lasted an average of 17 years (Chart 11). The most recent super-cycle was 2002-2012. In the period since the supercycle ended, the CRB Index has fallen by 42%. Comparing that to the average drop in the past three bear markets, we conclude that there is about 8% left to fall over the next nine years, implying an annual decline of about 1%. Our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. We add gold to our assumptions, since it is an asset often held by investors. However, it is not easy to project long-term returns for the metal. Since the U.S. dollar was depegged from gold in 1968, gold too has gone through supercycles, in the 1970s and 2002-11 (Chart 12). We find that change in real long-term interest rates negatively affects gold (logically since higher rates increase the opportunity cost of owning a non-income-generating asset). We use, therefore, a regression incorporating global nominal GDP growth and a projection of the annual change in real 10-year U.S. Treasury yields (based on the equilibrium cash rate plus the average spread between 10-year yields and cash). This produces an assumption of an annual return from gold of 4.7% a year. We continue to see this asset class more as a hedge in a portfolio (it has historically had a correlation of only 0.1 with global equities and 0.24 with global bonds) rather than a source of return per se.  Chart 11Commodities Still In A Bear Market Commodities Still In A Bear Market Commodities Still In A Bear Market Chart 12Gold Also Has Supercycles Gold Also Has Supercycles Gold Also Has Supercycles   4. Currencies Chart 13Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP All the return projections in this report are in local currency terms. That is a problem for investors who need an assumption for returns in their home currency. It is also close to impossible to hedge FX exposure over as long a period as 10-15 years. Even for investors capable of putting in place rolling currency hedges, GAA has shown previously that the optimal hedge ratio varies enormously depending on the home currency, and that dynamic hedges (i.e. using a simple currency forecasting model) produce better risk-adjust returns than a static hedge.3  Fortunately, there is an answer: it turns out that long-term currency forecasting is relatively easy due to the consistent tendency of currencies, in developed economies at least, to revert to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) over the long-run, even though they can diverge from it for periods as long as five years or more (Chart 13). We calculate likely currency movements relative to the U.S. dollar based on: 1) the current divergence of the currency from PPP, using IMF estimates of the latter; 2) the likely change in PPP over the next 10 years, based on inflation differentials between the country and the U.S. going forward (using IMF estimates of average CPI inflation for 2019-2024 and assuming the same for the rest of the period). The results are shown in Table 9. All DM currencies, except the Australian dollar, look cheap relative to the U.S. dollar, and all of them, again excluding Australia, are forecast to run lower inflation that the U.S. implying that their PPPs will rise further. This means that both the euro and Japanese yen would be expected to appreciate by a little more than 1% a year against the U.S. dollar over the next 10 years or so. Table 9Currency Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined PPP does not work, however, for EM currencies. They are all very cheap relative to PPP, but show no clear trend of moving towards it. The example of Japan in the 1970s and 1980s suggests that reversion to PPP happens only when an economy becomes fully developed (and is pressured by trading partners to allow its currency to appreciate). One could imagine that happening to China over the next 10-20 years, but the RMB is currently 48% undervalued relative to PPP, not so different from its undervaluation 15 years ago. For EM currencies, therefore, we use a different methodology: a regression of inflation relative to the U.S. against historic currency movements. This implies that EM currencies are driven by the relative inflation, but that they do not trend towards PPP. Based on IMF inflation forecasts, many Emerging Markets are expected to experience higher inflation than the U.S. (Table 10). On this basis, the Turkish lira would be expected to decline by 7% a year against the U.S. dollar and the Brazilian real by 2% a year. However, the average for EM, which we calculated based on weights in the MSCI EM equity index, is pulled down by China (29% of that index), Korea (15%) and Taiwan (12%). China’s inflation is forecast to be barely above that in the U.S, and Korean and Taiwanese inflation significantly below it. MSCI-weighted EM currencies, consequently, are forecast to move roughly in line with the USD over the forecast horizon. One warning, though: the IMF’s inflation forecasts in some Emerging Markets look rather optimistic compared to history: will Mexico, for example, see only 3.2% inflation in future, compared to an average of 5.7% over the past 20 years? Higher inflation than the IMF forecasts would translate into weaker currency performance. Table 10EM Currencies Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined In Table 11, we have restated the main return assumptions from this report in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD terms for the convenience of clients with different home currencies. As one would expect from covered interest-rate parity theory, the returns cluster more closely together when expressed in the individual currencies. For example, U.S. government bonds are expected to return only 0.8% a year in EUR terms (versus 2.1% in USD terms) bringing their return closer to that expected from euro zone government bonds, -0.4%. Convergence to PPP does not, however, explain all the difference between the yields in different countries. Table 11Returns In Different Base Currencies Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined 5. Correlations Chart 14Correlations Are Hard To Forecast Correlations Are Hard To Forecast Correlations Are Hard To Forecast We have not tried to forecast correlations in this Special Report. As discussed, historical returns from different asset classes are not a reliable guide to future returns, but it is possible to come up with sensible assumptions about the likely long-run returns going forward. Volatility does not trend much over the long term, so we think it is not unreasonable to use historic volatility data in an optimizer. But correlation is a different matter. As is well known, the correlation of equities and bonds has moved from positive to negative over the past 40 years (mainly driven by a shift in the inflation environment). But the correlation between major equity markets has also swung around (Chart 14). Asset allocators should preferably use rough, conservative assumptions for correlations – for example, 0.1 or 0.2 for the equity/bond correlation, rather than the average -0.1 of the past 20 years. We plan to do further work to forecast correlations in a future edition of this report.  But for readers who would like to see – and perhaps use – historic correlation data, we publish below a simplified correlation matrix of the main asset classes that we cover in this report (Table 12). We would be happy to provide any client with the full spreadsheet of all asset classes . Table 12Correlation Matrix Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “What Returns Can You Expect?”, dated 15 November 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated 22 May 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see GAA Special Report, “Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors,” dated 29 September 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com  

Highlights Fed: The Fed will cut rates in July, and possibly once more this year. This extra stimulus will help boost global growth in the second half of 2019. Credit: With inflation expectations low, the Fed will not risk upsetting financial markets by striking a hawkish tone. This will be a boon for corporate bonds. We no longer advocate a cautious near-term allocation to corporate credit. Spreads have likely peaked. Duration: The economic environment bears a greater resemblance to prior mid-cycle slowdowns than to prior pre-recession periods. As such, the Fed will not deliver more than the 89 basis points of rate cuts that are already discounted for the next 12 months. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Feature More Houdini Than Bullwinkle When Fed Chair Jay Powell reached into his hat at last week’s FOMC meeting, most – including us – thought he might emerge looking like Bullwinkle the cartoon moose.1 Instead, he pulled a rabbit, delivering a dovish surprise to markets that already expected a lot. The yield curve was discounting 80 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months heading into last Wednesday’s announcement. Then, the Fed’s statement and Powell’s press conference pushed our 12-month discounter all the way down to -94 bps (Chart 1). The 10-year Treasury yield also dropped 8 bps post-FOMC, while the 2-year yield fell a whopping 14 bps. The Fed will go to great lengths to signal that monetary conditions remain accommodative. The Fed communicated its dovish pivot through both the post-meeting statement and its interest rate projections. In the post-meeting statement, the Fed replaced its pledge to be “patient” with a promise to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion”. A re-phrasing that is clearly designed to signal a rate cut in July. FOMC participants also revised their interest rate projections sharply lower (Chart 2). In March, 11 out of 17 participants expected the Fed to stay on hold for the balance of 2019, while 4 participants called for one rate hike and 2 called for two rate hikes. Now, 8 out of 17 participants continue to expect a steady fed funds rate, but 7 are calling for two rate cuts this year. Only one participant is still looking for a 2019 hike. Chart 1A Dovish Magic Show Dovish Magic Show Dovish Magic Show Chart 2Dots Revised Lower Dots Revised Lower For 2020 Dots Revised Lower For 2020   In his press conference, Chair Powell explicitly linked the Fed’s dovish pivot to “trade developments” and “concerns about global growth”. Bond investors will undoubtedly heed this message, and Treasury yields will be extra sensitive to any trade-related news that comes out of this weekend’s G20 summit, as well as to any fluctuations in the global growth data (see section titled “No PMI Recovery Yet” below). Ultimately, our baseline expectation is that there will be enough progress in trade negotiations at the G20 summit to keep the U.S. from imposing a further $300 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports. However, an all-encompassing deal, which rolls back existing tariffs, is not in the cards. Table 1Fed Funds Futures: What's Priced In? The Fed’s Got Your Back The Fed’s Got Your Back But even such a muddle-though scenario, when combined with a Fed rate cut in July and continued credit easing out of China, will be sufficient to support global growth in the second half of this year. This will prevent the Fed from delivering the 79 bps of rate cuts that are priced-in for between now and next February (Table 1). We remain short the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. And Now Here’s Something We Hope You’ll Really Like Our main takeaway from the FOMC meeting is that the Fed will go to great lengths to signal that monetary conditions remain accommodative. We posited back in March that the new battleground for monetary policy is between inflation expectations and financial conditions.2 That is, the Fed will only move to a restrictive policy stance in response to above-target inflation expectations or “bubbly” financial asset prices. While the Fed’s reflationary efforts will cause corporate bond spreads to tighten in the coming months, they will not immediately translate into a higher 10-year Treasury yield. At present, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain well below target levels and financial markets are far from “bubbly” (Chart 3): The Financial Conditions component of our Fed Monitor is close to neutral (Chart 3, panel 2). The S&P 500 12-month forward P/E ratio has rebounded this year, but is not close to the highs seen in late-2017/early-2018 (Chart 3, panel 3). The GZ measure of the excess premium in corporate bond spreads after accounting for expected default losses is low, but above where it traded throughout most of the 2000s (Chart 3, bottom panel). The upshot is that the Fed will continue to act as a tailwind for risk assets, and we therefore remove our prior recommendation to stay cautious on credit spreads in the near-term. It is now likely that credit spreads have peaked, a message confirmed by our list of “peak credit spread” indicators (Chart 4): Chart 3No Rush For Fed To Tighten No Movement On The Fed's Battleground No Movement On The Fed's Battleground Chart 4Credit Spreads Have Likely Peaked Credit Spreads Have Likely Peaked Credit Spreads Have Likely Peaked   The price of gold has decisively broken-out to the upside, a sign that the market views monetary policy as reflationary (Chart 4, panel 2). Such a breakout has preceded the last two peaks in corporate bond spreads. The dollar’s uptrend has abated, signaling that the market views U.S. monetary policy as less out of step with the rest of the world (Chart 4, panel 3). Global industrial mining stocks have rebounded (Chart 4, panel 4). The CRB Raw Industrials index is the sole holdout (Chart 4, bottom panel). A rebound in this index would confirm our intuition that credit spreads have peaked. Chart 5Waiting For Improving Global Growth Waiting For Improving Global Growth Waiting For Improving Global Growth While the Fed’s reflationary efforts will cause corporate bond spreads to tighten in the coming months, they will not immediately translate into a higher 10-year Treasury yield. The ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials index and Gold correlates very tightly with the 10-year yield, and it continues to plummet (Chart 5). The CRB/Gold ratio will only rise when gains in the CRB index start to outpace gains in Gold. In other words, the Fed’s reflationary policy stance needs to translate into an improving global growth outlook. This could take a few months, though we ultimately continue to think that Treasury yields will be higher on a 6-12 month horizon. As explained in the next section, as long as the U.S. economy avoids recession, mid-cycle rate cuts tend to be followed by higher Treasury yields. A History Of Rate Cuts Part 2 In last week’s report we looked at every Fed rate cut since 1995 and showed how the 10-year Treasury yield reacted during the subsequent 21-day, 65-day, 130-day and 261-day periods.3 Our main conclusion was that the 10-year Treasury yield tended to rise following mid-cycle rate cuts, such as those that occurred in 1995-98 and 2003, and decline following rate cuts that led into a U.S. recession. For reference, we have attached last week’s analysis as an Appendix to this report, along with a new table showing how the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master index performed relative to cash following each post-1995 rate cut. The 2/10 Treasury slope tends to steepen quite sharply in the immediate aftermath of a mid-cycle rate cut, before starting to flatten after a few months have passed. This week, we delve a little deeper and look at the market’s interest rate expectations around each prior cut, and also at how the 2/10 Treasury slope responded in each case. Rate Expectations At The Time Of Fed Rate Cuts Table 2 shows the 12-month change in the fed funds rate that the market was discounting prior to each Fed rate cut announcement since 1995. It also shows the actual change in the fed funds rate that occurred over the subsequent 12-month period, and the difference between what occurred and what was expected – the 12-month fed funds surprise. Table 2A History Of Rate Cuts: Rate Expectations The Fed’s Got Your Back The Fed’s Got Your Back According to our Golden Rule of Bond Investing, a dovish surprise (actual change < expectations) should coincide with a falling 10-year Treasury yield, and a hawkish surprise (actual change > expectations) should coincide with a rising 10-year yield.4 The table shows that this indeed occurred in 26 out of 29 episodes. As was the case last week, the mid-1990s rate cuts immediately capture our attention. We have previously noted the resemblance between today’s economic environment and that of the mid-1990s.5 It’s interesting that the market is currently priced for a similar number of rate cuts as at that time. Once again, we expect those expectations will be disappointed. The Global Manufacturing PMI is the measure of global growth that lines up best with the 10-year Treasury yield. Yield Curve: Steeper Now = Flatter Later Another interesting trend is that the 2/10 Treasury slope steepened dramatically in the run-up to, and following, last week’s FOMC meeting. It is now back up to 29 bps after having troughed at 11 bps near the end of last year (Chart 6). It is also worth noting that the 2/10 Treasury slope has yet to invert this cycle. Such an inversion has occurred prior to every U.S. recession since at least 1960. Table 3 shows how the 2/10 Treasury slope has responded to Fed rate cuts in the past, and it reveals an interesting pattern. The slope tends to steepen quite sharply in the immediate aftermath of a mid-cycle rate cut, before starting to flatten after a few months have passed. The 2003 episode is a prime example. The 2/10 slope steepened by 62 bps in the month following the rate cut, but a year later it was 14 bps below where it started. Chart 6The Fed Steepens The Curve On Track: Steeper Now... On Track: Steeper Now... Table 3A History Of Rate Cuts: 2/10 Treasury Slope The Fed’s Got Your Back The Fed’s Got Your Back   In contrast, the 2/10 steepening that immediately follows a “pre-recession” rate cut tends to be milder, but the steepening then accelerates as time passes and the Fed eases further.  