BCA Indicators/Model

Aspectos destacados Bonos corporativos: Los elevados niveles de deuda corporativa serán un problema para los inversores en bonos corporativos durante la próxima recesión, pero los diferenciales no responderán hasta que aumenten las presiones inflacionarias y la política monetaria se vuelva restrictiva. Mantenga una asignación sobreponderada a bonos corporativos frente a los bonos del Tesoro, con preferencia por los tramos crediticios Baa y high-yield. MBS: Los diferenciales de las MBS de agencia son competitivos frente a los bonos corporativos de alta calificación (Aaa, Aa, A) y se ven aún más atractivos en base ajustada por riesgo. Recomendamos que los inversores intercambien los bonos corporativos calificados Aaa, Aa y A en sus carteras por MBS de agencia. Bonos municipales: Los inversores deberían aumentar la exposición a bonos municipales de neutral a sobreponderada, dado el reciente rebote en las ratios de rendimiento Municipal / Treasury. Dentro de los municipales, los inversores deberían mantener una preferencia por los bonos calificados Aaa de largo vencimiento, donde los rendimientos son más atractivos. Artículo La semana pasada asistimos a la Conferencia Anual de Inversiones de BCA. El evento siempre ofrece una buena oportunidad para escuchar a algunos panelistas expertos y conocer los temas que están en la mente de nuestros clientes. Más que cualquier otra cosa, dos temas siguieron apareciendo en las distintas presentaciones y en las conversaciones con los asistentes: Elevados niveles de deuda corporativa Riesgo de inflación infravalorado No podemos evitar ver una fuerte conexión entre ambos. Sobre la deuda corporativa El consenso entre panelistas y asistentes coincidía en gran medida con nuestra propia opinión: los balances altamente apalancados serán un problema para los inversores en bonos corporativos durante el próximo ciclo de incumplimientos, pero eso no nos ayuda a determinar cuándo ocurrirá ese ciclo de incumplimientos. Gráfico 1 muestra que, a pesar del aumento persistente en la ratio deuda/beneficios, las quiebras corporativas están bien contenidas. Examinamos las razones de esta divergencia en un informe reciente, concluyendo que la política monetaria acomodaticia está manteniendo baja la tasa de incumplimientos al mantener los costos de interés bajos y dar a los bancos la confianza para refinanciar la deuda que vence.1 Esencialmente, los bancos harán la vista gorda ante los signos de deterioro de la salud de los balances corporativos hasta que la Fed adopte una postura de política más restrictiva. Gráfico 1 Los balances corporativos están deteriorados, pero los incumplimientos son bajos Los balances corporativos están en mal estado, pero los incumplimientos son bajos. Los balances corporativos están en mal estado, pero los incumplimientos son bajos. Sobre la inflación Aquí es donde la inflación se vuelve importante. La Fed está aplicando actualmente una política monetaria acomodaticia porque muchos años de precios bajos han convencido a los inversores de que la inflación podría no regresar nunca. Como resultado, la tasa breakeven de inflación de los TIPS a 10 años es solo del 1.53%, muy por debajo del rango 2.3% - 2.5% coherente con el objetivo de la Fed. La Fed debe mantener una postura de política acomodaticia hasta lograr su objetivo de reanclar las expectativas de inflación. Solo entonces la política monetaria se volverá restrictiva, aumentando el riesgo de un ciclo de incumplimientos corporativos. Desde hace tiempo sostenemos que una tasa breakeven de inflación de los TIPS a 10 años por encima del 2.3% nos haría adoptar una postura mucho más cautelosa respecto al crédito corporativo. Podrían ser necesarios muchos meses de inflación subyacente cercana al objetivo de la Fed antes de que los inversores empiecen a creer que se mantendrá allí indefinidamente. Muchos panelistas de la conferencia consideraron que los riesgos de inflación están actualmente infravalorados, y si bien tendemos a estar de acuerdo en que es prematuro declarar la muerte de la curva de Phillips, esperamos que aún pase algún tiempo antes de que las expectativas de inflación alcancen nuestro rango objetivo de 2.3% - 2.5%. Hemos mostrado en investigaciones previas que las expectativas de inflación se adaptan solo lentamente a los cambios en los datos de inflación reales.2  En la actualidad, la lectura de valor justo de nuestro Modelo de Expectativas Adaptativas para la tasa breakeven de inflación de los TIPS a 10 años es solo del 1.94% (Gráfico 2). Este valor justo se moverá al alza si la inflación continúa registrándose cerca de los niveles actuales, pero ese proceso llevará tiempo. En otras palabras, podrían ser necesarios muchos meses de inflación subyacente cercana al objetivo de la Fed antes de que los inversores empiecen a creer que se mantendrá allí indefinidamente. Gráfico 2 Modelo de Expectativas Adaptativas Modelo de expectativas adaptativas Modelo de expectativas adaptativas Gráfico 3 La inflación no está lejos del objetivo Inflación cerca del objetivo Inflación cerca del objetivo Aunque el proceso de adaptación pueda llevar mucho tiempo, es importante notar que la inflación ya está bastante cerca del objetivo de la Fed. La inflación PCE de media recortada a 12 meses se situó en 1.96% en agosto, mientras que la PCE subyacente interanual alcanzó 1.77% (Gráfico 3). La inflación de media recortada ha sido más estable que otras medidas de inflación desde la crisis financiera, y la PCE subyacente ha tendido a desplazarse hacia la media recortada con el tiempo.      Sobre deuda corporativa e inflación En nuestra opinión, los dos temas de alta deuda corporativa y riesgo de inflación infravalorado están estrechamente vinculados. Ha llevado mucho tiempo que la economía se recupere de la crisis financiera. Como resultado, la inflación ha sido baja durante un periodo prolongado y la Fed se ha visto obligada a mantener una postura de política acomodaticia. Esa postura acomodaticia anima a los bancos a conceder crédito y anima a las empresas a emitir deuda. Eventualmente, las presiones inflacionarias aumentarán, la política de la Fed se volverá restrictiva y los balances corporativos débiles quedarán expuestos. Solo entonces los diferenciales corporativos se ampliarán de forma significativa. Hasta entonces, la cuestión pertinente es si los diferenciales corporativos ofrecen una compensación adecuada por el riesgo de que las presiones inflacionarias surjan antes de lo previsto. Por ahora, nuestra respuesta es sí, con la salvedad de que la relación riesgo/recompensa es más atractiva en los tramos crediticios inferiores. El diferencial breakeven de los bonos high-yield a 12 meses es muy atractivo, muy por encima de su mediana histórica (Gráfico 4). Pero dentro del grado de inversión, consideramos que solo el tramo crediticio calificado Baa ofrece una compensación adecuada (Gráfico 4, panel inferior). Existen mejores alternativas a poseer bonos corporativos calificados Aaa, Aa y A, como se discute en la siguiente sección. Gráfico 4 Valoración de bonos corporativos Valoración de bonos corporativos Valoración de bonos corporativos Favorecer las MBS de agencia sobre el crédito corporativo de alta calificación Gráfico 5 Las MBS son más atractivas que los bonos corporativos de alta calificación MBS más atractivos que los bonos corporativos de alta calificación MBS más atractivos que los bonos corporativos de alta calificación Como se señaló más arriba, los bonos corporativos de grado de inversión calificados A o superiores no ofrecen mucha compensación esperada con los niveles de diferencial actuales. De hecho, nuestras investigaciones previas señalan que sus diferenciales ya están por debajo de nuestros objetivos cíclicos.3 Pero en el lado positivo, el diferencial medio ajustado por opciones (OAS) para las MBS de agencia convencionales a 30 años se ha ampliado en los últimos meses y ahora parece una alternativa atractiva al crédito corporativo de alta calificación. Recomendamos que los inversores salgan de crédito corporativo calificado Aaa, Aa y A y entren en MBS de agencia por tres razones. 1) La compensación esperada es competitiva El OAS medio para las MBS de agencia convencionales a 30 años se sitúa ahora en 52 pb. Esto es solo 6 pb menos que el OAS medio ofrecido por un bono corporativo calificado Aa, y 37 pb menos que el ofrecido por un crédito calificado A (Gráfico 5). No está mal para un bono calificado Aaa con respaldo de agencia. 2) La compensación ajustada por riesgo es excelente Los diferenciales de las MBS se ven mucho más atractivos cuando consideramos el perfil de riesgo. Específicamente, al considerar que la duración media del índice MBS ha caído bruscamente este año, mientras que la duración media del índice de bonos corporativos de grado de inversión ha aumentado (Gráfico 5, panel 2). De hecho, la duración media del índice MBS es solo 2.9, comparada con 7.8 para un bono corporativo calificado A. Esto significa que el diferencial de MBS tendría que ampliarse 18 pb en los próximos 12 meses para que un inversor registre pérdidas, mientras que el diferencial calificado A necesitaría ampliarse solo 11 pb (Gráfico 5, panel inferior). Recomendamos que los inversores salgan de crédito corporativo calificado Aaa, Aa y A y entren en MBS de agencia. Debido a que las MBS exhiben convexidad negativa, su duración disminuye cuando las rentabilidades caen. En contraste, los bonos corporativos de grado de inversión no amortizables tienen convexidad positiva y han visto aumentar sus duraciones. Esto significa que, todo lo demás igual, los títulos con convexidad negativa empiezan a parecer más atractivos en base ajustada por riesgo después de una gran caída en las rentabilidades de los bonos. Esta es también la principal razón por la que los bonos corporativos high-yield con convexidad negativa actualmente parecen mucho más atractivos que los bonos corporativos de grado de inversión.4 Curiosamente, las MBS no parecían tan atractivas frente a los bonos corporativos en 2015/16, la última vez que la duración del índice MBS cayó bruscamente. Eso se debe a que los diferenciales de los bonos corporativos también se ampliaron durante ese periodo. En esta ocasión, los diferenciales de los bonos corporativos se han mantenido estables mientras la duración del índice MBS ha caído en picado. A menos que crea que las rentabilidades del Tesoro tienen más margen a la baja, cosa que nosotros no creemos,5 las MBS de agencia parecen una buena compra. 