The observed yield curve patterns line up well with theory. We would expect rapid curve steepening immediately following a mid-cycle rate cut, as the market prices in a quick return to tighter policy settings. Then, the curve should eventually flatten as the Fed reverses its initial cuts. In contrast, a rate cut that precedes a recession should not lead to much initial steepening, because the market would not be expecting a quick recovery. The steepening would then accelerate as more rate cuts are eventually delivered. The fact that the 2/10 slope has steepened a lot in recent weeks is another datapoint in favor of “mid-cycle” rather than “pre-recession” market behavior. No PMI Recovery Yet We remain confident that the combination of a July Fed rate cut and Chinese credit stimulus will put a floor under global growth in the second half of the year. However, no such global growth rebound is yet evident in the crucial manufacturing PMI data. The Global Manufacturing PMI is the measure of global growth that lines up best with the 10-year Treasury yield, and it remains in a free-fall, even breaking below the 50 boom/bust line in May (Chart 7). Flash PMI data paint an equally dim picture for June: The Euro Area Manufacturing PMI is expected to tick up in June, but only to 47.8 from 47.7 in May (Chart 7, panel 2). The U.S. Manufacturing PMI is expected to fall to 50.1 in June, from 50.5 in May (Chart 7, panel 3). The Japanese Manufacturing PMI is expected to fall to 49.5 in June, from 49.8 in May (Chart 7, bottom panel). There is no Flash PMI data for China, but the Chinese index stood at 50.2 in May, only a hair above the 50 boom/bust line. On the bright side, financial markets are starting to price-in the beginnings of a reflation trade. Gold is rallying strongly, as we noted above, and an index of high-beta currency pairs (RUB/USD, ZAR/USD and BRL/USD) is off its lows. Both of these moves signal that the policy backdrop is becoming more supportive, and both have led upswings in the Global Manufacturing PMI in the past (Chart 8). Chart 7No Rebound In Sight Yet... No Rebound In Sight Yet... No Rebound In Sight Yet... Chart 8...But Financial Markets Are Already Looking Ahead ...But Financial Markets Alread Are Looking Ahead ...But Financial Markets Alread Are Looking Ahead   Bottom Line: Treasury yields will probably need to see a rebound in the Global Manufacturing PMI before moving higher, but a few reflationary indicators suggest that such a rebound will occur in the second half of the year. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com     Appendix Table 4A History Of Rate Cuts: 10-Year Treasury Yield The Fed’s Got Your Back The Fed’s Got Your Back Table 5A History Of Rate Cuts: Treasury Excess Returns The Fed’s Got Your Back The Fed’s Got Your Back   Footnotes 1      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx3sOqW5zj4 2      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Track Records”, dated June 18, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Tracking The Mid-1990s”, dated June 11, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Melting inflation expectations, widening relative indebtedness, expensive adjusted relative valuations, high odds of a further drop in relative profit margins and the high-octane small cap status all signal that large caps continue to have the upper hand versus small caps. Modest deterioration in credit quality, weakening prospects for loan growth and falling inflation expectations, compel us to put the S&P bank index on downgrade alert. Recent Changes We got stopped out on the long S&P managed health care/short S&P semis trade on June 10 for a gain of 10% since inception. We got stopped out on the long S&P homebuilders/short S&P home improvement retailers trade on June 14 for a gain of 10% since inception. Table 1 Cracks Forming Cracks Forming Feature Equities surged to all-time highs last week, as investors cheered the Fed’s dovish stance and increasing likelihood of a late-July interest rate cut. The addiction to low interest rates and global dependence on QE are evident and simultaneously very worrisome signs. We are nervous that the U.S. economy is in a soft-patch, thus vulnerable to a shock (maybe sustained trade hawkishness is the negative catalyst) that can tilt the economy in recession. The risk/reward tradeoff on the overall equity market remains to the downside on a cyclical (3-12 month) time horizon as we first posited two weeks ago (this is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view and is going against BCA’s cyclically constructive equity market House View). In fact, using the NY Fed’s probability of a recession in the coming 12 months data series signals that there’s ample downside for stocks from current levels (recession probability shown inverted, Chart 1).1 We heed this message and reiterate our cautious equity market stance. Chart 1Watch Out Down Below Watch Out Down Below Watch Out Down Below Importantly, drilling deeper with regard to the excesses we are witnessing this cycle, Chart 2 is instructive and an unintended consequence of QE and zero interest rate policy. In previous research we highlighted the cumulative equity buybacks corporations have completed this cycle near the $5tn mark. Chart 2Financial Engineering Financial Engineering Financial Engineering What is worrying is that this “accomplishment” has come about at a great cost: a massive change in the capital structure of the firm. In other words, all of the buybacks are reflected in debt origination from the non-financial business sector (using the Fed’s flow of funds data), confirming our claim that the excesses this cycle are not in the financial or household sectors, but rather in the non-financial business sector (please refer to Chart 4A from the June 10 Weekly Report). One likely trigger of a jumpstart to a default cycle, other than a U.S./China trade dispute re-escalation, is dwindling demand. On that front, we are bemused on how much weight market participants place on the Fed’s shoulders bailing out the economy and the stock market. Chart 3 is a vivid reminder of this narrative. On the one side of the seesaw is the mighty Fed with its forecast interest rate cuts and on the other a slew of slipping indicators. Chart 3 Our sense is that these eighteen indicators will more than offset the Fed’s about-to-commence easing cycle and eventually tilt the U.S. economy in recession, especially if the Sino-American trade talks falter. S&P 500 quarterly earnings are contracting on a year-over-year basis and the semi down-cycle points to additional profit pain for the rest of the year (top panel, Chart 4). On the trade front, exports are below the zero line and imports are flirting with the boom/bust line (second panel, Chart 4). Overall rail freight, including intermodal (retail segment) freight is plunging and so is the CASS freight shipments index at a time when the broad commodity complex is also deflating (third & bottom panels, Chart 4). The latest Q2 update of CEO confidence was disconcerting, weighing on the broad equity market’s prospects (top panel, Chart 5). Non-residential capital outlays have petered out and private construction is sinking like a stone. In fact, the latter have never contracted at such a steep rate during expansions over the past five decades (second panel, Chart 5). Real residential investment has clocked its fifth consecutive quarter of negative growth during an expansion, for the first time since the mid-1950s. Single family housing starts and permits are contracting (third panel, Chart 5). Chart 4Cracks… Cracks… Cracks… Chart 5…Are… …Are… …Are… Light vehicle sales are ailing (bottom panel, Chart 5) and the latest senior loan officer survey continued to show that there is feeble demand for credit across nearly all the categories the Fed tracks (bottom panel, Chart 6). Non-farm payrolls fell to 75K on a month-over-month basis last month and layoff announcements are gaining steam signaling that the labor market, a notoriously lagging indicator, is also showing some signs of strain (layoffs shown inverted, third panel, Chart 6). The latest update of the U.S. Equity Strategy’s corporate pricing power gauge is contracting (please look forward to reading a more in-depth analysis on our quarterly update on July 2) following down the path of the market’s dwindling inflation expectations. Finally, the yield curve remains inverted (top and second panels, Chart 6). Chart 6…Forming …Forming …Forming Chart 7The “Hope" Rally The “Hope" Rally The “Hope" Rally Adding it all up, we deem that the equity market remains divorced from the economic reality and too much faith is placed on the Fed’s shoulders to save the day. Thus, we refrain from positioning the portfolio on “three hopes”: first that the Fed will engineer a soft landing, second that the U.S./China trade tussle will get resolved swiftly, and finally that the Chinese authorities will inject massive amounts of liquidity and reflate their economy (Chart 7). This week we are putting a key financials sub-sector on downgrade alert and update our view on the size bias. Large Cap Refuge While small caps shielded investors from the U.S./China trade dispute that heated up in 2018 (owing to their domestic focus), this year small caps have failed to live up to their trade war-proof expectations and have lagged their large cap brethren by the widest of margins. In fact, the relative share price ratio sits at multi-year lows giving back all the gains since the Trump election, and then some (Chart 8). Chart 8Stick With A Large Cap Bias Stick With A Large Cap Bias Stick With A Large Cap Bias As a reminder, our large cap preference has netted our portfolio 14% gains since the May 10 2018 cyclical inception and this size bias is also up 9% since our high-conviction call inclusion in early December 2018. Five key reasons underpin our large/mega cap preference in the size bias. Bearishness toward small vs. large caps has been pervasive raising the question: does it still pay to prefer large caps to small caps? The short answer is yes. Five key reasons underpin our large/mega cap preference in the size bias. First, melting inflation expectations have been positively correlated with the relative share price ratio, and the current message is to expect more downside (Chart 8). While the SPX has a higher energy weight than the S&P 600, financials and industrials dominate small cap indexes and likely explain the tight positive correlation with inflation expectations (Table 2). Table 2S&P 600/S&P 500 Sector Comparison Table Cracks Forming Cracks Forming Second, relative indebtedness has been widening. Debt saddled small caps have been issuing debt at an accelerating pace at a time when cash flow growth has not been forthcoming. Small cap net debt-to-EBITDA is now almost three times as high as large cap net debt-to-EBITDA. Investors have finally realized that rising indebtedness is worrisome, especially at the late stages of the business cycle, and that is why small caps have failed to insulate investors from the re-escalating trade dispute (top & middle panels, Chart 9). Third, a large number of small cap companies (100 in the S&P 600 and 600 in the Russell 2000) have no forward EPS. Very few S&P 500 companies have negative projected profits. Thus, while, relative valuations have been receding, the relative forward P/E trading at par is masking the relative value proposition of the indexes. Were the S&P or Russell to adjust for this, small caps would trade at a significant forward P/E premium to large caps (bottom panel, Chart 9). Chart 9Mind The Debt Gap Mind The Debt Gap Mind The Debt Gap Fourth, a small cap margin squeeze has been underway since the 2012 cyclical peak and the relative margin outlook is even grimmer. Simply put, small business labor costs are rising at a faster clip than overall wage inflation, warning that small cap profit margins have further to fall compared with large caps margins (Chart 10). Finally, small cap stocks are higher beta stocks and typically rise when volatility gets suppressed. As such, they also tend to outperform large caps when emerging markets outperform the SPX and vice versa. Tack on the recent yield curve inversion, and the odds are high that the size bias has entered a prolonged period of sustained small cap underperformance. Netting it all out, melting inflation expectations, widening relative indebtedness, expensive adjusted relative valuations, high odds of a further drop in relative profit margins and the high-octane small cap status all signal that large caps continue to have the upper hand versus small caps (Chart 11). Chart 10Relative Margin Trouble Relative Margin Trouble Relative Margin Trouble Chart 11Shay Away From Small Caps Shy Away From Small Caps Shy Away From Small Caps Bottom Line: Small cap underperformance has staying power. Continue to prefer large/mega caps to their small cap brethren. Put Banks On Downgrade Alert In the context of de-risking our portfolio we are taking the step and adding the S&P banks index on our downgrade watch list. The Fed’s signal of a cut in the upcoming July meeting steepened the yield curve last week. While the yield curve has put in higher lows in the past eight months, relative bank performance has been facing stiff resistance and has failed to follow the yield curve’s lead (Chart 12). One of the reasons for the Fed’s dovishness is melting inflation expectations. The latter are joined at the hip with relative bank performance and signal that downside risks are rising especially if the Fed fails to arrest the lower anchoring of inflation expectations (Chart 13). Chart 12Banks Are Not Participating Banks Are Not Participating Banks Are Not Participating Chart 13Melting Inflation Expectations Are Anchoring Banks Melting Inflation Expectations Are Anchoring Banks Melting Inflation Expectations Are Anchoring Banks With regard to credit demand, the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer survey remained subdued confirming the anemic reading from our Economic Impulse Indicator (a second derivative gauge of six parts of the U.S. economy, bottom panel, Chart 14). Lack of credit demand translates into lack of credit growth, despite the fact that bankers are, for the most part, willing extenders of credit. U.S. Equity Strategy’s overall loans & leases growth model has crested (second panel, Chart 15). Chart 14Anemic Loan Demand… Anemic Loan Demand… Anemic Loan Demand… Chart 15…Will Weigh On Loan Origination …Will Weigh On Loan Origination …Will Weigh On Loan Origination Similarly, the recent softness in a number of manufacturing surveys signal that C&I loan growth in particular – the largest credit category in bank loan books – is at risk of flirting with the contraction zone (third panel, Chart 15). Worrisomely, not only is the overall U.S. credit impulse contracting, but also U.S. Equity Strategy’s bank credit diffusion index is collapsing (second panel, Chart 16). Such broad breadth of loan growth deterioration warns that loan growth and thus bank earnings are at risk of underwhelming still optimistic sell-side analysts’ expectations (not shown). On the credit quality front there are now two loan categories that are starting to show some modest signs of stress. Credit card net chargeoffs and non-current loans are spiking and now C&I delinquent loans have ticked up for the first time since the manufacturing recession (third & bottom panel, Chart 16). Our bank EPS growth model does an excellent job in capturing all these forces and signals that bank EPS euphoria is misplaced (bottom panel, Chart 15). Nevertheless, despite these softening bank sector drivers there are four significant offsets. First the drubbing in the 10-year yield has been reflected nearly one-to-one on the 30-year fixed mortgage rate and the recent surge in mortgage applications signals that residential real estate loans (second largest bank loan category) may reaccelerate in the back half of the year (top panel, Chart 17). Chart 16Deteriorating Credit Quality Deteriorating Credit Quality Deteriorating Credit Quality Chart 17Some Significant… Some Significant… Some Significant… Second, while there have been credit card and C&I loan credit quality issues, as a percentage of total loans they just ticked higher and remain near cyclical lows, at a time when banks have been putting more money aside to cover for these potential loan losses (bottom panel, Chart 17). Third, bank source of funding remains very cheap as depositors have not been enjoying higher short term interest rates, at least not at the big money center banks. In other words, banks have not been passing higher interest rates to depositors sustaining relatively high NIMs (not shown). Finally, banks are one of the few sectors with pent up equity buyback demand. The upcoming release of the Fed’s stress test will likely continue to allow banks to pursue shareholder friendly activities, that they have been deprived from for so long, and raise dividend payments and increase share buybacks (Chart 18). Chart 18…Offsets …Offsets …Offsets In sum, melting inflation expectations, modest deterioration in credit quality, and weakening prospects for loan growth compel us to put the S&P bank index on downgrade alert. Bottom Line: We remain overweight the S&P banks index, but have put it on downgrade alert and are looking for an opportunity to downgrade to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX – WFC, JPM, BaAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB, FRC.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/capital_markets/ycfaq.html Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Supply - demand fundamentals point to higher oil prices going forward. Our expectation regarding OPEC production remains unchanged: The original cartel led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) will maintain production discipline this year – likely continuing to over-comply with quotas agreed at the start of the year – to support its long-standing goal to reduce oil inventories globally. Non-OPEC member states in OPEC 2.0 led by Russia also will maintain lower output this year. The OPEC 2.0 coalition will meet July 1 - 2 in Vienna to determine whether it will extend production cuts. On the demand side, we lowered our expectation for this year and next, following the World Bank’s recent downgraded assessment of global GDP growth. Our expectation remains slightly above the EIA’s and the IEA’s. Globally, central bank easing will support demand. Following these adjustments, we are keeping our Brent forecast at $73/bbl this year and lowering our forecast for next year to $75/bbl from $77/bbl. We continue to expect WTI to trade $7/bbl and $5/bbl below those levels this year and next, respectively. The balance of risk is to the upside. The risk of hybrid warfare (see below) in the Persian Gulf -- and the wider region -- will increase, as Iranian and U.S. positions harden. Highlights Highlights Energy: Overweight. The U.S. Central Command released photos supporting an analysis claiming Iran was responsible for two attacks on commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf last week. The Pentagon deployed an additional 1,000 troops to the region, following this assessment. President Trump, meanwhile, downplayed the attacks, calling them a “very minor event.”1 Base Metals: Neutral. Copper speculators lifted their short position 6k lots to 51.7k lots on CME last week. This is a record short. But the cash market is getting tighter. Treatment and refining charges (TC/RCs) moved lower last week, as Fastmarkets MB’s TC/RC Asia – Pacific index hit $54.10/MT, $05.41/lb. This is the lowest level on record for the index, which was launched in June 2013. A low index reading means copper concentrate is in short supply, forcing refiners to lower the price of their services. We remain long the September 2019 $3.00/lb Calls vs. short the September 2019 $3.30/lb calls. Precious Metals: Neutral. Safe-haven demand continues to support gold prices, although news of a Trump – Xi meeting at the G20 in Japan to re-start trade talks reduced the urgency of buying earlier this week. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Rain continued to soak the U.S. Midwest this past week, putting a bid under grains – particularly corn – and beans. This week’s USDA Crop Progress report showed corn planting still behind schedule (at 92% vs. 100% on average in the 2014 – 18 period in the 18 states that accounted for 92% of total acres planted last year). Feature The information flows to oil markets are becoming internally contradictory. On the one hand, recent attacks on commercial oil-product tankers near the Strait of Hormuz – where close to 20% of the world’s oil supply transits daily – raised the ante in the U.S.-GCC-Iran stand-off.  The attacks follow earlier aggression against shipping and pipelines in the region, and prompted KSA’s Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih to call for a collective response to keep Gulf sea lanes open to allow oil to flow freely worldwide.2 In the post-WWII era, the U.S. has willingly taken on the responsibility of keeping the world’s sea lanes open for the free flow of commodities and finished products. However, based on remarks U.S. President Donald Trump made to Time magazine this week, it would appear the U.S. no longer is willing to shoulder the burden of defending freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf.3 The presidential sangfroid in the wake of last week’s attacks in the Gulf – which Pentagon analysts insist were launched by Iran – might be explained by the Trump administration’s belief the global oil market is “very well-supplied,” as U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette contended in an S&P Global Platts interview this past weekend.4 Indeed, this has become part of the narrative whenever the administration discusses oil markets. Brouillette said abundant crude availability prevented oil prices from spiking to $140/bbl in the wake of the attacks on the two commercial tankers. Will The U.S. Defend Gulf Sea Lanes? The global oil market is “well supplied” as long as the Strait of Hormuz – the most critical chokepoint in the world – stays open. Freedom of navigation on the open seas is the sine qua non of a well-functioning oil market – everything from getting supplies to refiners to getting products to consumers depends on it. Oil is a globally traded, waterborne commodity: ~ 60% of all crude exports are loaded on a ship and sent to refiners, directly or via trading companies.5 A liquid crude market requires an unimpeded shipping market, so that refiners can run their operations in a routine manner. In addition, a smoothly functioning shipping market allows refiners to pick and choose among various grades that can be arbitraged against each other, so they can optimize charging stocks. The market cannot absorb the loss of close to 20mm b/d of crude and refined products, which is what would happen if the Strait shut down. It is the most important choke point in the world (Map 1). Chart We’re sure the White House knows this. President Trump’s professed desire to leave the U.S. commitment to maintaining the free flow of oil out of the Gulf is a “question mark” that might be taken as a taunt to up the ante with Iran. Already, in response to the U.S. re-imposing sanctions on Iranian oil exports after unilaterally abrogating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement, Iran announced it will resume production of enriched uranium for its nuclear program on June 27.6 As the summer progresses, we expect a continued escalation in tensions in the Gulf, which, at the very least, will keep volatility in the oil markets elevated. The growing tension in this standoff increases the risk of hybrid warfare in the Persian Gulf, which, should it continue to escalate, increases the risk to global oil flows, as Anthony H. Cordesman at the Center For Strategic & International Studies in Washington recently noted: First, the military confrontation between Iran, the U.S., and the Arab Gulf states over everything from the JCPOA to Yemen can easily escalate to hybrid warfare that has far more serious forms of attack. And second, such attacks can impact critical aspects of the flow of energy to key industrial states and exporters that shape the success of the global economy as well as the economy of the U.S.7 There is a risk this hybrid warfare metastasizes into a full-on war in the Gulf, which would threaten the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Should the Strait be closed, a global oil-price shock almost surely would occur, which most likely would send oil prices through $150/bbl. At that point either the warfare is contained and resolved quickly, or the world has to line up 20mm b/d of crude oil and refined products to replace the lost supply from the Gulf. As the summer progresses, we expect a continued escalation in tensions in the Gulf, which, at the very least, will keep volatility in the oil markets elevated (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekVolatility Will Remain High Volatility Will Remain High Volatility Will Remain High OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Production Discipline Even as tensions in the Persian Gulf escalate, we continue to expect OPEC 2.0 to maintain its production discipline. While the producer coalition agreed to remove 1.2mm b/d of production from the market last December, we estimate year-on-year (y/y) year-to-date (ytd) production of OPEC is down ~ 1.4mm b/d in the January-to-May period. For Russia, production over that period y/y is up 310k b/d ytd. For all of OPEC 2.0, we have the group increasing production in 2H19, but we have it ending 2019 with production 480k b/d lower than last month’s forecast. The increase is mainly from Saudi Arabia, which averages ~ 10.2mm b/d of production in 2H19, roughly 130k b/d below quota. We have Russian production averaging ~ 11.5mm b/d, which is close to quota, in 2H19 (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Supply – Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices Supply – Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices For the year as a whole, we are forecasting OPEC production will fall 1.6mm b/d this year versus 2018 levels, while Russia’s production grows slightly (~ 80k b/d). For next year, OPEC’s production will stay relatively flat (falling ~ 70k b/d), while we expect Russia’s production to increase 230k b/d (Table 1). Outside OPEC 2.0, the U.S. continues to dominate the production-growth story, led by increasing shale-oil output (Chart 2). We expect shale output to grow ~ 1.2mm b/d this year and just over 1mm b/d in 2020. Chart 2U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Production Growth U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Production Growth U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Production Growth Global Demand Is Holding Up While we do expect somewhat lower demand this year and next versus where we were earlier this year, we still expect consumption to remain fairly robust. We expect demand to grow ~ 1.35mm b/d this year and 1.55mm b/d next year, down from 1.50mm and 1.60mm b/d, respectively, in our base case. As always this is led by non-OECD demand growth, which we expect will clock in with an increase of just over 1mm b/d this year versus last year, and 1.3mm b/d next year on average. EM commodity importers will dominate growth, as usual (Chart 3). Trade-war concerns will continue to dominate headlines, but even so, demand remains reasonably stout. While it always is possible the U.S. and China will be able to resolve their trade war – perhaps in dramatic fashion following the G20 meeting in Japan – our colleagues in BCA Research’s doubt it.8 Continuing Sino – U.S. and Iranian – U.S. tension could keep the USD relatively well bid, which will present a headwind to oil demand.  That said, we believe central banks generally will feel compelled to remain accommodative so long as trade wars persist. This accommodation, coupled with fiscal stimulus in many of the systemically important economies, will be supportive of demand overall, EM demand in particular. Chart 3EM Oil Demand Growth Once Again Leads The World EM Oil Demand Growth Once Again Leads The World EM Oil Demand Growth Once Again Leads The World Bottom Line: Supply – demand balances indicate crude oil prices still have room to run in 2H19 and next year. We are maintaining our forecast of $73/bbl for Brent this year. We are lowering our forecast for 2020 to $75/bbl (Chart 4). We expect WTI to trade $7/bbl and $5/bbl below those levels this year and next, respectively. The combination of stout demand growth, production discipline by OPEC 2.0 and capital discipline by U.S. shale producers will allow inventories to resume drawing this year (Chart 5). Chart 4Supply - Demand Balances Point To Higher Prices Supply - Demand Balances Point To Higher Prices Supply - Demand Balances Point To Higher Prices Chart 5Stout Demand, Supply Discipline Will Allow Inventories To Draw Stout Demand, Supply Discipline Will Allow Inventories To Draw Stout Demand, Supply Discipline Will Allow Inventories To Draw   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Analyst: New Photos Are ‘Smoking Gun’ Proving Iranian Involvement in Tanker Attack published by USNI News, and Exclusive: President Trump Calls Alleged Iranian Attack on Oil Tankers 'Very Minor' published by Time magazine on June 17, 2019. 2      Please see Saudi Energy Minister calls for collective effort to secure shipping lanes published by reuters.com June 17, 2019. 3      Please see Exclusive: President Trump Calls Alleged Iranian Attack on Oil Tankers 'Very Minor' published by Time magazine on June 17, 2019. Tessa Berenson reported: “Facing twin challenges in the Persian Gulf, President Donald Trump said in an interview with TIME Monday that he might take military action to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but cast doubt on going to war to protect international oil supplies.“I would certainly go over nuclear weapons,” the president said when asked what moves would lead him to consider going to war with Iran, “and I would keep the other a question mark.” 4      Please see Interview: Abundant oil supply prevented spike to $140/b after ship attacks - US DOE deputy published by S&P Global Platts June 16, 2019. 5      Please see World Oil Transit Chokepoints published by the U.S. EIA. 6      Please see Iran nuclear deal: Enriched uranium limit will be breached on 27 June published by bbc.co.uk June 17, 2019.  JCPOA agreement between Iran and the so-called P5+1 nations – China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. – allowed Iran to return to global markets in exchange for limiting its nuclear development.  Please see The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) at a Glance published by Arms Control Association in May 2018.    7      Please see The Strategic Threat from Iranian Hybrid Warfare in the Gulf published by CSIS June 13, 2019. 8      Please see Policy Risk Restrains Oil Prices published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy May 30, 2019, where we reprise the different policy risks oil markets are contending with at present, particularly the trade war.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Closed Image