3) Los riesgos macro son menores Mientras que, como se discutió arriba, aún no estamos dando la alarma sobre los riesgos macro para los bonos corporativos, estamos aún menos preocupados por los riesgos macro que rodean a las MBS de agencia. La actividad de refinanciación hipotecaria es el factor macro más importante para los diferenciales de MBS, y debería mantenerse relativamente baja durante mucho tiempo. Con tasas hipotecarias tan bajas, la mayoría de los propietarios ya han tenido la oportunidad de refinanciar, por lo que el agotamiento de refinanciaciones es actualmente muy alto. Esto es evidente cuando observamos que solo hubo un pequeño pico en la actividad de refinanciación este año, a pesar de una caída muy grande en las tasas hipotecarias (Gráfico 6). Gráfico 6 La actividad de refinanciación atenuada mantendrá bajos los diferenciales nominales Actividad de refinanciación contenida mantendrá bajos los diferenciales nominales Actividad de refinanciación contenida mantendrá bajos los diferenciales nominales Gráfico 6 también muestra que el diferencial nominal de las MBS está altamente correlacionado con la actividad de refinanciación y que permanece cerca de sus niveles ajustados mínimos históricos. Este diferencial contiene tanto el OAS —que es un proxy del rendimiento esperado por un inversor en MBS— como la porción del diferencial que se espera perder como resultado de la actividad de prepago. El hecho de que el OAS esté razonablemente elevado en comparación con la historia mientras el diferencial nominal general se mantiene bajo significa que las MBS están incorporando muy poco margen para pérdidas por prepagos. Dado el contexto macro, esto parece apropiado. Más allá del riesgo de refinanciación, también observamos que la calidad crediticia de las hipotecas en circulación sigue siendo muy alta. La puntuación FICO mediana en nuevas hipotecas apenas ha disminuido desde la crisis financiera (Gráfico 7). Además, aunque las normas de concesión hipotecaria se han ido flexibilizando durante la mayor parte del periodo posterior a la crisis, la encuesta Senior Loan Officer de julio de la Fed informó que los bancos que consideran que las normas de concesión son más estrictas que la media posterior a 2005 superan en número a los que las consideran más laxas. Datos de actividad inmobiliaria más fuertes generalmente conducen a tasas hipotecarias más altas, lo que a su vez limita la actividad de refinanciación. Finalmente, hay muy pocas razones para preocuparse por una debilidad significativa en la actividad de la vivienda. De las seis principales series de datos de actividad inmobiliaria que seguimos, todas se han recuperado bruscamente desde la caída de las tasas hipotecarias de este año (Gráfico 8). Datos de actividad inmobiliaria más fuertes generalmente conducen a tasas hipotecarias más altas, lo que a su vez limita la actividad de refinanciación. Gráfico 7 Las normas de concesión hipotecaria son estrictas Los criterios para conceder hipotecas son estrictos Los criterios para conceder hipotecas son estrictos Gráfico 8 La actividad de la vivienda se recupera Actividad de Vivienda: Conexiones Actividad de Vivienda: Conexiones   Conclusión: Los diferenciales de las MBS de agencia son competitivos frente a los bonos corporativos de alta calificación (Aaa, Aa, A) y se ven aún más atractivos en base ajustada por riesgo. Recomendamos que los inversores intercambien los bonos corporativos calificados Aaa, Aa y A en sus carteras por MBS de agencia. Aumentar la exposición a bonos municipales El 23 de julio, aconsejamos a los inversores reducir la exposición a bonos municipales de sobreponderado a neutral.6 La justificación fue puramente de valoración. No veíamos señales inmediatas de deterioro crediticio municipal, pero observamos que los rendimientos eran simplemente demasiado bajos en relación con las alternativas. Hoy, de manera similar, no vemos señales de un deterioro crediticio inmediato. De hecho, las mejoras en las calificaciones de bonos municipales continúan superando a las rebajas, nuestro Monitor de Salud Municipal permanece en territorio de «mejora» y la cobertura de intereses de los gobiernos estatales y locales es sólida (Gráfico 9).7 Gráfico 9 La calidad crediticia de los bonos municipales no es motivo de preocupación La calidad crediticia de los bonos municipales no es motivo de preocupación. La calidad crediticia de los bonos municipales no es motivo de preocupación. La diferencia, sin embargo, es que las ratios de rendimiento se han recuperado dramáticamente desde principios de agosto, y los bonos municipales han vuelto a ser atractivos (Gráfico 10). Gráfico 10 Los bonos municipales son atractivos nuevamente Los bonos municipales vuelven a ser atractivos Los bonos municipales vuelven a ser atractivos Conclusión: Los inversores deberían aumentar la exposición a bonos municipales de neutral a sobreponderada, dado el reciente rebote en las ratios de rendimiento Municipal / Treasury. Dentro de los municipales, los inversores deberían mantener una preferencia por los bonos calificados Aaa de largo vencimiento, donde los rendimientos son más atractivos.   Ryan Swift, Estratega de bonos de EE. UU. rswift@bcaresearch.com Notas al pie 1 Por favor vea Informe semanal de Estrategia de Bonos de EE. UU., “Los inversores en bonos corporativos no deben enfrentarse a la Fed”, fechado el 17 de septiembre de 2019, disponible en usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Por favor vea Informe semanal de Estrategia de Bonos de EE. UU., “Expectativas adaptativas en el mercado de TIPS”, fechado el 20 de noviembre de 2018, disponible en usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Por favor vea Informe semanal de Estrategia de Bonos de EE. UU., “Los inversores en bonos corporativos no deben enfrentarse a la Fed”, fechado el 17 de septiembre de 2019, disponible en usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 El índice de bonos high-yield tiene convexidad negativa porque la mayoría de los créditos high-yield llevan opciones de call embebidas. Los bonos corporativos de grado de inversión tienden a no ser amortizables anticipadamente. 5 Por favor vea Informe semanal de Estrategia de Bonos de EE. UU., “¿Qué pasa en los mercados monetarios de EE. UU.?”, fechado el 24 de septiembre de 2019, disponible en usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Por favor vea Informe semanal de Estrategia de Bonos de EE. UU., “Un mensaje para el mercado de TIPS”, fechado el 23 de julio de 2019, disponible en usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Para más detalles sobre nuestro Monitor de Salud Municipal por favor vea Informe especial de Estrategia de Bonos de EE. UU., “Operar el ciclo crediticio municipal”, fechado el 18 de octubre de 2016, disponible en usbs.bcaresearch.com Desempeño del sector de renta fija Especificación de cartera recomendada

Highlights The fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong but investors’ skittishness has caused stocks to fluctuate with the ebb and flow of news headlines. With investor sentiment playing a leading role, we introduce a simple framework for tracking the course of animal spirits. Earnings expectations are undemanding, risk appetite remains robust and the monetary policy backdrop is supportive of the expansion. However, geopolitical unpredictability and potential irrational exuberance send warning signals. We continue to believe that recession worries are overblown, but there is no rule that says bear markets can only occur alongside recessions. Although there are some areas of concern, our overall assessment of other potential bear market triggers does not suggest that trouble is at hand. Feature A bear can find plenty to worry about these days. The trade war is still casting a shadow over global trade prospects, global manufacturing activity is slowing, the U.K. and German economies contracted in the second quarter and recent attacks demonstrated that Middle Eastern oil facilities were more vulnerable than investors realized. The R-word has abounded in the financial press all summer and the number of Google searches for the term “recession” surged to levels last reached in the months leading to the Great Financial Crisis. The summer anxiety did not last, though. Powered by a perceived cooling of trade tensions and monetary support from the Fed, the S&P 500 has already recouped all of its summer losses. The market swings were not driven by the domestic macroeconomic backdrop, which remained largely unremarkable. The U.S. economy is slowing after 2018’s sugar rush, but is still getting enough fiscal support to grow at or above trend despite the global slowdown. To this point, the slowdown has been confined to manufacturing, and the history of past industrial production cycles suggests it has almost run its course. The service sector is resilient across the developed world and the fundamentals for U.S. consumption remain strong. Fundamentals are not the whole story, however, and they have lately taken a backseat to politicians’ whims. The resulting anxiety has made it relatively easy to surpass downwardly revised expectations (Chart 1), and we have little concern that the bottom is about to drop out of S&P 500 earnings. But earnings are only half of the equation. The multiple investors are willing to pay for those earnings is the other half, and they could be the key swing factor if earnings growth is going to remain in the low single digits. Chart 1Markets And Economic Data Are Out Of Sync We introduce a simple framework for tracking animal spirits. Multiples are largely a function of investor enthusiasm, and we attempt to track it via the Ex-Recession Bear Market Checklist developed by our sister Global ETF Strategy service (Table 1). It seeks to measure animal spirits across six dimensions: expectations, prices, appetite, euphoria, policy and geopolitics. Constructing the checklist is necessarily subjective, and as such we consider it a welcome complement to our fundamental analysis. We remain deeply invested in searching out the coming equity market inflection point, and delving into animal spirits allows us to track a wider range of potential catalysts. Table 1Ex-Recession Bear Market Checklist Expectations Chart 2Back To Sustainable Levels... After calling for unusually strong late-cycle profits growth last year on the back of the cut in corporate tax rates, earnings expectations are undemanding relative to history (Chart 2). Consensus S&P 500 earnings estimates for the full year project just 1.5% growth over 2018. As of the beginning of last week, analysts had penciled in a 3% year-over-year decline in 3Q earnings for the S&P 500. Those estimates are likely to be revised even lower as corporations make sure they’ve underpromised in the final two weeks before 3Q earnings season kicks off. Perhaps the consensus is a bit too conservative. Even though the year-over-year benefits of corporate tax cuts are gone, the dovish pivots by the Fed and other major central banks will support earnings growth. In the U.S. in particular, where the economy is still strong, easier financial conditions should help extend the shelf life of the current expansion through 2020. Bottom Line: Earnings growth is not going to blast higher, but profits are unlikely to contract as long as the Fed continues to support the expansion. The earnings bar has been set very low, and it will be rather easy for S&P 500 companies to exceed it. Prices We keep close tabs on valuation metrics, though we try not to get too wrapped up in them. Expensive (cheap) stocks can get more expensive (cheaper) as investors can remain irrational for a while. Valuations only become prone to mean-revert when they reach extreme levels. Chart 3Restored Normal Mirror-Image Relationship Forward multiples offer greater insight when considered in conjunction with forward earnings estimates. It is unusual for both earnings estimates and forward multiples to be extended at the same time, as they were in 2018, because investors are typically unwilling to pay high multiples when they suspect that earnings may be peaking. The more normal mirror-image relationship has restored itself this year, as projected earnings growth has slipped below its mean level, balancing out the above-mean forward multiple (Chart 3). Chart 4Definitely Elevated, But Not Problematic Yet   Other conventional valuation measures remain elevated but valuations within one standard deviation of the mean are far from extreme (Chart 4). The S&P 500 price-to-sales ratio is the only metric nearing the two-standard-deviation level that marks what we view as the beginning of extreme territory. It is worth noting valuations have only eroded modestly in the current global geopolitical backdrop. Though they slid in the wake of the first tariff announcement, they have mostly recovered and have seemed somewhat inured to subsequent escalations, which may suggest that investors are becoming complacent about trade threats. Bottom Line: Stocks are fully priced and the fact that valuations were only modestly affected by tariff uncertainty has gotten our attention. One-sigma deviations do not point to an immediate reversal, however, so we will wait for more metrics to approach the two-sigma threshold before raising a red flag on valuations. Appetite IPO activity is a proxy for animal spirits. Well-received IPOs are a sign that investors still have a hearty appetite for what the future might hold and suggests that they do not fear the imminent end of the bull market. If new issues are too well received, however, IPO appetite becomes a contrary indicator. When an IPO frenzy takes hold, it’s a sign that optimism has reached unsustainable levels and the end of the cycle must be near. For now, we judge that the IPO market is healthy but not too healthy. Chart 5Improved Corporate Health Or Heightened Risk Appetite? We consider it healthy that the number of IPO deals has remained stable since 2017, though the fact that their average value has more than doubled over that time could be a sign that investors are willing to grant increasingly higher values to private and newly-public companies (Chart 5). The fact that a steadily increasing share of the companies commanding larger valuations have yet to turn a profit is somewhat unsettling (please see the “Euphoria” section, below). We are therefore encouraged that investors pushed back so vigorously against the IPO of We Work’s parent company. Media reports suggesting that the sub-lessor of office space may be valued around a quarter of management’s initial estimates indicates that institutional investors are not blindly chasing the next hot deal. The companies that have completed offerings this year have fared well. 60% of the U.S. companies that have gone public so far this year are trading above their initial offering price. The median “successful” IPO in 2019 has returned 50% since inception, while the median “unsuccessful” IPO lost 23%. This asymmetry and the larger number of “successful” IPOs suggests that IPOs continue to be generally well-received. Bottom Line: Investors’ appetite for new issues has held up despite a challenging geopolitical and global growth backdrop, while We Work’s struggles to attract a public ownership base suggests they have maintained some healthy skepticism. As it relates to the near-term outlook, we rate investor appetites as light green. Euphoria IPO activity can also offer a window into investor euphoria. The share of companies going public with negative earnings has reached levels last observed in the years preceding the dot-com crash. The fact that profitless IPOs are currently better received by investors than IPOs of profitable companies is a concern (Chart 6). Chart 6Getting Carried Away While we noted that aggregate S&P 500 valuations are within normal ranges, valuations among the most highly valued stocks suggest that some exuberance has broken out. Using the backtest functionality of BCA’s Equity Trading Strategy platform,1 we devised baskets of the top deciles of stocks ranked by Price-to-Earnings, Forward Price-to-Earnings, Price-to-Tangible Book Value, Price-to-Sales and Price-to-Operating Cash Flow. Chart 7The Most Expensive Stocks Are Getting More Expensive The rising median P/E ratio of the top-decile P/E stocks suggests that investors continue to support the highest valuations by piling into the most richly valued firms. The same pattern prevails for the top deciles of stocks ranked on the four other multiples (Chart 7). Four out of the five metrics we track are now at or above two standard deviations from their mean. Bottom Line: Demand for unprofitable companies’ IPOs and the extreme valuations of the highest-valued companies on a range of metrics suggest that investors have gotten a little carried away. We rate this dimension orange. Policy We previously noted that restrictive monetary policy has been a precondition for every recession in the last 50 years. Consistent with its repeated pledge to sustain the expansion as long as possible, the Fed delivered its second rate cut earlier this month, and central banks around the world have embarked on what is turning into a synchronized dovish pivot. Despite unanimous expectations of easier policy at its September meeting, the ECB managed to surprise somewhat dovishly with the announcement of an open-ended bond purchase program, dubbed “QE Infinity”. Other developed-economy central banks like the already accommodative Reserve Bank of New Zealand have been delivering dovish surprises in the form of larger-than-expected rate cuts. Bottom Line: Uber-dovish U.S. and global central banks should prolong the shelf life of the expansion. Geopolitics The U.S.-China trade war continues to loom as the biggest risk to the global economy and the main source of investor angst. The Iranian attack on critical Saudi Arabian infrastructure also has the potential to destabilize markets and exacerbate investor concerns. Our Geopolitical Strategy service could see U.S.