Highlights Fed: A Fed rate cut in June or July is not a done deal, but is looking increasingly likely purely from a risk management perspective, as it would both calm financial markets and potentially boost the inflation expectations component of Treasury yields. ECB: Easier monetary policy is required in Europe, and Mario Draghi hinted that rate cuts or even more QE are viable policy options. Depressed European bond yields (excluding Italy) suggest that this outcome is already fully priced. Maintain only a neutral allocation to core European government bonds. Feature Chart of the WeekA Lot Of "Negativity" In Bond Yields A Lot Of "Negativity" In Bond Yields A Lot Of "Negativity" In Bond Yields The Great Global Bond Rally of 2019 has caught many by surprise – including, we admit with some humility, us. Not only has the pace of the decline in yields been impressive, but the outright yield levels seen in many markets are startlingly low. The 10-year German bund reach an all-time low of -0.25% last week, while sub-1% 10-year bond yields can be seen in “risky Peripherals” like Spain and Portugal. The ferocity of the global bond move has left 54% of all developed market government bonds trading with negative yields; the highest such percentage since July 2016 after the U.K. Brexit vote unnerved investors (Chart of the Week). There are parallels to today purely from a political risk perspective, given the trade tensions between the U.S. and China (and potentially any other country that the Trump Administration has issues with). Another comparison can be made versus three years ago when looking at more fundamental drivers of low global yields that require a response from policymakers – namely, slowing growth and sluggish inflation. Our Central Bank Monitors are now sending a clear message that easier monetary policy is needed in all the major developed economies (Chart 2). Given soft market-based inflation expectations, this suggests that policymakers must not only talk dovish, but act dovish, to defend the lower bound of price stability. Chart 2Pressure To Ease GLOBAL Monetary Policy Pressure To Ease GLOBAL Monetary Policy Pressure To Ease GLOBAL Monetary Policy We’re seeing that in places like Australia and New Zealand, where policymakers have already cut rates. We can also see that in the euro area, where the ECB has introduced a new funding program to support bank lending (TLTRO3) and is now even contemplating restarting quantitative easing (QE). The Fed is next in line, with numerous Fed officials hinting that some easing of monetary policy could be on the horizon. Much easier monetary policy is already largely discounted in the current depressed level of global bond yields, though. While there are still risks to the growth outlook from trade uncertainty, we do not foresee a U.S./global recession on the immediate horizon. That means the risk/reward balance now favors some pickup in global bond yields, warranting a below-benchmark medium-term stance on duration exposure. Why “Insurance” Fed Cuts Are Likely Chart 3A Strong Dollar Is Disinflationary A Strong Dollar Is Disinflationary A Strong Dollar Is Disinflationary Last week, the Federal Reserve held a research conference to discuss its monetary policy framework. Among the topics discussed were potential changes to the way the Fed manages its inflation target, including tolerating faster inflation after a period of below-target inflation. The goal of such “make-up” strategies would be to ensure that periods of low inflation do not get embedded into inflation expectations and bond yields. The problem with such strategies, however, is they are less likely to work if low interest rates and low inflation are a global phenomenon. The coordinated nature of the global bond rally has left the Fed facing a combination of rapidly falling Treasury yields alongside a strong U.S. dollar. With interest rate differentials continuing to favor the greenback, the currency is exerting downward pressure on commodity prices and, more generally, global inflation (Chart 3). Of course, the dollar does not only trade off interest rate differentials, but also global growth expectations, so some of the dollar rally seen this year reflects slowing non-U.S. economies and capital outflows from non-U.S. financial markets. What is clear, however, is that a strong dollar, and all it represents in terms of global growth, is disinflationary. Numerous Fed officials, including Fed Chairman Jay Powell, gave hints last week that they were open to considering interest rate cuts in response to signs of weakening U.S. growth and heightened trade uncertainty. With 5-year/5-year forward inflation expectations in the TIPS market now at 1.9% – still well below the 2.3-2.4% levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% target on the PCE deflator – the Fed has the cover to deliver one or two “insurance” rate cuts in the next few FOMC meetings. This would be consistent with their risk management framework. Our Central Bank Monitors are now sending a clear message that easier monetary policy is needed in all the major developed economies. Given soft market-based inflation expectations, this suggests that policymakers must not only talk dovish, but act dovish, to defend the lower bound of price stability.  If the Fed fails to ratify markets’ dovish expectations at next week’s policy meeting, risk assets will likely sell off – perhaps violently, as occurred last December. That would deliver the kind of tightening in financial conditions that would force the Fed turn more dovish and eventually cut rates anyway. Alternatively, if the Fed actually cuts rates next week or in July and both the economy and inflation eventually recover, and risk assets surge higher, then the Fed can always take back those cuts with tighter policy later (especially if trade uncertainty diminishes with some sort of U.S.-China trade deal at the G20 meeting later this month). Such a strategy could even help Fed credibility by boosting inflation expectations back to levels more consistent with the Fed’s inflation target, which would also help put upward pressure on Treasury yields. Our Fed Monitor is now signaling the need for easier U.S. monetary policy, but that is already discounted in the 75bps of rate cuts (over the next twelve months) priced at the front-end of the yield curve, and in the current low level of Treasury yields (Chart 4). The Treasury rally also looks overdone when looking at other measures, such as the low level of mean-reverting U.S. data surprises, overbought price momentum and extended long duration positioning (Chart 5). Chart 4Treasuries Fully Priced For Fed Easing Treasuries Fully Priced For Fed Easing Treasuries Fully Priced For Fed Easing   Net-net, the medium-term risk/reward balance favors moderate below-benchmark duration positioning for Treasury investors, and underweight tilts for the U.S. in global government bond portfolios. More tactically, the amount of Fed rate cuts now discounted seems excessive with only the U.S. manufacturing sector cooling while the rest of the economy remains on firm footing. For that reason, we are already taking profits on one leg of our fed funds futures calendar spread trade initiated last week. The Treasury rally also looks overdone when looking at other measures, such as the low level of mean-reverting U.S. data surprises, overbought price momentum and extended long duration positioning  Chart 5The Treasury Rally Looks Stretched The Treasury Rally Looks Stretched The Treasury Rally Looks Stretched Chart 6Fed Funds Futures Trade: Exit Long Aug 2019, Stay Short Feb 2020 Fed Funds Futures Trade: Exit Long Aug 2019, Stay Short Feb 2020 Fed Funds Futures Trade: Exit Long Aug 2019, Stay Short Feb 2020 We recommended buying the August 2019 fed funds futures contract to hedge the risk that the Fed tries to get ahead of market sentiment by cutting rates in June or July. That contract would have returned a positive return in a scenario where the Fed delivered one 25 basis point rate cut in either June or July, and a negative return in a scenario where rates are unchanged. In only one week, that contract’s risk/reward profile has shifted dramatically. The contract is now priced for a loss in both the “one rate cut” and “no rate cut” scenarios. We therefore exit our long position in the August 2019 fed funds futures contract for a gain of +5bps. The second leg of our proposed trade was to short the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. This remains an excellent bet. As of last Friday, a short position in the February 2020 contract will earn a positive return as long as three or fewer rate cuts occur between now and next February (Chart 6). We are keeping this position on as a pure rates trade to play for the Fed delivering less than the market expects. Bottom Line: A Fed rate cut in June or July is not a done deal, but is looking increasingly likely purely from a risk management perspective, as it would both calm financial markets and potentially boost the inflation expectations component of Treasury yields. Are European Bond Yields Discounting More ECB QE? While we see little absolute value in U.S. Treasuries, there may not be much near-term upside in yields without an improvement in European economic growth. Simply put, Europe remains an anchor weighing on global bond yields. While we see little absolute value in U.S. Treasuries, there may not be much near-term upside in yields without an improvement in European economic growth. Simply put, Europe remains an anchor weighing on global bond yields. Our country diffusion indicators for the euro area – measuring the share of countries within the region that are seeing faster GDP growth, rising leading economic indicators and quickening headline inflation rates – all show that the current downturn is broad-based (Chart 7). Dating back to the introduction of the single currency zone in the late 1990s, there have been three periods where the country diffusion indicators were as weak as they are now. All three times lead to multiple interest rate cuts by the ECB. Chart 7A Broad-Based Slowing Of European Growth & Inflation A Broad-Based Slowing Of European Growth & Inflation A Broad-Based Slowing Of European Growth & Inflation Our ECB Monitor is also calling for easier monetary policy in the euro area (Chart 8), driven by weakness in both the growth and inflation components. Chart 8Our ECB Monitor Says 'Ease', Bund Yields Agree Our ECB Monitor Says 'Ease', Bund Yields Agree Our ECB Monitor Says 'Ease', Bund Yields Agree With the ECB policy rate already negative, however, the central bank is reluctant to push rates even lower and starve euro area banks of badly needed net interest margin. Chart 9TLTRO3 Will Help Italian & Spanish Banks The Most TLTRO3 Will Help Italian & Spanish Banks The Most TLTRO3 Will Help Italian & Spanish Banks The Most   At last week’s policy meeting, the ECB Governing Council committed to leaving rates unchanged through the first half of 2020. ECB President Mario Draghi noted in his press conference that forward guidance has “become the major monetary policy tool we have now”, suggesting that actual changes in interest rates will be more difficult to implement. Draghi also noted that the new TLTRO3 program was intended only as a “backstop” to sustain current levels of bank lending as the old TLTRO programs begin to roll off, not as a fresh source of stimulus. This was almost certainly aimed at the banks of Italy and Spain – countries that took up nearly 60% of the last TLTRO program that is now starting to roll off and where credit growth is contracting (Chart 9). The ECB worries that the weaker parts of the European banking system are becoming too reliant on cheap central bank funding, making it more difficult to end the liquidity program in the future without causing a credit crunch.   German bunds have already priced in some sort of ECB easing (rate cuts or fresh bond buying). Our estimate of the term premium on the 10-year German bund yield is already deeply negative, which reflects both a risk aversion bid for safety and, potentially, some market expectation of incremental ECB QE. Chart 10Market Discounting Fresh ECB Bond Buying? Market Discounting Fresh ECB Bond Buying? Market Discounting Fresh ECB Bond Buying? So if the ECB is reluctant to cut rates or subsidize more lending, what monetary ammunition is left? Draghi did hint last week that the topic of restarting the Asset Purchase Program (APP) came up in the ECB meeting as an option if the economic and inflation backdrop deteriorated further, or global trade uncertainty intensified. The ECB is facing a situation similar to when the APP was first announced in 2014. Inflation expectations, as measured by the 5-year/5-year forward euro CPI swap rate, are now down to 1.2% (Chart 10). It was a similar plunge in inflation expectations that wore down ECB hawks’ reticence to deploy quantitative easing back in 2014. German bunds have already priced in some sort of ECB easing (rate cuts or fresh bond buying). Our estimate of the term premium on the 10-year German bund yield is already deeply negative, which reflects both a risk aversion bid for safety and, potentially, some market expectation of incremental ECB QE. The latter interpretation would also explain the low level of bond yields seen in Peripheral Europe (excluding Italy, dealing with a deficit battle with the European Commission), as investors stretch for yield in anticipation of supportive future ECB policy. We see little investment value in euro area bonds at such low levels, given how much bad news on growth and inflation, and the potential monetary easing in response, is already discounted. Similar to U.S. Treasuries, the risk/reward balance favors a modest below-benchmark structural duration stance. The upside in European yields is still far more limited than for U.S. Treasury yields, given the much more fragile state of European growth and inflation expectations. Treasuries are thus more overpriced than bunds. Bottom Line: Easier monetary policy is required in Europe, and Mario Draghi hinted that rate cuts or even more QE are viable policy options. Depressed European bond yields (excluding Italy) suggest that this outcome is already fully priced. Maintain only a neutral allocation to core European government bonds.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations Making Up Is Hard To Do Making Up Is Hard To Do Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The risk/reward tradeoff remains squarely to the downside and we are turning cyclically (3-12 month horizon) cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market. The Presidential cycle, UBER’s IPO, the SPX hitting all-time highs following the initial December 2018 yield curve inversion, and two additional yield curve inversions signal that this time is no different and a recession is likely upon us in the coming 18 months. The re-escalation of the U.S./China trade tussle along with the risk of an antitrust investigation into Apple, waning capital outlays, softening exports and deteriorating operating conditions warn that it does not pay to be overweight the S&P tech hardware storage & peripherals (THS&P) index. Our tech EPS model is flashing red on the back of sinking capex and an appreciating U.S. dollar, deteriorating operating metrics signal that tech margins are under attack and exports are also in a freefall, suggesting that the time is ripe to put the tech sector on downgrade alert. Recent Changes Downgrade the S&P THS&P index to neutral, today. Put the S&P tech sector on downgrade alert. Table 1 A Recession Thought Experiment A Recession Thought Experiment Feature The SPX appeared to crack early in the week, but dovish Fed President statements saved the day and stocks recovered smartly to end the week on a high note. Our tactically (0-3 month) cautious equity market stance has served us well and has run its course. We are currently leaning toward a cyclically (3-12 month) cautious stance as a slew of our cyclical indicators have rolled over decisively. At the current juncture the big call to make is on the longevity of the business cycle. Crudely put, can the Fed engineer a soft landing or is the looming easing cycle a precursor of recession (Chart 1)? We side with the latter. Chart 1What’s The Opposite Of Bond Vigilantes? What’s The Opposite Of Bond Vigilantes? What’s The Opposite Of Bond Vigilantes? This is U.S. Equity Strategy service’s view. BCA’s house view remains constructive on a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon. As a reminder, the ongoing expansion is officially the longest on record and BCA’s house view also calls for recession in late-2020/early-2021. Stan Druckenmiller once famously said “…you have to visualize the situation 18 months from now, and whatever that is, that's where the price will be, not where it is today." Thus, if BCA’s recession view is accurate then we need to start preparing the portfolio for a recessionary outcome. This week we conduct a simple thought experiment on where and why the SPX will be headed as the economy flirts with recession. But first, we rely on the message from our indicators to guide us in determining if the cycle is nearing an end. Last December parts of the yield curve slope inverted (Chart 2) and our simple insight was that the market almost always peaks following the yield curve inversion and we remained bullish on the prospects of the broad equity market and called for fresh all-time highs based on the results of our research.1 On May 1, 2019 we got confirmation as the SPX vaulted to new all-time highs, so that box is now checked. Chart 2The Yield Curve... The Yield Curve... The Yield Curve... Beyond the traditional yield curve inversion that forecasts that the Fed’s next move will be a cut and eventually the cycle ends, other yield curve type indicators have inverted and also foreshadow the end of the business cycle. Charts 3A & 3B show that the unemployment gap and another labor market yield curve type indicator have both inverted signaling that the business cycle is long in the tooth. Chart 3A...Is Always Right... ...Is Always Right... ...Is Always Right... Chart 3B...In Predicting Fed Cuts ...In Predicting Fed Cuts ...In Predicting Fed Cuts This time is no different and the business cycle will end. Why? Because the Fed has likely raised interest rates (as we first posited on November 19, 2018 and again on December 3, 2018) by enough to trigger a default cycle in the most indebted segment of the U.S. economy where the excesses are most prominent in the current expansion: the non-financial business sector (Chart 4A). Chart 4AMind The Corporate Debt Excesses Mind The Corporate Debt Excesses Mind The Corporate Debt Excesses Chart 4BDefault Cycle Looming Default Cycle Looming Default Cycle Looming Already, junk bond market spreads are widening and the yield curve is predicting that a default cycle is around the corner (yield curve shown on inverted scale, bottom panel, Chart 4B).  