-China tensions receding in the near term, but fear that Iran will be an ongoing irritant. The motivations on the U.S. side are straightforward: first and foremost, the current administration wants to be re-elected next November. It is way too early to call the election – we won’t know who will face off until next summer – but one ironclad law of presidential elections is surely on the administration’s mind. The incumbent party always loses the White House if a recession occurs during the campaign (Chart 8). If hard-nosed trade policy appeared to be pushing the economy in the direction of a recession, it is likely the administration would dial down its aggressiveness. Chart 8A 2020 Recession Is The Biggest Threat To Trump's Reelection Prospects Enter the Iranians. Their (apparent) attack on critical Saudi oil facilities2 signals that Middle Eastern tensions could intensify and crude prices could blast higher. As we wrote last week, the U.S. economy is far less exposed to an oil price shock than it was in the ‘70s, due mainly to its emergence as the world’s largest oil producer, but the rest of the world is vulnerable. An oil price shock could induce a global ex-U.S. recession. The U.S. is a comparatively closed economy, and it regularly responds to global forces with a longer lag than other economies. It does eventually respond to them, however, and if an oil price shock leads to recessions in major economies in the rest of the world, it will ultimately threaten the U.S. economy. Keeping the expansion going through November 2020 may require U.S. policymakers to focus carefully on the Middle East to defuse the potential implications of Iranian belligerence. The administration may need to cool tensions with China to free up the bandwidth to deal with Iran, and also to prevent trade tensions’ marginal pressure on global growth from making the global economy more vulnerable to an oil price spike. Our overall assessment of bear market triggers does not suggest that trouble is imminent. The U.S.-China pause our geopolitical colleagues have been calling for would not be as beneficial for markets as a holistic trade settlement, but it appears to be materializing. In deference to China’s National Day celebrations, the U.S. will delay the tariff hike that was supposed to begin October 1st (from 25% to 30% on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports). China, for its part, has issued waivers for tariffs and promised to increase purchases of U.S. farm goods. A trade deal with Japan has also been agreed in principle and is slated to be signed any day, while U.S. relations with Europe are marginally improving.3 Bottom Line: The latest pause in trade tensions is boosting investor sentiment and risk-asset performance but the unpredictability of the current administration’s actions and public communications still have the potential to rattle markets. We rate this dimension orange. Investment implications We continue to believe that worries of a recession are overblown, but it might also take time for investors to overcome all of their concerns. A lot of fear is already discounted in the 2019 earnings estimates correction, bringing the bar quite low for corporate earnings to beat expectations. Coupled with an accommodative policy backdrop and still-robust investor appetites, the expansion still has room to run. Equities are not a slam dunk at this point in the cycle. Valuations are full, global growth is uncertain, and geopolitics are a wild card. Volatility is likely to be elevated and subject to sporadic spikes. We remain positive on the U.S. economy and continue to expect global growth will pick up later this year, however, so we continue to recommend that investors remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios.   Jennifer Lacombe, Senior Analyst jenniferl@bcaresearch.com Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Available at https://ets.bcaresearch.com/ 2 Abqaiq is the most important oil-processing facility in the world, and the Khurais oil field is adjacent to the Ghawar oil field, the world’s largest. 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report “Trump’s Tactical Retreat”, published September 13, 2019. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Aspectos destacados El apoyo del presidente Trump entre los republicanos y la falta de evidencia concluyente impedirán su destitución. El riesgo comercial aumentará si la aprobación de Trump se beneficia de los procedimientos de juicio político y la economía estadounidense es resiliente. El riesgo político en la Europa continental está disminuyendo. Sin embargo, ojo con Rusia y Turquía, y mantener posiciones cortas en gilts a 10 años frente a 2 años. Una nueva elección en España puede no resolver el estancamiento político. Anotar ganancias en nuestra posición corta en el Hang Seng de Hong Kong. Análisis Los procedimientos de juicio político contra el presidente de los EE. UU., Donald Trump, el audaz ataque iraní a Arabia Saudita, la persistencia del riesgo de guerra comercial y datos adicionales débiles de China y Europa sugieren que los inversores deberían mantenerse adversos al riesgo por ahora. En concreto, el juicio político de Trump podría impulsarlo a buscar distracciones en el extranjero: abandonar la retirada táctica de una política exterior y comercial agresiva que apenas había comenzado. El riesgo geopolítico fuera de los focos calientes está cayendo, especialmente en Europa. El riesgo de un Brexit sin acuerdo se ha desplomado en línea con nuestras expectativas. Italia y Alemania han agradado a los mercados al proporcionar cierto estímulo fiscal sin populismo. En Francia, la popularidad del presidente Emmanuel Macron se está recuperando. Y, como discutimos en este informe, la elección en España no sumará un factor de miedo significativo. A continuación presentamos un nuevo Indicador de GeoRiesgo, revisamos la señal de todos nuestros indicadores del último mes y luego nos centramos en España. Teman la política estadounidense, no el juicio político La decisión de los demócratas de la Cámara de acusar a Trump da a los inversores otra razón para mantenerse cautelosos con los activos de riesgo. ¿Por qué no ser alcistas? Es cierto que el juicio político sin evidencia concluyente aumenta las posibilidades de reelección de Trump, lo que es positivo para el mercado en comparación con una victoria demócrata. El presidente Trump es prácticamente invulnerable a las medidas demócratas de juicio político mientras los republicanos continúen apoyándolo en un 91% (Gráfico 1). Los senadores no desertarán en estas circunstancias, por lo que Trump no será destituido del cargo. Trump es invulnerable a las medidas de juicio político siempre que el apoyo republicano se mantenga alto. Además, la transcripción de su conversación telefónica con el presidente ucraniano Volodímir Zelenskiy no produjo una bomba informativa: no hay un quid pro quo explícito en el que el presidente Trump sugiera que retendrá la ayuda militar a Ucrania a cambio de una investigación sobre las acciones del exvicepresidente Joe Biden y su hijo Hunter en relación con Ucrania. Cualquier conducta indebida es, por tanto, debatible, a la espera de pruebas adicionales. Esto incluye evidencia más allá de la “denuncia del informante”, que sugiere que el equipo de Trump intentó sofocar la transcripción de la mencionada llamada telefónica. El punto es que las bases del partido republicano y el Senado son los árbitros finales del debate. El problema es que el escándalo y el juicio político probablemente seguirán alimentando la volatilidad del mercado de acciones (Gráfico 2). Los demócratas de la Cámara podrían sacar nuevas pruebas ahora que están totalmente centrados en el juicio político y en escuchar a denunciantes de la comunidad de inteligencia. Gráfico 1 Los republicanos aún no están dispuestos a iniciar un juicio político contra Trump Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – Actualización GeoRisk: 27 de septiembre de 2019 Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – Actualización GeoRisk: 27 de septiembre de 2019 El juicio político también tiene un impacto negativo en el mercado a través de las primarias del Partido Demócrata. Elizabeth Warren aún no ha desplazado a Biden en las primeras primarias demócratas. Gráfico 2 Los procedimientos de juicio político probablemente aumentarán la volatilidad Los procedimientos de juicio político probablemente aumentarán Vol Los procedimientos de juicio político probablemente aumentarán Vol Si lo hace, tendrá un impacto negativo considerable en los mercados de acciones, ya que el presidente Trump seguirá siendo solo ligeramente favorito para ganar la reelección. En cualquier caso, esta elección será extremadamente reñida, tendrá implicaciones significativas para la política fiscal y la regulación, y por lo tanto generará mucha incertidumbre entre ahora y noviembre de 2020. El episodio del informante, si acaso, ha agravado esta incertidumbre. Como se mencionó al principio del informe, si los procedimientos de juicio político alguna vez ganan tracción, podrían impulsar a Trump a buscar distracciones en el extranjero: abandonar la retirada táctica de la política exterior y comercial agresiva que apenas había comenzado. Por último, la reelección de Trump, aunque más favorable para el mercado que la alternativa y probablemente desencadene un repunte de alivio, no es tan alcista como parece. Las políticas de Trump en un segundo mandato no serán tan favorables para las empresas como en el primer mandato. Liberado de preocupaciones electorales pero aún enfrentando una Cámara dominada por los demócratas, Trump no podrá recortar impuestos, pero probablemente llevará a cabo su política exterior y comercial de manera aún más agresiva. Esta no es una perspectiva positiva para el mercado, independientemente de si es beneficiosa para los intereses de EE. UU. a largo plazo. Conclusión: La aprobación del presidente Trump entre los votantes republicanos es el dato crítico. A menos que abandonen la fe en él, el Senado no cambiará de postura, y el apoyo a Trump incluso puede aumentar. Pero esto no es motivo para volverse alcista. El próximo año verá inevitablemente un espectáculo horrendo de disfunción política estadounidense que conducirá a volatilidad y potencialmente a conflictos en escalada en el extranjero. Presentamos… Nuestro Indicador de Riesgo Comercial Sino-Estadounidense Esta semana presentamos un nuevo Indicador de GeoRiesgo para la guerra comercial EE. UU.