Another interesting indicator is the Presidential cycle. Chart 5 updates our work from last year showing years 2 & 3 of 17 Presidential cycles dating back to 1950. In the summer of year 3 the SPX typically peaks. Finally, the anecdote of the biggest unicorn, UBER, ipoing on May 10, 2019 also likely marks the ending of the cycle. Therefore if recession looms in the coming 18 months what is the typical magnitude of the SPX EPS drawdown and what multiple do investors pay for trough earnings? Chart 5Presidential Cycle Says Sell Presidential Cycle Says Sell Presidential Cycle Says Sell While the two most recent recessionary earnings contractions have been severe, we are conservative in estimating a garden variety recession causing a 20% EPS fall. S&P 500 2018 EPS ended near $162/share. This year $167/share is likely and we are now revising down our forecast for next year to $175/share from $181/share previously. A conservative 20% drawdown sets us back to $140/share in 2021. Dating back to the late 1970s when our IBES dataset on the forward P/E multiple commences, the trough forward P/E multiple during recessions averages out to 10x (Chart 6). Remaining on a conservative path we will use 13.5x, or the recent December 2018 trough multiple as our worst case multiple and a sideways move to 16.5x as the most optimistic case. This implies an SPX ending value of between 1890 and 2310 will be reached some time in 2020, with the former resetting the equity market back near the 2016 BREXIT lows. Chart 6Trough Recession Multiple Averages 10x Trough Recession Multiple Averages 10x Trough Recession Multiple Averages 10x As a result, we are not willing to play a 100-200 point advance for a potential 1000 point drawdown, the risk/reward tradeoff is to the downside. Can and has the Fed previously engineered soft landings that have caused big relief rallies in the equity market? Six times since the 1960s: once in each of the mid-1960s, early-1970s, mid-1970s, mid-1980s and mid-1990s and once in 1998 (top panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Six Mid-cycle Easing Attempts Six Mid-cycle Easing Attempts Six Mid-cycle Easing Attempts Three easing cycles were not forecast by a yield curve inversion, but the mid-1960s, the mid-1990s and in 1998 the yield curve cautioned investors that an easing cycle was looming (bottom panel, Chart 7). Specifically in 1998 the Fed only acted after the equity market fell by 20%. Another interesting observation is that ex-post five of these six iterations were truly mid cycle, one was very late cycle, but none took place in year 11 of an expansion as is currently the case. We are in uncharted territory. Chart 8 shows the mean profile of the S&P 500 six months prior to and one year post the initial Fed cut. Our assumption is that a cut in July may materialize, thus the vertical line in Chart 8 denotes t=0, which is in sync with the bond market that is pricing a greater than 75% chance of this occurrence. The subsequent market rallies were significant. Our insight from this research is that we already had the explosive rally as Chart 8 depicts, owing to the Fed’s completed pivot, with the stock market rallying from the 2018 Christmas Eve lows to the May 1, 2019 all-time highs by 26%. But, the jury is still out. The biggest risk to our call is indeed a continued rally in the S&P 500 on easy money. A way to mitigate this risk of missing out on a rally is by going long SPX LEAPS Calls once a greater than 10% correction takes root. Chart 8Is The Rally Already Behind Us? Is The Rally Already Behind Us? Is The Rally Already Behind Us? Keep in mind, that for the Fed to act and cut rates, stocks will likely have to breach the 2650 level, a point where a reflexive fall will further shake investor’s confidence in profit growth. In other words, the bond market is screaming that Fed cuts are looming, but it also means that stocks have ample room to fall before the Fed cuts rates, i.e. a riot point will force the Fed’s hand. Another big risk to this call is a swift positive resolution on the U.S./China trade dispute, and/or an unprecedented easing from the Chinese authorities which will put us offside as a euphoric rise will definitely ensue. Again SPX LEAPS Calls are an excellent way to position for such an outcome. Netting it all out, the risk/reward tradeoff remains squarely to the downside and we are turning cyclically (3-12 month horizon) cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market. The Presidential cycle, UBER’s IPO, the SPX hitting all-time highs following the initial December 2018 yield curve inversion, and two additional yield curve inversions signal that this time is no different and a recession is likely upon us in the coming 18 months. Thus, this week we are further de-risking the portfolio by downgrading a tech subindex to neutral, setting a tighter stop on a different long term tech subsector holding that has been the cornerstone of the equity bull market, and putting the overall tech sector on downgrade watch. Downgrade Tech Hardware Storage & Peripherals To Neutral In the context of further de-risking the portfolio we are downgrading the S&P tech hardware storage & peripherals index to a benchmark allocation and booking a small loss of 1.0% in relative terms since inception. Four reasons underpin our downgrade of this index that comprises almost 1/5 of the S&P tech market cap. First, index heavyweight Apple has 20% foreign sales exposure to the Greater China region. While we doubt the Chinese will directly retaliate to the U.S. restriction on Huawei by directly targeting Apple, it is still a risk. Moreover, recent news of the FTC and the DOJ targeting GOOGL and FB pose a risk to Apple, especially given its App Store dominance. Any negative news on either front would take a bite out of the sector’s profits. Second, capex has taken a bit hit. Chart 9 shows industry investment is almost nil and capex intentions from regional Fed surveys and from CEO confidence surveys signal more pain down the line. Third, the S&P THS&P index’s internationally sourced revenues are near the 60% mark, and computer exports are also flirting with the zero line. Worryingly, deflating EM Asian currencies are sapping consumer purchasing power and are weighing on industry exports (third panel, Chart 10). Chart 9Capex Blues Capex Blues Capex Blues Chart 10Exports... Exports... Exports... Similarly, global trade volumes have sunk into contractionary territory and to a level last seen during the Great Recession (not shown). With regard to export expectations the recently updated IFO World Economic Survey still points toward sustained global export ails (second panel, Chart 10). More specifically, tech laden Korean and Taiwanese exports are outright contracting at an accelerating pace and so are Chinese exports. Tack on the negative signal from the respective EM Asian stock market indices and the implication is that more profit pain looms for the S&P THS&P index (Chart 11). Finally, on the domestic front, new orders-to-inventories (NOI) have not only ground to a halt from the overall manufacturing sector, but also computer and electronic product NOI are not contracting on a short-term rate of change basis (bottom panel, Chart 10). Tracking domestic consumer outlays on computer and peripheral equipment reveals that they too have steeply decelerated from the cyclical peak reached in early 2018, painting a softening picture for industry sales growth prospects (Chart 12). Chart 11...Under Pressure ...Under Pressure ...Under Pressure Chart 12Soft Sales Backdrop Soft Sales Backdrop Soft Sales Backdrop  The re-escalation of the U.S./China trade tussle along with the risk of an antitrust investigation into Apple, waning capital outlays, softening exports and deteriorating operating conditions warn that it does not pay to be overweight the S&P THS&P index. Nevertheless, before getting too bearish there is a silver lining. This index has a net debt/EBITDA of 0.5x versus the non-financial broad market of 2x. On the valuation front this tech subindex trades at 28% discount to the non-financial broad market on an EV/EBITDA basis suggesting that most of bad news is already reflected in bombed out valuations (Chart 13). The re-escalation of the U.S./China trade tussle along with the risk of an antitrust investigation into Apple, waning capital outlays, softening exports and deteriorating operating conditions warn that it does not pay to be overweight the S&P THS&P index. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P THS&P index to neutral for a modest relative loss of 1.0% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CMPE – AAPL, HPQ, HPE, NTAP, STX, WDC, XRX. Chart 13But B/S Remains Pristine But B/S Remains Pristine But B/S Remains Pristine Put Tech On Downgrade Alert We are compelled to put the S&P tech sector on our downgrade watch list as President Trump’s hawkish trade talk and actions since May 5 warn that tech revenues (60% export exposure) and profits will likely remain under intense downward pressure. The way we will execute this tech sector downgrade to underweight will be via the S&P software index, the sector’s largest market cap weight. A downgrade to neutral in the S&P software index would push our S&P tech sector weight to a below benchmark allocation. Thus, we are initiating a stop near the 10% relative return mark on the S&P software high-conviction overweight call since the December 3, 2018 inception and also lift the stop to 27% from 17% relative return on the cyclical overweight we have on the S&P software index since the November 27, 2017 inception. Any near term stock market pullback will likely trigger these stops and push the tech sector to an underweight position. Stay tuned. With regard to the overall tech sector, our EPS model is on the verge of contraction on the back of sinking capex and a firming U.S. dollar (middle panel, Chart 14). In more detail, tech capex has recaptured market share swinging from below 6% to above 13% in the past decade and now has likely hit a wall similar to the late 1990s peak (second panel, Chart 15). On a rate of change basis tech capital outlays have all peaked and national data corroborate the message from stock market reported data (bottom panel, Chart 15). Chart 14Grim EPS Model Signal Grim EPS Model Signal Grim EPS Model Signal Chart 15Exhausted Capex? Exhausted Capex? Exhausted Capex? The San Francisco Fed’s Tech Pulse Index (comprising coincident indicators of activity in the U.S. information technology sector) is also closing in on the expansion/contraction line warning that tech stocks are in for a rough ride (bottom panel, Chart 14). Delving deeper into operating metrics, we encounter some profit margin trouble for tech stocks. Not only do industry selling prices continue to deflate, but also our tech sector wage bill gauge is picking up steam. Taken together, all-time high profit margins – double the broad market – appear unsustainable and something has to give (Chart 16). On the export relief valve front, the sector faces twin headwinds. First the trade war re-escalation suggests that an interruption/disruption of tech supply chains is a rising risk, and the firming greenback will continue to weigh on P&Ls as negative translation effects will hit Q2, Q3 and likely Q4 profits (Chart 17). Chart 16Margin Trouble Margin Trouble Margin Trouble Chart 17Rising Dollar Will Weigh On Revenues & Profits Rising Dollar Will Weigh On Revenues & Profits Rising Dollar Will Weigh On Revenues & Profits Netting it all out, our tech EPS model is flashing red on the back of sinking capex and an appreciating U.S. dollar, deteriorating operating metrics signal that tech margins are under attack and exports are also in a freefall, suggesting that the time is ripe to put the tech sector on downgrade alert. Nevertheless, there are two sizable offsets contrasting all the grim news. Tech stocks are effectively debt free with the net debt/EBITDA sitting on the zero line and valuations a far cry from the tech bubble era. Finally, the drop in interest rates via the 10-year yield and looming Fed cuts will underpin these growth stocks that thrive in a disinflationary backdrop (Chart 18). Netting it all out, our tech EPS model is flashing red on the back of sinking capex and an appreciating U.S. dollar, deteriorating operating metrics signal that tech margins are under attack and exports are also in a freefall, suggesting that the time is ripe to put the tech sector on downgrade alert. Bottom Line: We are compelled to put the tech sector on our downgrade watch list. We will execute the S&P tech sector downgrade to underweight when the S&P software index’s stops are triggered. This would push the S&P software index to neutral from currently overweight. Stay tuned. Chart 18But There Is An Offset: Melting Yields Help Growth Stocks But There Is An Offset: Melting Yields Help Growth Stocks But There Is An Offset: Melting Yields Help Growth Stocks   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Signal Vs. Noise” dated December 17, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Crude oil price volatility surged over the past week, and likely will remain elevated. Underlying prices continue to reflect heightened policy risk ranging from continuing Sino – U.S. trade-war tensions; new tariff threats against Mexico from the Trump administration; global growth concerns, which are fuelled by rising oil inventories in the U.S.; and the continued threat of war in the Persian Gulf (Chart of the Week). These factors are exacerbating recession fears in the U.S., where the yield curve is pricing in a greater than one-in-three chance of a recession one year forward (Chart 2). Given the above-trend performance of the American economy relative to other DM economies, this is disconcerting re global growth generally, and re EM GDP prospects in particular. EM GDP drives EM commodity demand. Given EM commodity demand is the principal driver of global commodity demand, it is especially important in our modeling. Chart of the WeekVolatility Surges on Policy-Risk Concerns Volatility Surges on Policy-Risk Concerns Volatility Surges on Policy-Risk Concerns   Reducing EM GDP growth from 4.2% and 4.5% this year and next to 3.8% and 4.1% shaves ~ $2/bbl off our 2019 Brent price expectation and $3/bbl off our 2020 expectation. Chart 2Bond Market Pricing High Odds of U.S. Recession Bond Market Pricing High Odds of U.S. Recession Bond Market Pricing High Odds of U.S. Recession To be conservative, our oil-demand assumptions for EM GDP have followed World Bank estimates, which means they’ve been below post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) trend (Chart 3). Chart 3 Cutting right to the chase: Reducing EM GDP growth from 4.2% and 4.5% this year and next to 3.8% and 4.1% shaves ~ $2/bbl off our 2019 Brent price expectation and $3/bbl off our 2020 expectation. This brings our Brent forecast to $73/bbl and $77/bbl for this year and next.1 We continue to expect WTI to trade $7/bbl and $5/bbl below Brent this year and next. Highlights Energy: Overweight. We expect OPEC 2.0 – the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – to extend its production cuts to year end when it meets later this month or next month. This will still allow OPEC 2.0 to raise production in 2H19 over 1H19 if needed, due to the group's current over-compliance with the agreed cuts. KSA's production is currently close to ~500k b/d below its output target. We believe Wednesday’s inventory report released by the U.S. EIA showing a 22.4mm-barrel increase in commercial crude oil and refined products inventories all but assures OPEC 2.0’s production cuts will be extended when the producer coalition meets. Base Metals: Neutral. Union members who voted to strike a Codelco copper mine over the weekend remain on the job, after Chilean government officials joined to mediate negotiations, according to Fastmarkets MB. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold rallied above $1,340/oz – up 4% over the past week – as global trade tensions and other factors riling equity, bond and commodity markets intensified. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA reported corn plantings were running at 67% this week, vs. an average of 96% percent over the 2014 – 18 period. The department surveyed 18 states, which account for 92% of all 2018 corn acreage. Feature Global oil demand concerns are manifesting themselves in the almost-relentless selling of futures seen in the past two weeks. This coincided with an increasing risk premium noted in our price decomposition, and with rising concerns over the health of the global economy generally.2 Markets are becoming increasingly concerned U.S. and Chinese trade and foreign policy will spill into the larger global economy and result in a full-blown global trade war. Already, Mexico and Canada have been drawn into this vortex once again – the former is being threatened with U.S. tariffs once more, after presumably having agreed to a revised NAFTA treaty, the latter via increased inspection of meat imports into China.3 On Wednesday, the World Bank lowered its global growth forecast, taking 0.3 percentage points off its 2019 growth estimate – lowering it to 2.6% in 2019 – and reducing its 2020 forecast to 2.7% from 2.8% earlier.4 The Bank noted, “Emerging and developing economy growth is constrained by sluggish investment, and risks are tilted to the downside. These risks include rising trade barriers, renewed financial stress, and sharper-than-expected slowdowns in several major economies.” Assessing Lower EM Growth Prospects We follow the World Bank’s GDP growth estimates closely, largely because the Bank’s forecasts tend to be lower than those of the IMF, which induces a measure of conservatism to our forecasts. We use the Bank’s EM GDP estimates (levels and growth rates) to estimate oil demand in our modelling. Prior to the Bank’s updated forecast released on June 4, we re-estimated EM oil consumption, by shaving 0.4 percentage points from our earlier EM GDP forecast. This means our simulation is 0.1 percentage point below the Bank’s most recent estimate for EM GDP this year, and 0.3 percentage points below the Bank’s 2020 estimate. Using the World Bank's revised forecasts as inputs to our fundamental model – and leaving all other assumptions unchanged – the lower EM GDP estimate for 2019 would take our average Brent expectation to $71/bbl. Averaging this with our existing expectation of $75/bbl leads us to change our 2019 forecast to $73/bbl. To hit this new estimate of $73/bbl would require 2H19 Brent prices to average ~ $79/bbl, which we believe is not unreasonable. For 2020, the slowdown in EM GDP we used gives an expectation of $73/bbl for Brent, versus our previous estimate of $80/bbl. We average these as well, and change our estimate for 2020 Brent to $77/bbl. OPEC 2.0 Remains Focused On Lower Inventories Our lower EM GDP estimates take growth rates to those roughly prevailing during the 2015 – 16 oil-price collapse. This episode was a true global shock, particularly for commodity exporters, which was not offset by higher growth in the GDPs of commodity importers (Chart 4). This go-round is different, however: The 2015 – 16 oil price collapse was a self-inflicted shock, occasioned by OPEC’s decision to launch an all-out market-share war in 2014. This had a devastating effect on EM commodity-exporting countries, particularly the oil exporting countries. We expect OPEC 2.0 to extend production cuts, even though we believe the market will need an additional 900k b/d of production from the producer coalition. This time, the global backdrop is considerably different. For one thing, the oil-price collapse laid the foundation for the formation of OPEC 2.0, which has shown remarkable production discipline since it was founded in November 2016, and took on the mission of reducing the massive unintended inventory accumulation brought on by the combination of the OPEC market-share war and surging U.S. shale production (Chart 5). The nominal target for this mission is OECD inventories. Chart 4EM Oil Demand vs. GDP EM Oil Demand vs. GDP EM Oil Demand vs. GDP Chart 5Commercial Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Commercial Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Commercial Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing We continue to stress this founding principal of OPEC 2.0, because its leadership continues to make it a focal point when engaging with the press and guiding the market. It is for this reason we expect OPEC 2.0 to extend production cuts, even though we believe the market will need an additional 900k b/d of production from the producer coalition to keep prices below $85/bbl. KSA’s Energy Minister, Khalid al-Falih, this week said, “We will do what is needed to sustain market stability beyond June. To me, that means drawing down inventories from their currently elevated levels.”5 Fiscal, Monetary Policy Support EM Demand The other noteworthy aspect of the current market is central banks globally are more accommodative than they were during the 2015 – 16 oil-price collapse. In addition, fiscal stimulus is being deployed globally, and likely will be increased. Against this backdrop, it is difficult to see monetary or fiscal policy being the sort of headwind it has shown it can be post-GFC. As our colleague Peter Berezin noted in last week’s Global Investment Strategy, “politicians will pursue large-scale fiscal stimulus” to avoid a slide into deflation.6 U.S. – Iran Tensions High, But Ebbing Lastly, oil markets seem to have reduced their concern over U.S. – Iran tensions in the Persian Gulf. This may be due to the fact that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the U.S. was “prepared to engage in a conversation (with Iran) with no pre-conditions. We are ready to sit down.”7 All the same, the U.S. recently deployed an aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf, where it now is on station, and B52 bombers. From the oil market’s perspective, any thawing in the potential military standoff in the Gulf would require the U.S. to abandon its stated goal of reducing Iran’s oil exports to zero. In and of itself, a resumption of official Iranian oil exports would simply re-distribute production cuts and the make-up production OPEC 2.0 is providing markets in the wake of Venezuela’s collapse, where oil production has fallen to ~ 850k b/d from ~ 2mm b/d when OPEC 2.0 was formed. Bottom Line: Wednesday’s massive 22.4mm-barrel build in U.S. crude and refined product inventories shocked the global oil market, and pushed Brent prices toward $60/bbl as we went to press. Almost surely, this will harden KSA’s and OPEC 2.0’s resolve to maintain production cuts into 2H19 to drain oil inventories globally. The lower prices also will act as a headwind to U.S. shale producers, a topic we will take up in a two-part Special Report next week and the following week. We’ve established rig counts in the U.S. shales are closely tied to WTI price levels and curve shape: Lower prices and a flattening forward curve will restrain drilling in the shales, and the rate of growth in U.S. output. Lastly, fiscal and monetary policy globally will be supportive of commodity demand, and EM oil demand in particular, as this stimulus is deployed. We continue to expect prices to rally from here, but have lowered our forecasts slightly to $73 and $77/bbl for Brent this year and next. We continue to expect WTI to trade $7 and $5/bbl below these levels in 2019 and 2020.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please note, we ran our simulations earlier this week, prior to the World Bank’s most recent forecast released June 4.  This means our simulation is 0.1 percentage point below the Bank’s most recent estimate for EM GDP this year, and 0.3 percentage points below the Bank’s 2020 estimate.  2      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Policy Risk Sustains Oil’s Unstable Equilibrium,” dated May 23, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      The amounts involved in the stepped up meat inspections in China are small. However, they can be read as an extension of the foreign-policy imbroglio involving the possible extradition of Huawei Technologies’ CFO from Canada to the U.S. to face trial on charges she and the company allegedly conspired to commit bank and wire fraud to avoid U.S. sanctions on Iran.  Chinese officials deny there is any connection.  Please see “Canada says China plans more meat import inspections, industry fears disaster,” published by reuters.com June 4, 2019. 4      Please see Global growth to Weaken to 2.6% in 2019, Substantial Risks Seen , published by the World Bank June 4, 2019. 5      This quote came from a reuters.com report that relayed what al-Falih told Arab News. Please see “Saudi’s Falih says OPEC+ consensus emerging on output deal in second half,” published June 3, 2019. 6      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled “MMT And Me,” dated May 31, 2019, which discusses the prospects for large-scale fiscal stimulus and accommodative monetary policy globally.  It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com.  Peter also expects a détente in the Sino – U.S. trade war, arguing both sides would benefit from reducing trade tensions and tariffs. 7      Please see U.S. prepared to talk to Iran with 'no preconditions', Iran sees 'word-play' published by reuters.com June 2, 2019.  This followed news that Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said his country is willing to speak with the U.S. if it shows respect. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Please note that analysis on India is published below. Highlights This report reviews several financial market-based indicators and price signals from various corners of global markets that are pertinent to the global business cycle, and hence to EM risk assets. The overwhelming message from these indicators and price actions is that the global industrial cycle remains in the doldrums, and a recovery is not imminent. As such, global cyclical segments, commodities, and EM assets are all at risk of plunging. Beware of reigning complacency in EM sovereign and corporate credit markets. Various indicators point to wider EM credit spreads. Feature EM risk assets appear to be on the brink of a breakdown. This week we review various market-based indicators that are telegraphing a relapse in both EM risk assets and commodities. The relative performance of EM versus global stocks leads turning points in the global manufacturing cycle by about six months. As always, we monitor economic data extremely closely. However, one cannot rely solely on economic data to predict directional changes in financial markets. Turning points of economic indicators and data often lag those of financial markets. In fact, one can make reliable economic forecasts based on the performance of financial markets. For example, the relative performance of EM versus global stocks leads turning points in the global manufacturing cycle by about six months (Chart I-1). Chart I-1EM Stocks Signal No Improvement In Global Industrial Cycle EM Stocks Signal No Improvement In Global Industrial Cycle EM Stocks Signal No Improvement In Global Industrial Cycle Over the years, we have devised and tracked several market-based indicators that have a good track record of identifying trends in EM risk assets. In addition, we constantly monitor price signals from various corners of financial markets that are pertinent to the global business cycle, and hence to EM risk assets. The overwhelming message from these market-based indicators is that the global industrial cycle remains in the doldrums, and a recovery is not imminent. As such, global cyclical segments, commodities and EM are all at risk of plunging. Our Reflation Indicator Our Reflation Indicator is calculated as an equal-weighted average of the London Industrial Metals Price Index (LMEX), platinum prices and U.S. lumber prices. The LMEX index is used as a proxy for Chinese growth, while U.S. lumber prices reflect cyclical growth conditions in the American economy. We use platinum prices as a global reflation proxy; this semi-precious metal is sensitive to the global industrial cycle in addition to benefitting from easy U.S. dollar liquidity. The Reflation Indicator has failed to advance above its long-term moving average and has broken down. Chart I-2Our Reflation Indicator Presages No Reflation Our Reflation Indicator Presages No Reflation Our Reflation Indicator Presages No Reflation Chart I-2 illustrates that the Reflation Indicator has failed to advance above its long-term moving average and has broken down. Typically, such a technical profile is worrisome and is often followed by a significant drop. In addition, the Reflation Indicator rolled over at its previous highs last year, another bearish technical signal. Investors should heed signals from this indicator as it correlates well with EM share prices in U.S. dollar terms as well as EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads (Chart I-3). EM credit spreads are shown inverted in the middle and bottom panels. An examination of the individual components of the Reflation Indicator reveals the following: Industrial metals prices in general and copper prices in particular have formed a classic head-and-shoulders pattern (Chart I-4, top panel). As and when the neckline of this pattern is broken, a major downward gap is likely to ensue. Platinum prices have reverted from their key technical resistance levels (Chart I-4, middle panel). This constitutes a bearish technical configuration, and odds are that platinum prices will be in freefall. Finally, lumber prices have failed to punch above their 200-day moving average and have broken below their 3-year moving average (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart I-3Reflation Indicator And EM Reflation Indicator And EM Reflation Indicator And EM Chart I-4Beware Of Breakdowns In Commodities Prices Beware Of Breakdowns In Commodities Prices Beware Of Breakdowns In Commodities Prices These technical signals are in accordance with our qualitative assessment of global growth conditions. The global industrial cycle remains very weak, and a recovery is not yet imminent. Meanwhile, the U.S. is the least exposed to the ongoing global trade recession because manufacturing and exports each represent only about 12% of the U.S. economy. Remarkably, economic weakness in Asian export-dependent economies has so far been driven by retrenching demand in China – not the U.S. As Chart I-5 reveals, aggregate exports to China from Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore were still contracting at a 9% pace in April from a year ago, while their shipments to the U.S. grew at a respectable 7% rate. Chart I-5Asian Exports To China And To U.S Asian Exports To China And To U.S Asian Exports To China And To U.S Chart I-6Global Steel And Energy Stocks Are Breaking Down Global Steel And Energy Stocks Are Breaking Down Global Steel And Energy Stocks Are Breaking Down Commodities: Hanging By A Thread? Some commodity-related markets are also exhibiting configurations that are consistent with a breakdown. Specifically: Global steel stocks as well as oil and gas share prices have formed a head-and-shoulders pattern, and are breaking below their necklines (Chart I-6). Such a technical configuration foreshadows major downside. Shares of Glencore – a major player in the commodities space – have dropped below their three-year moving average which has served as a support a couple of times in recent years (Chart I-7). Crucially, this stock has also exhibited a head-and-shoulders formation, and has nose-dived below its neckline. Kennametal (KMT) – a high-beta U.S. industrial stock – leads U.S. manufacturing cycles, and has formed a similar configuration to Glencore’s (Chart I-8). This raises the odds that the U.S. manufacturing PMI will drop below the 50 line. Chart I-7A Head-And-Shoulders Pattern In Glencore Stock... A Head-And-Shoulders Pattern In Glencore Stock... A Head-And-Shoulders Pattern In Glencore Stock... Chart I-8...And In Kennametal (High-Beta U.S. Industrial Stock) ...And In Kennametal (High-Beta U.S. Industrial Stock) ...And In Kennametal (High-Beta U.S. Industrial Stock) Finally, three-year forward oil prices are breaking below their three-year moving averages (Chart I-9). A drop below this technical support will probably mark a major downleg in crude prices. Bottom Line: Commodities and related equity sectors appear vulnerable to the downside. Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar is exhibiting a bullish technical pattern and will likely grind higher, as we discussed in last week’s report titled, The RMB: Depreciation Time? (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Forward Oil Prices Are Much Weaker Than Spot Forward Oil Prices Are Much Weaker Than Spot Forward Oil Prices Are Much Weaker Than Spot Chart I-10The U.S. Dollar Is Heading Higher The U.S. Dollar Is Heading Higher The U.S. Dollar Is Heading Higher EM Equities: A Make-It-Or-Break-It Moment Chart I-11EM Stock Indexes: Sitting On Edge Of A Cliff EM Stock Indexes: Sitting On Edge Of A Cliff EM Stock Indexes: Sitting On Edge Of A Cliff The MSCI EM Overall Equity Index is at an important technical support level (Chart I-11, top panel). If this support is violated, a major downleg will likely ensue. In addition to the above indicators, the following observations also suggest that this support level will be broken and that a gap-down phase will transpire. Both the EM small-cap and equal-weighted equity indexes have been unable to advance above their respective three-year moving averages and are now breaking down (Chart I-11, middle and bottom panels). This could be a precursor for the overall EM stock index to tumble through defense lines, and drop well below its December lows. Our Risk-On/Safe-Haven Currency ratio also points to lower EM share prices (Chart I-12). This indicator is constructed using relative total returns of commodity related (cyclical) currencies such as the AUD, NZD, CAD, BRL, CLP and ZAR against safe-haven currencies such as the JPY and CHF. Importantly, as with EM stocks, this market-based indicator has failed to break above highs reached over the past 10 years. This is in spite of negative interest rates in both Japan and Switzerland that have eroded the latter’s total returns in local currency terms. This ratio has also formed a head-and-shoulders pattern, and may be on the edge of breaking below its neckline. A move lower will spell trouble for EM financial markets. EM corporate profits are shrinking in U.S. dollar terms, and the pace of contraction will continue to deepen through the end of the year. The U.S.-China confrontation is not the only reason behind the EM selloff. In fact, the EM equity rebound early this year was not supported by improving profits. Not surprisingly, the EM equity rebound has quickly faded as investor sentiment deteriorated in response to rising trade tensions. Global semiconductor share prices have made a double top and are falling sharply. Importantly, prices for semiconductors (DRAM and NAND) have not recovered since early this year. The ongoing downdraft in the global semiconductor industry will continue to weigh on the emerging Asian Equity Index. Finally, the relative performance of emerging Asian equities versus DM ones has retreated from its major resistance level (Chart I-13). Odds are that it will break below its recent lows. Chart I-12Risk-On/Safe-Haven Currency Ratio And EM Equities bca.ems_wr_2019_05_30_s1_c12 bca.ems_wr_2019_05_30_s1_c12 Chart I-13Emerging Asian Stocks Versus Developed Markets Emerging Asian Stocks Versus Developed Markets Emerging Asian Stocks Versus Developed Markets Bottom Line: EM share prices are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Further weakness will likely lead to investor capitulation and a major selloff. EM Credit Markets: Reigning Complacency? One asset class in the EM space that has so far held up relatively well is sovereign and especially corporate credit. EM sovereign bonds’ excess returns correlate with EM currencies and industrial metals prices, as shown in Chart I-14. So far, material EM currency depreciation and a drop in industrial metals prices have generated only a mild selloff in EM sovereign credit. Lower commodities prices, EM currency depreciation and weaker global growth are all negatives for cash flows of both sovereign and corporate issuers. Excess returns on EM corporate bonds track the global business cycle closely (Chart I-15). The current divergence between EM corporates’ excess returns and the global manufacturing PMI is unprecedented. Chart I-14EM Sovereign Credit Market Is Complacent... EM Sovereign Credit Market Is Complacent... EM Sovereign Credit Market Is Complacent... Chart I-15...As Is EM Corporate Credit Market ...As Is EM Corporate Credit Market ...As Is EM Corporate Credit Market Our expectation that EM credit spreads will widen is not contingent on a massive default cycle unravelling across the EM credit space. However, lower commodities prices, EM currency depreciation and weaker global growth are all negatives for cash flows of both sovereign and corporate issuers. Chart I-16 illustrates that swings in cash flow from operations (CFO) among EM ex-financials and technology companies correlate with other global business cycle indicators such as Germany’s IFO manufacturing index. Chart I-16EM Corporate Cash Flow Fluctuates With Global Manufacturing Cycle bca.ems_wr_2019_05_30_s1_c16 bca.ems_wr_2019_05_30_s1_c16 Chart I-17EM Corporate Spreads Are Too Narrow Given Their Financial Health EM Corporate Spreads Are Too Narrow Given Their Financial Health EM Corporate Spreads Are Too Narrow Given Their Financial Health The lingering weakness in the global business cycle will likely lead to shrinking CFOs among EM companies, and hence warrants wider corporate credit spreads. Concerning valuations, EM corporate bonds are not cheap at all when their fundamentals are taken into account. Chart I-17 demonstrates two vital debt-servicing ratios for EM ex-financials and technology companies: interest expense-to-CFO and net debt-to-CFO. Both measures have improved only marginally in recent years, yet corporate spreads are not far from their all-time lows (Chart I-17, bottom panel). We are aware that with DM bond yields at very low levels - and in many cases even negative - the appeal of EM credit markets has risen. We are also cognizant that some investors are expecting to hold these bonds to maturity and earn a reasonable yield. Such a strategy has largely paid off in recent years. Nevertheless, if the selloff in EM financial markets escalates – as we expect – EM credit markets will be hit hard as well. To this end, it makes sense to step aside and wait for a better entry point. For dedicated fixed-income portfolios, we continue to recommend underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit versus U.S. investment-grade credit. Finally, to identify relative value within EM sovereign credit spreads, we plot, each country’s foreign debt obligations as a share of annual exports on the X axis against sovereign spreads on the Y axis (Chart I-18). Chart I-18 This scatter plot reveals that Russia and Mexico offer the best relative value in the EM sovereign space. As such, we are reiterating our high-conviction overweight position in these sovereign credit markets as well as in Hungary, Poland, Chile and Colombia. South Africa and Brazil appear attractive as well, but we are underweight these two sovereign credits. The basis for our pessimistic outlook is due to the unsustainable public debt dynamics in these two countries, as we discussed in our Special Report from April 23. Other underweights within the EM sovereign credit space include Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Turkey and Argentina.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com     India: How Sustainable Is A 2.0 Modi Rally? Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and his party – the Bharatiya Janata Party – have won a strong majority in the Indian general election this month. Indian stocks surged in the past month as evidence was emerging that Modi was in the lead. Chart II-1Facing Resistance? Facing Resistance? Facing Resistance? Yet this Modi 2.0 rally is unlikely to last for too long. First, as EM stocks continue selling off, Indian share prices will not defy gravity and will fall in absolute terms. Interestingly, the Indian stock market has hit its previous highs – levels at which it failed to break above in the past 12 years (Chart II-1, top panel). We expect this resistance line to hold this time around too. Likewise, we are still reluctant to upgrade this bourse on a relative basis as it has reached its previous highs. This level will likely prove to be a hindrance, at least for the time being (Chart II-1, bottom panel). The basis for betting against a break out in Indian equity prices in both absolute terms and relative to the EM benchmark over the next couple of months is because of the following: Domestic Growth Weakness: India’s domestic growth has been decelerating sharply. The top two panels of Chart II-2 illustrate that manufacturing and intermediate goods production as well as capital goods production growth are all either contracting or on the verge of shrinking. Similarly, domestic orders-to-inventories ratio for businesses is pointing to a further growth slump according to a survey conducted by Dun & Bradstreet (Chart II-2, bottom panel). Furthermore, sales growth of all types of vehicles are either contracting or have stalled (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Business Cycle Is Weak Business Cycle Is Weak Business Cycle Is Weak Chart II-3Domestic Demand Is Fragile Domestic Demand Is Fragile Domestic Demand Is Fragile Regarding the financial sector, Indian banks – encouraged by a more permissive and forbearing central bank on the recognition of non-performing loans – have recently lowered provisions to boost their earnings (Chart II-4). Share prices should not normally react to such accounting changes. Banks either do carry these NPLs or do not. Therefore, the stock price of a bank should not fluctuate much if a central bank is forcing it to recognize those NPLs or if the latter is relaxing recognition and provisioning standards. Chart II-4Less Provisions = More Paper Profit Less Provisions = More Paper Profit Less Provisions = More Paper Profit Chart II-5Very Weak Equity Breadth Very Weak Equity Breadth Very Weak Equity Breadth In brief, we are skeptical about the sustainability of the current rally in bank share prices based on the relaxation of some accounting rules. Unfavorable Technicals & Valuations: Technicals for India’s stock market are precarious. Participation in this rally has been very slim. Indian small cap stocks have not rallied much, lagging dramatically behind large-cap stocks (Chart II-5, top panel). Our proxy for market breadth – the ratio of equal-weighted stocks to market-cap weighted stocks – has also been deteriorating and is sending a very bearish signal for the overall stock market (Chart II-5, bottom panel). Finally, the Indian stock market is overbought and vulnerable to a general selloff in EM stocks. Namely, foreign investors have rushed into Indian equities as of late. This raises the risk of a pullout as foreign investors become disappointed by India’s dismal corporate earnings and outflows from EM funds leads them to pare their holdings. As for valuations, the Indian stock market is still quite expensive both in absolute and relative terms. Oil Prices: Although oil prices will likely drop,1 Indian stocks could still underperform the EM equity benchmark in the near term. Chart II-6India Versus EM & Oil Prices India Versus EM & Oil Prices India Versus EM & Oil Prices The rationale for this is that Indian equities have brushed off the rise in oil prices since the beginning of the year and outperformed the majority of other EM bourses (Chart II-6). By extension, Indian equities could ignore lower oil prices for a while and underperform the EM benchmark in the near term. Beyond near term underperformance, however, India will likely resume its outperformance. First, sustainably lower oil prices will begin to help the Indian stock market later this year. Second, the growth impact of ongoing fiscal and monetary easing will become visible toward the end of this year. Meanwhile, food prices are starting to pickup and this will support rural income and spending. Finally, the Indian economy is much less vulnerable to a slowdown in global trade because Indian exports make only 13% of the country's GDP. Bottom Line: We are maintaining our underweight stance in Indian equities for tactical considerations, but are putting this bourse on an upgrade watch-list. Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes   1 The view on commodities of BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy service is different from BCA’s house view due to the difference on the view on the global business cycle and Chinese demand. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights U.S. inflation is on a structural uptrend. Monetary and fiscal policy, populism, and demographics will tend to push inflation higher over the coming decade. How can investors protect portfolios against inflation risk? We look at periods of rising inflation to determine which assets were the best inflation hedge. We find that the level of inflation is very important in determining which assets work best. When inflation is rising and high, or very high, the best inflation hedges at the asset class level are commodities and U.S. TIPS. When inflation is very high, gold is the best commodity to hold and defensive sectors will minimize losses in an equity portfolio. However, hedges have a cost. Allocating a large percentage of a portfolio to inflation hedges will be a drag on returns. Investors should opt for a low allocation to hedges now, and increase to a medium level when inflation rises further. Feature Some 38 years have passed since the last time the U.S. suffered from double-digit inflation. The Federal Reserve reform of 1979, championed by Paul Volcker, changed the way the Fed approached monetary policy by putting a focus on controlling money growth.1 The reform gave way to almost four decades of relatively controlled inflation, which persists today. But times are changing. While most of today’s investors have never experienced anything other than periods of tame inflation, BCA expects that rising inflation will be a major driving force of asset returns over the coming decade.2 The main reasons behind this view are the following: 1. A rethink in the monetary policy framework: At its most recent meeting, the FOMC openly discussed the idea of a price-level target, implying that it would be open to the economy running hot to compensate for the past 10 years of below-target inflation (Chart II-1.1A, top panel). Chart II-1.1AStructural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I) Structural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I) Structural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I) Chart II-1.1BStructural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I) Structural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I) Structural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I)   2. Procyclical fiscal policy: The U.S. is conducting expansionary fiscal policy while the economy is at near-full employment (Chart II-1.1A, middle panel). The last time this happened in the U.S., during the 1960s, high inflation followed, as the fiscal boost made the economy run substantially above capacity. 3. Waning Fed independence: President Trump has openly questioned the hiking campaign undertaken by the Fed. Moreover, he has tried to nominate Fed governors with dovish tendencies. Historically around the world, a lack of central bank independence has often led to higher inflation rates (Chart II-1.1A, bottom panel). 4. Peak in globalization: Globalization accelerated significantly in the 1990s and 2000s, flooding the global economy with cheap labor (Chart II-1.1B, top panel). However, we believe that globalization has peaked. Instead, populism and protectionism will be the dominant paradigms for years to come, reducing the cheap pool of workers and goods previously available. 