-China (Gráfico 3). El indicador se basa en el mejor rendimiento de las acciones de mercados desarrollados en general en relación con esas mismas acciones que tienen alta exposición a China, y en el crecimiento del crédito privado de China (“financiación social total”). Como muestra el comentario de nuestro gráfico, el indicador corresponde con el curso de los acontecimientos a lo largo de la guerra comercial. También se correlaciona bastante bien con medidas alternativas de riesgo comercial, como el recuento de términos clave en los informes de noticias. Gráfico 3 El riesgo comercial aumentará a partir de ahora Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 Al cierre de esta edición, nuestro indicador sugiere que el riesgo relacionado con la guerra comercial está aumentando. En el último mes Trump ha realizado una retirada táctica en política exterior y comercial para controlar los riesgos económicos antes de las elecciones. Nuestro indicador sugiere que esto ya está descontado. El problema es que el riesgo de reelección de Trump permite a China exigir condiciones más duras, lo que se confirma tentativamente por la detención de un empleado de FedEx por parte de China (señalando que puede perjudicar a empresas estadounidenses) y la cancelación de una gira por granjas en Montana y Nebraska. No fueron eventos mayores, pero sugieren que China percibe la vacilación de Trump y está pasando a la ofensiva en las negociaciones. Los negociadores principales se reunirán a principios de octubre para una ronda de conversaciones muy significativa. Si estas resultan en declaraciones públicas de progreso sustantivo —y en evidencia de que el borrador casi terminado de abril se está completando— podrían preparar una cumbre entre los presidentes Xi Jinping y Donald Trump en noviembre, en la cumbre de la APEC en Santiago de Chile. En ese caso tendríamos que elevar nuestra probabilidad del 40% de que se concluya un acuerdo antes de noviembre de 2020. Si las conversaciones no concluyen con resultados públicos positivos, los inversores no deberían tomarlo a la ligera. Las negociaciones del cuarto trimestre (Q4) son posiblemente el último intento de llegar a un acuerdo antes de las elecciones estadounidenses. Si no hay noticias de una cumbre Trump-Xi, confirmará nuestra perspectiva pesimista sobre la fase final. Es poco probable que las conversaciones comerciales EE. UU.-China produzcan un acuerdo duradero. En última instancia, no creemos que las conversaciones entre EE. UU. y China produzcan un acuerdo concluyente y duradero que elimine sustancialmente el riesgo y la incertidumbre de la guerra comercial. Esto es especialmente cierto si la presión de los mercados financieros y la economía —en medio del relajamiento de la política monetaria global— no es lo suficientemente intensa como para obligar a los responsables a comprometerse. Pero vigilaremos de cerca cualquier señal de que la retirada táctica de Trump está sobreviviendo a los procedimientos de juicio político y provocando reciprocidad por parte de China, ya que esto apuntaría a una perspectiva más optimista. Conclusión: Mientras la calificación de aprobación del presidente se beneficie de los procedimientos de juicio político del Partido Demócrata, y la economía estadounidense sea resiliente, como esperamos, Trump puede evitar cualquier capitulación a un acuerdo superficial con China. El riesgo comercial podría aumentar a partir de aquí. En la misma línea, los procedimientos de juicio político podrían eventualmente forzar a Trump a cambiar de táctica una vez más y adoptar una postura mucho más agresiva en asuntos exteriores. Si el juicio político gana tracción, o se desarrolla un mercado bajista, podría volverse más agresivo que en cualquier otra etapa de su presidencia, y esta agresión podría dirigirse a China (o Irán, Corea del Norte, Venezuela u otro país). El riesgo para nuestra visión es que China acepte la posición comercial de Trump para conseguir un respiro para su economía y las dos partes acuerden un pacto en la cumbre de la APEC. El riesgo europeo cae, mientras que el riesgo ruso y turco difícilmente puede caer más En otros lugares, nuestras medidas de riesgo geopolítico indican una disminución de las tensiones en varios mercados desarrollados y emergentes (ver Apéndice). En Alemania, el riesgo puede subir un poco desde los niveles actuales pero está mayormente contenido; esto no ocurre en el Reino Unido más allá del muy corto plazo. En Rusia y Turquía, el riesgo difícilmente puede disminuir más. Tómese, para empezar, Alemania, donde el riesgo político disminuyó después de que la coalición gobernante de la canciller Angela Merkel acordara un paquete de gasto fiscal de 50.000 millones de euros para combatir el cambio climático. Este acuerdo confirma nuestra valoración de que, si bien la política alemana es fundamentalmente estable, la administración será reactiva más que proactiva al aplicar estímulos. Europa tendrá que esperar a una crisis global, o a un nuevo gobierno alemán, para un verdadero “cambio de juego” en la política fiscal alemana. Quizá el Partido Verde, que se dispara en las encuestas y que empujó a Merkel a este gasto climático, posibilite tal desarrollo. Pero es demasiado pronto para decirlo. Mientras tanto, los años de transición de Merkel y factores externos evitarán que el riesgo político desaparezca por completo. Vemos las probabilidades de aranceles estadounidenses a los coches en no más del 30%, al menos mientras persistan las tensiones sino-estadounidenses. Por el contrario, los riesgos políticos del Reino Unido no están contenidos a pesar de una mejora notable este mes. La decisión del Tribunal Supremo del 25 de septiembre de anular la suspensión del parlamento ordenada por el primer ministro Boris Johnson clavó otro clavo en el ataúd de su amenaza de sacar al país de la UE sin un acuerdo. Fue una maniobra para extraer concesiones de la UE que ha fracasado por completo.1 Dado que fue la amenaza más creíble de una salida sin acuerdo que probablemente se pueda montar, su fracaso debería marcar una disminución del riesgo político para el Reino Unido y sus vecinos. Sin embargo, paradójicamente, nuestro indicador GeoRisk no corroboró la fuerte caída de la libra durante el verano y ahora, cuando la opción sin acuerdo está descartada, ha dejado de caer. La razón es que la tasa de depreciación de la libra permaneció relativamente plana durante el verano, mientras que el PMI manufacturero del Reino Unido —una de las variables explicativas de nuestro indicador— cayó mucho más rápido al desplomarse la manufactura global. Como resultado, nuestro indicador registró esto como una disminución del riesgo político. El mundo temía más una recesión que un Brexit sin acuerdo, y esto resultó ser el llamado correcto por parte del mercado. Pero la situación se invertirá si el crecimiento global mejora y se convocan nuevas elecciones británicas, ya que estas podrían revivir el riesgo de una salida sin acuerdo, especialmente si los conservadores regresan con una mayoría estrecha bajo una coalición. La verdad es que la saga del Brexit está lejos de terminar y el Reino Unido se enfrenta a una elección, a la posible llegada de un gobierno de izquierdas y, en última instancia, a un populismo resiliente una vez que quede claro que ni salir ni quedarse en la UE resolverán la angustia de la clase media. Nuestra recomendación larga en GBP-USD es necesariamente táctica y venderemos cuando llegue a $1.30. En los mercados emergentes, Rusia y Turquía han visto caer el riesgo político hasta niveles tan bajos que resulta difícil imaginar que baje más sin que algún desarrollo político provoque un aumento. Según nuestra última valoración, Turquía está casi segura de ver un pico en el riesgo en el futuro cercano. Esto podría ocurrir por la formación de una alianza política doméstica contra el presidente Recep Erdogan o por el aumento de riesgos externos centrados en el frágil acuerdo EE. UU.-Turquía sobre Siria. Las tensiones con Irán también podrían provocar shocks en el precio del petróleo que debiliten la economía y envalentonen a la oposición. En cuanto a Rusia, nuestro caso base es que continuará centrando sus problemas internos al descuidar los objetivos exteriores, lo que ayuda a mantener bajo el riesgo geopolítico. Con la política estadounidense en crisis y un posible conflicto con Irán en el horizonte, Moscú no tiene razones para atraer atención hostil hacia sí. No obstante, Moscú ha demostrado ser impredecible y agresivo durante la era Putin, no tiene una lealtad real hacia Trump y podría ser víctima de la ira de los demócratas, y tiene incentivos para avivar las llamas en Oriente Medio y la región Asia-Pacífico. Así que esperar que el riesgo geopolítico baje mucho más es tentar al destino. Conclusión: El riesgo político europeo está disminuyendo, pero el estatus de Merkel como figura en transición y la guerra comercial hacen que el riesgo alemán tenga probabilidades de aumentar desde aquí a pesar de fundamentos políticos estables. El Reino Unido sigue afrontando un riesgo político elevado en términos generacionales a pesar de la feliz conclusión del riesgo de no-acuerdo este verano. Vender en corto gilts a 10 años frente a 2 años. Rusia debería mantenerse tranquila por ahora, pero Turquía está casi asegurada a experimentar un aumento del riesgo político. España: la elección podría sorprender, pero los riesgos son bajos Los votantes españoles acudirán a las urnas el 10 de noviembre por cuarta vez en cuatro años después de que los líderes políticos no lograran un acuerdo para formar un gobierno permanente. El Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) ha ejercido como gobierno en funciones tras ganar 123 de los 350 escaños en las elecciones anticipadas de abril. Una nueva elección en España no resolverá el actual estancamiento político. El primer ministro y líder del PSOE, Pedro Sánchez, no logró ser confirmado en julio y desde entonces ha intentado cerrar un acuerdo de gobierno con el partido de izquierdas y anti-establecimiento Podemos. Sin embargo, el PSOE no busca una coalición completa sino meramente apoyo externo para seguir gobernando en minoría. Por tanto, solo está ofreciendo a Podemos agencias no ministeriales (en lugar de puestos de alto nivel en el gabinete) en las negociaciones, dejando a Podemos y a otros partidos listos para unas elecciones. El resultado de las próximas elecciones puede no diferir mucho de las de abril. El elector español no está demandando cambios. El desempleo y el subempleo han ido disminuyendo, y el crecimiento salarial ha sido positivo desde 2014 (Gráfico 4). En las encuestas de opinión, el apoyo a los distintos partidos no ha variado significativamente (Gráfico 5, panel superior). El PSOE sigue liderando con una diferencia considerable. Gráfico 4 El elector español no está exigiendo cambios El votante español no exige cambios El votante español no exige cambios Sin embargo, la elección aumentará la incertidumbre en un momento inoportuno y podría producir sorpresas. El apoyo al PSOE ha disminuido ligeramente desde finales de julio, cuando las negociaciones con Podemos empezaron a desmoronarse. Gráfico 5 Poco cambio en las encuestas... No hay mucho cambio en las encuestas... No hay mucho cambio en las encuestas... Incluso si PSOE y Podemos forman un pacto de gobierno, su apoyo popular combinado no es significativamente mayor que el apoyo combinado de los tres principales partidos conservadores. Estos son el Partido Popular, Ciudadanos y Vox (Gráfico 5, panel inferior), que recientemente demostraron que pueden trabajar juntos al cerrar un acuerdo de gobierno para dirigir la comunidad regional de Madrid. Gráfico 6 ...pero una menor participación podría perjudicar a la izquierda Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 El Partido Socialista espera captar votantes marginales de Ciudadanos, es decir, aquellos escépticos respecto al giro populista de derechas de ese partido y a su postura más dura sobre Cataluña. Sin embargo, incluso captando hasta la mitad de los votantes de Ciudadanos, el apoyo al PSOE se situaría en ~37% —muy lejos de lo necesario para formar un gobierno mayoritario de partido único. Otro factor que puede perjudicar al PSOE es la participación electoral. Los votantes españoles han mostrado cada vez menos interés en apoyar a cualquier partido desde las elecciones de abril. Una disminución de la participación perjudicaría más a los partidos de izquierda, dado que los votantes culpan a Podemos y al PSOE más que al PP y a Ciudadanos por la incapacidad de formar gobierno (Gráfico 6). Los resultados más probables son mantener el statu quo o una alianza PSOE-Podemos. Pero no se puede descartar una victoria conservadora. En los dos primeros casos, la implicación es una acomodación fiscal algo más positiva que es beneficiosa a corto plazo, pero con el riesgo de perder ímpetu en las reformas que tendría consecuencias negativas a largo plazo. Para poner esto en contexto, la política española sigue orientada al ámbito doméstico, no es una amenaza para la integración europea. Los votantes en España son de los más europeístas del continente, tanto en términos de la moneda como de la pertenencia a la UE (Gráfico 7). España es uno de los principales beneficiarios de las asignaciones presupuestarias de la UE, junto con Italia. Incluso el partido de extrema derecha Vox no se considera “fuertemente euroescéptico”. Dentro de España, sin embargo, la polarización política es un problema. La desigualdad y la inmovilidad social son motivo de preocupación, aunque no tan extremas como en Italia, el Reino Unido o Estados Unidos. Además, la crisis separatista catalana es divisiva. Aunque no está prevista una nueva elección catalana hasta 2022, la coalición proindependentista de Izquierda Republicana de Cataluña y Cataluña Sí ha ido ganando impulso en las encuestas, y el apoyo a Ciudadanos se desplomó desde que el partido endureció su postura sobre Cataluña a principios de este año (Gráfico 8 Gráfico 7 A los españoles les gusta Europa Los españoles aman Europa Los españoles aman Europa Gráfico 8 Cataluña es un tema divisivo Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 A muy corto plazo, la parálisis electoral introduce vientos en contra para la política fiscal. Por un lado, las comunidades autónomas pueden verse obligadas a recortar gasto. Las regiones esperaban recibir 5.000 millones de euros más que el año pasado, que se prometió gastar, en parte, en sanidad y educación. Hasta que un gobierno estable (o al menos en funciones) pueda aprobar un presupuesto para 2019, las regiones basarán sus presupuestos de 2019 en las cifras del año anterior, lo que significa que tendrán que recortar cualquier incremento previsto del gasto. Sin embargo, por otro lado, el déficit presupuestario se ampliará al no recaudarse algunos impuestos. A finales de 2018 España aprobó aumentos por decreto en las pensiones, los salarios de los funcionarios y el salario mínimo, pero cualquier aumento de ingresos correspondiente que se iba a implementar en el presupuesto de 2019 no se materializará hasta que haya gobierno, ejerciendo presión al alza sobre el déficit. Más allá de las elecciones, la tendencia debería ser una mayor empuje fiscal debido a la desaceleración continental. España tiene cierto margen fiscal para jugar: se proyecta que su déficit presupuestario disminuya al 2% en 2019 y al 1,1% en 2020.2 La estimación más conservadora de la Comisión Europea prevé déficits para 2019 y 2020 de 2,3% y 2%, respectivamente (Gráfico 9). Esto significa que España puede proporcionar aproximadamente entre 10.000 y 15.000 millones de euros adicionales de estímulo en 2020 sin siquiera insinuar el inicio de procedimientos por déficit excesivo, un cambio bienvenido tras casi una década de austeridad. El riesgo es que el impulso de las reformas estructurales de España pueda perderse con consecuencias negativas a largo plazo. En 2012 España llevó a cabo dolorosas reformas laborales y de pensiones que sustentaron su impresionante recuperación económica. La economía sigue creciendo más rápido que la media de sus pares, el desempleo ha caído un 12% en los últimos seis años y la competitividad exportadora ha tenido una de las recuperaciones más pronunciadas de Europa desde 2008 (Gráfico 10 Gráfico 9 España tiene cierto margen fiscal España tiene cierto margen fiscal España tiene cierto margen fiscal Esto es más probable que se evite si ocurre una sorpresa y los conservadores vuelven al poder, aunque eso también implicaría políticas menos acomodaticias a corto plazo. Gráfico 10 La recuperación empieza a desacelerarse La recuperación empieza a desacelerarse La recuperación empieza a desacelerarse Conclusión: Nuestro indicador de riesgo geopolítico señala niveles contenidos de riesgo para España. Esto encaja, ya que la elección puede no cambiar nada y, en cualquier caso, el país permanecerá en un equilibrio inquieto. La política es fundamentalmente más estable que en los países desarrollados aquejados por el populismo —EE. UU., Reino Unido e Italia. Sin embargo, un resultado que produzca un gobierno de izquierdas conducirá a una mayor acomodación fiscal a corto plazo a costa del destacado progreso reciente de España en reformas estructurales. Tareas administrativas Estamos cerrando ganancias en nuestra posición corta en el Hang Seng de Hong Kong. Los disturbios no han terminado, pero están a punto de alcanzar su punto máximo a medida que nos acercamos al 1 de octubre, Día Nacional de la República Popular China, y Pekín buscará evitar una intervención agresiva.   Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Analista de investigación ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vicepresidente Estratega geopolítico mattg@bcaresearch.com Notas al pie 1 El Tribunal Supremo consideró que la suspensión del parlamento por parte del gobierno de Johnson fue una frustración ilegal del papel del parlamento como legislador soberano y supervisor del gobierno sin una justificación razonable. El tribunal fue mayor de lo habitual, con 11 jueces, y fallaron por unanimidad contra la suspensión. Esperábamos al menos que la votación fuera estrecha —dado los usos históricos de la suspensión del parlamento, el hecho de que el parlamento aún tenía tiempo para actuar antes del Brexit del 31 de octubre y la autoridad histórica del primer ministro sobre asuntos exteriores y tratados—. Pero el Tribunal Supremo ha intervenido para llenar el vacío de poder creado por la parálisis del parlamento en la saga del Brexit; ha “anulado” lo que podría haber llegado a ser un precedente neo-Stuardo por el que los primeros ministros pueden restringir el papel del parlamento en momentos importantes. La consecuencia pragmática a corto plazo es la reducción de los riesgos políticos y económicos de una salida sin acuerdo; pero la consecuencia a largo plazo puede ser el ascenso del poder judicial a una mayor prominencia dentro del sistema constitucional en constante evolución de Gran Bretaña. 2 Consulte “Stability Programme Update 2019-2022, Kingdom of Spain,” disponible en www.ec.europa.eu. Reino Unido: Indicador GeoRisk Reino Unido: GEORISK INDICATOR Reino Unido: GEORISK INDICATOR Francia: Indicador GeoRisk FRANCIA: INDICADOR GEORISK FRANCIA: INDICADOR GEORISK Alemania: Indicador GeoRisk ALEMANIA: GEORISK INDICATOR ALEMANIA: GEORISK INDICATOR España: Indicador GeoRisk ESPAÑA: INDICADOR GEORISK ESPAÑA: INDICADOR GEORISK Italia: Indicador GeoRisk ITALIA: INDICADOR GEORISK ITALIA: INDICADOR GEORISK Rusia: Indicador GeoRisk RUSIA: INDICADOR GEORISK RUSIA: INDICADOR GEORISK Turquía: Indicador GeoRisk TURQUÍA: INDICADOR GEORISK TURQUÍA: INDICADOR GEORISK Brasil: Indicador GeoRisk BRASIL: INDICADOR GEORISK BRASIL: INDICADOR GEORISK Taiwán: Indicador GeoRisk TAIWAN: GEORISK INDICATOR TAIWAN: GEORISK INDICATOR Corea: Indicador GeoRisk COREA: INDICADOR GEORISK COREA: INDICADOR GEORISK ¿Qué hay en el radar geopolítico? Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 Juicio político, guerra comercial y una estancia en España – GeoRisk Update: 27 de septiembre de 2019 Sección III: Calendario geopolítico

Highlights Duration: The ebbing of U.S. / China trade tensions and swing toward positive data surprises are enough for us to re-initiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation, on both tactical (0-3 month) and cyclical (6-12 month) time horizons. While not our base case, a continued deterioration in the Manufacturing PMI or CRB Raw Industrials, or a significant appreciation of the U.S. dollar would cause us to question our view. Credit: Corporate debt levels are elevated, but still-low inflation expectations will ensure that monetary conditions remain accommodative for the time being. Easy Fed policy will support interest coverage ratios and prevent banks from tightening lending standards. Stay overweight corporate bonds, focusing on the Baa and high-yield credit tiers. Fed: The Fed will cut rates by 25 basis points tomorrow and Chairman Powell will do his best to sound dovish and prevent a tightening of financial conditions. Core inflation has strengthened in recent months, but the Fed needs to see a rebound in inflation expectations before turning hawkish. Feature Move Back To Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration The sensitivity of bond yields to U.S./China trade policy was on full display last week. President Trump took significant steps to de-escalate tensions between the two nations, delaying the October 1st tariff hike and scheduling talks between principal negotiators for October. The result is that the bond market sold off dramatically. The 10-year Treasury yield rose from 1.55% at the start of the week to 1.90% as of last Friday. As we go to press, the yield has fallen back to 1.85% in response to the drone attacks in Saudi Arabia and resulting spike in oil prices. Chart 1Has The Tide Turned? Our Geopolitical Strategy service discussed the near-term outlook for U.S. / China trade negotiations in last week’s report.1 Our main takeaway is that the President has shifted into dealmaker mode, hoping to secure some “wins” in advance of next year’s election. Talk of a looming recession in the mainstream media is doubtless also encouraging the President to adopt a more conciliatory strategy. Our political strategists view a comprehensive U.S. / China trade agreement as unlikely. But if the U.S. and China can reach a détente where tariffs are no longer rising every few months and the immediate threat to economic growth dissipates, then U.S. bond yields have a lot of upside. Chart 1 shows that the 10-year Treasury yield fell much more sharply in recent months than would have been expected given the U.S. economic data. The chart also shows that economic data are now beating expectations for the first time since February. Positive data surprises usually coincide with rising Treasury yields, and the chart suggests that yields still have a lot of catching-up to do. The de-escalation of trade tensions and shift in data surprises is enough for us to remove our tactical “at benchmark” duration stance, which had been in place since August 6. Investors should keep portfolio duration low on both tactical (0-3 month) and cyclical (6-12 month) time horizons. Risks To The Duration View There are three main risks to our below-benchmark duration positioning. The first is that the global manufacturing data – Manufacturing PMIs and the CRB Raw Industrials index – have not yet rebounded (Chart 2). We have written extensively about why we expect a bounce-back before the end of the year, and an ebbing of U.S. / China trade tensions will only speed that process along, as firms gain more confidence in the outlook and initiate long-delayed investments.2 However, until we actually see the data improve we cannot be certain. It’s notable, and concerning, that the ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials index and Gold did not increase alongside Treasury yields during the past week (Chart 2, bottom panel). If the dollar continues to appreciate as Treasury yields move up, it will limit how high yields rise.  The second risk to our view comes from the dollar. If it continues to appreciate as Treasury yields move up, it will limit how high yields rise. Treasury yields can increase alongside a stronger dollar when global leading indicators are improving, as was the case in the second half of 2016 (Chart 3). But a strong dollar will eventually undermine global growth and cap the upside in yields. Chart 2Risk 1: Global Manufacturing Still Weak Chart 3Risk 2: Stronger Dollar The third risk is that the recent attack on Saudi oil installations prompts a military response from the U.S. government that escalates into all-out war. The lesson from the oil crash of 2014 is that any negative effects on the U.S. consumer from a spike in the oil price will be offset by greater investment from U.S. energy firms. However, if the situation dissolves into a significant military conflict, then U.S. bonds would benefit from flight to quality flows. Our Geopolitical and Commodity teams discussed the still-unfolding situation in a Special Alert yesterday.3   Bottom Line: The ebbing of U.S. / China trade tensions and swing toward positive data surprises are enough for us to re-initiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation, on both tactical (0-3 month) and cyclical (6-12 month) time horizons. While not our base case, a continued deterioration in the Manufacturing PMI or CRB Raw Industrials, or a significant appreciation of the U.S. dollar would cause us to question our view.   Corporate Bonds: Weak Balance Sheets Vs. Easy Money The slope of the yield curve is an important and useful indicator for corporate bond investors. In fact, our research has demonstrated that corporate bond excess returns versus Treasuries tend to be highest early in the recovery when the yield curve is steep. On the flipside, we’ve also shown that an inverted yield curve is often a good signal to scale back exposure.4 Corporate balance sheets are highly levered today, as they were in the mid-1990s. For this purpose, our preferred measure of the yield curve has been the 3-year/10-year slope, calculated on a monthly basis using average daily closing values. Chart 4 shows this slope with vertical lines denoting the first inversion of each cycle. Notice that we have not yet received an inversion signal from this measure in the current cycle, but it is getting close. Chart 4Yield Curve & Corporate Spreads Even if we get an inversion signal in the next few months, Chart 4 reveals an interesting contrast between the mid-2000s cycle and the mid-1990s cycle. In the mid-1990s, 3/10 curve inversion was an excellent signal to reduce corporate credit exposure. Spreads widened almost immediately, and didn’t peak until four years later. Conversely, spreads continued to tighten for another year after the yield curve inverted in 2006. So how should we view the current cycle in relation to these prior two episodes? Should we expect further outperformance after the yield curve inverts, as in the mid-2000s? Or should we prepare to reduce corporate bond exposure as soon as the yield curve sends a signal, as in the 1990s? Balance Sheets Are In Poor Health … Chart 5Firms Carrying A lot Of Debt The first thing to consider is how corporate balance sheets stack up compared to each of these prior two episodes. Chart 5 makes it apparent that balance sheets are highly levered