5. Demographics: The population in the U.S. is set to age in coming years (Chart II-1.1B, middle panel). As the percentage of U.S. retirees increases, the number of spenders relative to savers will begin to rise (Chart II-1.1B, bottom panel). Higher spending and lower savings in the economy should create upward pressure on inflation. If our view is correct, how should investors allocate their money? We attempt to answer this question by evaluating the performance of five major asset classes during periods when inflation was rising. Furthermore, we look into sub-asset class performance to determine how investors should position themselves within each asset class to take advantage of an inflationary environment. In our asset-class analysis, we use a data sample starting in 1973 and we limit ourselves to five publicly traded assets that have adequate history: global equities, U.S. Treasuries, U.S. real estate (REITs), U.S. inflation-linked bonds,3 and commodities. We compare asset classes according to their Sharpe ratios: average annualized excess returns divided by annualized volatilities.4  BCA expects that rising inflation will be a major driving force of asset returns over the coming decade. In our sub-asset class analysis, we analyze global equity sectors, international vs U.S. equities, and individual commodities. In some of the sections in our sub-asset class analysis, our sample is slightly reduced due to lack of historical data. Moreover, since in some instances all sectors have negative returns, we compare sub-asset classes according to their excess returns only. We base our analysis on the U.S. Consumer Price Index, given that most of the assets in our sample are U.S. based. We opt for this measure because it tends to track the living expenses for most U.S. citizens and it is the preferred measure to index defined-benefit payments. Finally, we decompose the periods of rising inflation into four quartiles in order to examine whether the level of inflation has any impact on the performance of each asset. Chart II-1.2 and Table II-1.1 show the different ranges we use for our analysis as well as a description of the typical economic and monetary policy environments in each of them. Chart II-1 Chart II- Summary Of Results Table II-1.2 shows the summary of our results. For a detailed explanation on how each asset class and sub-asset class behaves as inflation rises, please see the Asset Class section and the Sub-Asset Class section below. Chart II- Which assets perform best when inflation is rising? Rising inflation affects assets very differently, and is especially dependent on how high inflation is. Global equities performed positively when inflation was rising and low or mild, but they were one of the worst-performing assets when inflation was rising and high or very high. Importantly, equities underperformed U.S. Treasuries in periods of both high and very high inflation. Commodities and U.S. TIPS were the best performers when inflation was high or very high. U.S. REITs were not a good inflation hedge. Which global equity sectors perform best when inflation is rising? Energy and materials outperformed when inflation was high. Every single sector had negative excess returns when inflation was very high, but defensive sectors such as utilities, healthcare, and telecommunications5 minimized losses. Which commodities perform best when inflation is rising? With the exception of energy, most commodities had subpar excess returns when inflation was in the first two quartiles. Industrial metals outperformed when inflation was high. Gold and silver outperformed when inflation was very high. Additionally, gold had consistent returns and low volatility. What is the cost of inflation hedging? Chart II-1 To answer this question, we construct four portfolios with different levels of inflation hedging: 1. Benchmark (no inflation hedging): 60% equities/40% bonds. 2. Low Inflation Hedging: 50% equities/40% bonds/5% TIPS/5% commodities 3. Medium Inflation Hedging: 40% equities/30% bonds/15% TIPS/15 % commodities 4. Pure Inflation Hedging: 50% TIPS/50% commodities. While increased inflation hedging provides better performance when inflation is high and rising, these hedges are costly to hold when inflation is at lower ranges or when it is falling (Chart II-1.3, panels 1 & 2). However, adding moderate inflation hedging (low or medium) to a portfolio achieved the right balance between cost and protection, and ultimately improved risk-adjusted returns over the whole sample (Chart II-1.3, panel 3). What about absolute returns? The benchmark outperformed over the whole sample. However, the low and medium inflation hedging did not lag far behind, while avoiding the big drawdowns of high inflation periods (Chart II-1.3, panel 4). Investment Implications High inflation may return to the U.S. over the next decade. Therefore, inflation hedging should be a key consideration when constructing a portfolio. Based on our results, our recommendations are the following: 1. At the asset-class level, investors should allocate to commodities and U.S. TIPS to hedge inflation. 2.  However, these hedges are costly to hold as they will create a drag on returns in periods when inflation is not high or very high. Therefore, a low allocation to inflation hedges is warranted now. 3.   Inflation will probably start to pick up in the 2020s. A medium allocation to inflation hedges will then be appropriate. 4.   When inflation is high (3.3%-4.9%), investors should overweight energy and materials in their equity portfolios. Likewise, they should overweight industrial metals and energy within a commodity portfolio. 5.   When inflation is very high (4.9% or more), investors should overweight defensive sectors in their equity portfolio to minimize losses. Moreover, investors should overweight gold within a commodity portfolio. At the asset-class level, investors should allocate to commodities and U.S. TIPS to hedge inflation. Asset Classes Global Equities Chart II-2 The relationship between equity returns and rising inflation depends on how high inflation is, with outstanding performance when inflation is rising but low or mild, and poor performance as it gets higher (Chart II-2.1, top panel). This relationship can be explained by the interaction between interest rates, inflation, earnings, and valuations: Earnings growth was usually slightly negative when inflation was recovering from low levels. However, given that interest rates were very low in this environment and growth expectations were high, multiple expansion boosted equity returns (Chart II-2.1, bottom panel). When inflation was mild, the Fed typically started to raise rates, resulting in a declining multiple. However, equities had the best performance in this range thanks to very high earnings growth – a result of the economy growing strongly due to a healthy level of inflation. When inflation climbed into the high or very high range, earnings growth was usually positive but beginning to slow, as high inflation weighed on growth. Meanwhile the multiple started to decline rapidly due to rising interest rates and declining growth expectations. With the exception of the mild inflation range, the return profile of equities during inflationary periods was similar to its normal profile: negative skew and excess kurtosis (Table II-2.1). However, the consistency of returns decreased at higher levels of inflation, with only 45% of months with positive returns when inflation was rising and in its highest quartile. Chart II- U.S. Treasuries Chart II-2 U.S. Treasuries reacted in a similar fashion to equities when inflation was rising (Chart II-2.2). However, while Treasuries underperformed equities when inflation was low or mild, they actually outperformed equities when inflation was high or very high. This was in part due to the fact that at higher inflation ranges, U.S. Treasuries offer a higher coupon return when rates are high, at least partially counteracting losses from falling prices. The steady stream of cash flows from the coupons helped Treasuries achieve positive returns roughly two-thirds of the time at the highest levels of inflation (Table II-2.2). However, this consistency in returns came at a cost: very high inflation resulted in negative skew and high excess kurtosis. Therefore, while Treasuries provided frequent positive returns when inflation was very high, they were prone to violent selloffs. Chart II- U.S. REITs Chart II-2 While REITs had high risk-adjusted returns when inflation was rising but mild, much like equities they had subpar performance in every other quartile and particularly poor performance when inflation was high or very high (Chart II-2.3). These results confirm our previous research showing that REITs performance is very similar to that of equities.6 The return consistency for REITs was generally poor in inflationary periods, with the second-lowest percentage of positive return of any asset class (Table II-2.3). Moreover, REIT returns had excess kurtosis and negative skew throughout all inflation quartiles. Chart II- Commodity Futures Chart II-2 Commodities performed positively in every quartile, and did particularly well when inflation was mild (Chart II-2.4, top panel). However, total return and price return were very different due to the behavior of the roll and collateral return: Total risk-adjusted returns were lower than spot risk-adjusted returns when inflation was low and rising. This happened because during these periods, commodity supply was high relative to demand, as the economy was recovering from a deflationary shock. Thus, there was an incentive for producers to conserve inventories, making the futures curve upward-sloping (contango). Thus, roll return was negative (Chart II-2.4, bottom panel). When inflation was in the upper two quartiles, total risk-adjusted returns were much higher than risk-adjusted spot returns. This was because high inflation was the product of supply shocks. These supply shocks resulted in a downward-sloping futures curve (backwardation), which, in turn, resulted in a positive roll return. Additionally, high rates during these regimes contributed to a high collateral return. Commodities provided good return consistency during inflationary periods, with roughly 60% of positive return months in the upper two inflation quartiles (Table II-2.4). The skew of returns was neutral or positive in the top two quartiles. This means that although volatility was high for commodities, extreme return movements were normally positive. Chart II- U.S. Inflation-Protected Bonds Chart II-2 While inflation-protected bonds provided meager returns when inflation was rising but in the mild range, they provided excellent performance at the highest levels of inflation (Chart II-2.5). Moreover, this high Sharpe ratio was not just simply the result of low volatility, since U.S. TIPS had excess returns of 4.6% when inflation was high and 5.7% when inflation was very high.7 The return profile of inflation-protected bonds during inflationary periods was also attractive in our testing period. Average skew was positive, while kurtosis was relatively low (Table II-2.5). The percentage of positive months across all quartiles was also the highest of all asset classes, with a particularly high share of positive returns in the periods of highest inflation. Chart II- Sub-Asset Classes Global Equity Sectors Chart II-3 For the sector analysis, we looked at information technology, financials, energy, materials, utilities, healthcare, and telecommunications. We excluded industrials, consumer discretionary, and consumer staples given that they do not have adequate back data. Once again, we separate rising inflation periods into four quartiles, arriving at the following results: When inflation was low, information technology had the best excess returns while utilities had the worst (Chart II-3.1, panel 1). This matches our observations at the asset class level, as IT is highly responsive to changes in the valuation multiple. When inflation was mild, energy had the best performance, followed by information technology (Chart II-3.1, panel 2). Meanwhile, financials had the worst performance, as rates were normally rising in these periods. When inflation was high, sectors highly correlated with commodity prices such as energy and materials outperformed. Meanwhile, IT was the worst performer (Chart II-3.1, panel 3). When inflation was very high, every sector had negative excess returns. Overall, investing in energy minimized losses (Chart II-3.1, panel 4). However, this performance was in part attributable to the oil spikes of the 1970s. Alternatively, defensive sectors such as utilities, telecommunications, and healthcare also minimized losses. International vs U.S. Equities Chart II-3 How do equities outside of the U.S. behave when inflation is rising? While the high share of U.S. equities in the global index causes U.S. equities to be the main driver of global stock prices, is it possible to improve returns in inflationary environments by overweighting international equities? The answer once again depends on the level of inflation. When inflation was rising but low, U.S. stocks outperformed global ex-U.S. equities in both common currency and local currency terms (Chart II-3.2, panel 1). This was in part due to the inherent tech bias in U.S. stocks. Additionally, the low level of inflation was often accompanied by slowing global growth in our sample, helping the U.S. dollar. When inflation was mild, U.S. stocks once again outperformed international stocks in both local and common currency terms, though to a lesser degree (Chart II-3.2, panel 2). The dollar was roughly flat in this environment. U.S. stocks started to have negative excess returns when inflation was high (Chart II-3.2, panel 3). On the other hand international equities had positive excess returns in dollar terms, partly because of their energy and material bias and partly because the dollar was generally weak in this period. U.S. equities outperformed global ex-U.S. equities by a small margin when inflation was very high, given that defensive sectors such as telecommunication were over-represented in the U.S. index (Chart II-3.2, panel 4). The dollar was roughly flat in this period. Individual Commodities Chart II-3 Our analysis above confirmed that commodities were one of the best assets to hold when inflation was rising. However, which commodity performed best?8 Total return for every commodity was lower than spot return when inflation was low (Chart II-3.3, panel 1). This was due to the upward-sloping term structure of the futures curve (contango), resulting in a negative roll yield. In this range, energy had the best performance, followed by industrial metals. Precious metals had negative excess returns. When inflation was mild, energy had the best performance of any commodity by far (Chart II-3.3, panel 2). Precious and industrial metals had low but positive excess returns in this period. When inflation was high, industrial metals had the highest excess returns, followed by energy (Chart II-3.3, panel 3). We omit energy for the last quartile since there is not enough data available. Overall, when inflation was very high, both gold and silver had the highest excess returns (Chart II-3.3, panel 4). However, gold’s return volatility was much lower, while it also had positive returns 64% of the time compared to 52% for silver. Other Assets U.S. Direct Real Estate Our asset-class analysis confirmed that public real estate (REITs) as an asset class offered poor risk-adjusted returns during inflationary periods. But how did direct real estate perform? We analyzed direct real estate separately from all other assets because of a couple of issues: Our return dataset is available only on a quarterly basis, versus a monthly basis for the rest of the assets in our sample. Even when annualized, volatility is not directly comparable when using data with different frequencies. The NCREIF Real Estate Index that we used is a broad aggregate, which is not investable. Individual property prices might differ from this aggregate. Finally, real estate returns are measured on an appraisal basis. Appraisal-based indices are not reflective of real transactions. Moreover, prices tend to be sticky. To attenuate this issue we unsmoothed the capital returns by removing return autocorrelation. Overall, the Sharpe ratio of direct real estate was solid throughout the first three quartiles of rising inflation (Chart II-4.1, top panel). There is not enough data available for the fourth quartile. However, judging by the performance of U.S. housing in the 1970s from OECD, risk-adjusted returns when inflation was very high was likely positive (Chart II-4.1, bottom panel). Chart II-4 Chart II-4   Cash Cash (investing in a 3-month U.S. Treasury bill) outperformed inflation over our sample (Chart II-4.2, top panel). Moreover, cash provided positive real returns when inflation was mild, or high, or when it was decreasing (Chart II-4.2, bottom panel). However, cash was not a good inflation hedge at the highest inflation quartile, with an average annualized real loss of almost 2%. Juan Manuel Correa Ossa Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation Footnotes 1       Please see Carl E. Walsh, “October 6, 1979,” FRSBF Economic Letter, 2004:35, (December 3, 2004). 2       Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “1970s-Style Inflation: Could it Happen Again? (Part 1), ” dated August 10, 2018, and “1970s-Style Inflation: Could it Happen Again? (Part 2),” dated August 24, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3       We use a synthetic TIPS series for data prior to 1997. For details on the methodology, please see: Kothari, S.P. and Shanken, Jay A., “Asset Allocation with Inflation-Protected Bonds,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 54-70, January/February 2004. 4       Excess returns are defined as asset return relative to a 3-month Treasury bill. 5       Sector classification does not take into account GICS changes prior to December 2018.  6       Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report "REITS Vs Direct: How To Get Exposure To Real Estate," dated September 15, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 7       It is important to note that the synthetic TIPS series does not completely match actual TIPS series for the periods where they overlap. Specifically, volatility is significantly higher in the synthetic series. Thus, results should be taken as approximations. 8       We decompose the returns into the same 4 quartiles to answer this question. However, due to lower data availability, we start our sample in 1978 instead of 1973. Moreover, our sample for energy is smaller beginning in 1983. This mainly reduces the amount of data available at the upper quartile.