today, as they were in the mid-1990s. Net debt-to-EBITDA for the median high-yield firm in our dynamic bottom-up sample is above 4.0x, even higher than in the late 1990s. Similarly, the median firm’s debt-to-assets ratio is reminiscent of the 1990s. Chart 5 clearly shows that balance sheets were in poor health in the 1990s, and are in a similar state today. This is in sharp contrast to the mid-2000s, when balance sheets were pristine. The sole exception is interest coverage, which remains robust (Chart 5, bottom panel). This is the result of still-accommodative monetary policy (more on this below). … But The Monetary Environment Is Supportive While today’s corporate balance sheets have more in common with the mid-1990s than the mid-2000s, today’s monetary environment looks more like the mid-2000s, and is probably even more supportive. Chart 6Supportive Monetary Environment: Reminiscent Of The Mid-2000s Chart 6 shows that when the yield curve inverted in the 1990s, banks’ commercial & industrial (C&I) lending standards were on the cusp of tightening, as were the terms that banks offered on C&I loans. In contrast, C&I lending standards and loan terms continued to ease for some time after the curve inverted in the mid-2000s. Today, C&I lending standards and C&I loan terms are both in “net easing” territory. But most crucially, inflation expectations are extremely depressed (Chart 6, bottom panel). Low inflation expectations mean that the Fed must ensure that monetary policy stays accommodative until inflation expectations are re-anchored at levels closer to its target. Accommodative Fed policy will keep firms’ interest costs down, and give lenders the confidence to extend credit, even if firms are already loaded with debt. Bringing it all together, we find that both credit quality metrics and monetary indicators help explain the corporate default rate (Chart 7). Our top-down measure of gross leverage (total debt over pre-tax profits) lines up well with the default rate over time, but has diverged during the past few years (Chart 7, top panel). Meanwhile, C&I lending standards also correlate tightly with the default rate, and this relationship continues to track (Chart 7, panel 3). Chart 7Drivers Of The Corporate Default Rate Overall, we find the divergence between gross leverage and the default rate concerning, and reminiscent of 2007/08 when it predicted a surge in the default rate. However, unlike in 2007/08, lending standards are moving deeper into “net easing” territory and interest coverage remains steady. Considering all the evidence, we are inclined to remain bullish on corporate credit spreads for the time being. Yes, corporate debt levels are a worry, as they were in the 1990s. But, with inflation expectations still very low, the Fed has a strong incentive to keep policy easy. Historically, banks do not tighten lending standards unless the monetary environment is restrictive. Our sense is that, in this cycle, banks will turn a blind eye to corporate debt levels until inflation expectations rise and the Fed moves interest rates into restrictive territory. Credit Investment Strategy Chart 8Focus On The Baa And High-Yield Credit Tiers Our relatively bullish assessment of the credit cycle means that we will continue to abide by the spread targets we introduced in February.5 To obtain those targets we calculated the median 12-month breakeven spread for each credit tier during periods when the yield curve was very flat (less than 50 bps), but not yet inverted.6  We then converted those breakeven spreads into option-adjusted spread targets using current index duration and the current index credit rating distribution. Chart 8 shows that investment grade spreads are slightly above target, but this is only due to the cheapness of Baa-rated debt. Aaa, Aa and A-rated credits all trade at spreads below our targets, and we recommend focusing investment grade exposure on the Baa space. Chart 8 also shows that high-yield spreads are much more attractive relative to target. This is partly because the negatively convex nature of high-yield debt means that index duration fell sharply as bonds rallied this year (Chart 8, bottom panel). All else equal, lower index duration means that more spread widening is required before investors see losses. Thus, spreads appear more attractive. Bottom Line: Corporate debt levels are elevated, but still-low inflation expectations will ensure that monetary conditions remain accommodative for the time being. Easy Fed policy will support interest coverage ratios and prevent banks from tightening lending standards. Stay overweight corporate bonds, focusing on the Baa and high-yield credit tiers. FOMC Preview: Fed Will Do Its Best To Stay Dovish The results of this week’s FOMC meeting will be made public tomorrow afternoon. A 25 basis point rate cut is widely anticipated, and we expect that is what will be delivered. A 25 basis point rate cut is widely anticipated, and we expect that is what will be delivered. Judging from recent remarks, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is well aware that easy financial conditions will encourage a recovery in economic growth.7 He also understands that in order for financial conditions to stay easy, the market must continue to believe that monetary policy is supportive. We therefore think that Chairman Powell will do everything he can to prevent a hawkish surprise following tomorrow’s FOMC statement and press conference. However, the Chairman cannot control the placement of each FOMC participant’s interest rate forecast (or “dot”), and there is a risk that the end-of-2019 forecasts don’t fall enough to appease markets. Chart 9 shows the fed funds rate along with a projection based on current pricing in the fed funds futures market. It shows that the market expects a 25 bps rate cut tomorrow, followed by one more 25 bps cut before the end of the year. We don’t expect the majority of FOMC participants to forecast such a dovish outcome, but as long as a significant number of participants forecast one more cut before the end of the year, a hawkish surprise should be avoided. Chart 9Can The Fed Avoid Sounding Hawkish? Case in point, the Fed avoided a hawkish surprise following the June meeting. Heading into that meeting the market was priced for an end-of-2019 funds rate of 1.75% (denoted by the ‘X’ in Chart 9). The June FOMC dots show that 7 FOMC participants expected a similar outcome (also shown in Chart 9). If around 7 participants place their 2019 dot in the 1.50%-1.75% range following tomorrow’s meeting, it should be enough to prevent a hawkish surprise. Will Strong Inflation Sway The Fed? There has been some speculation that the recent spate of strong inflation data might prevent the Fed from delivering a sufficiently dovish message. We think this is unlikely. It’s true that core inflation has rebounded sharply, but inflation expectations remain downtrodden (Chart 10). At this juncture, the Fed is principally concerned with re-anchoring inflation expectations near target levels. It may require an overshoot of the actual inflation target to achieve this goal. Investors should focus more on inflation expectations to assess Fed policy going forward. Chart 10Still Well Anchored? Chart 11Unsustainable Uptrend in Goods   Further, if we dig into the details of the recent inflation prints, we find some reason to believe that the recent uptrend is not sustainable. Chart 11 shows that a substantial portion of inflation’s rise has been driven by the core goods component, which tracks non-oil import prices with a lag of about 1½ years (Chart 11, panel 2). For their part, import prices have already rolled over and will continue to decelerate unless we see a significant depreciation of the dollar (Chart 12). Chart 12Import Prices & The Dollar Bottom Line: The Fed will cut rates by 25 basis points tomorrow and Chairman Powell will do his best to sound dovish and prevent a tightening of financial conditions. Core inflation has strengthened in recent months, but the Fed needs to see a rebound in inflation expectations before turning hawkish.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Trump’s Tactical Retreat”, dated September 13, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Where’s The Positive Carry In Bond Markets?”, dated August 20, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy / Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “Attacks On Critical Infrastructure In KSA Raise Questions About U.S. Response”, dated September 16, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required before a corporate bond sees losses versus a duration-matched Treasury bond on a 12-month horizon. It can be calculated roughly as the option-adjusted spread per unit of duration. 7  https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/06/watch-fed-chairman-jerome-powells-qa-in-zurich-live.html Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of August 31, 2019.   Currently, the model still favors Spain, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Australia at the expense of the U.S., Japan, the U.K., France and Canada, as shown in Table 1.  Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1,  Chart 2 and  Chart 3, the overall model underperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 6 bps in August, driven by 1 bp of outperformance from Level 2 model, and 6 bps of underperformance from Level 1. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 82 bps, with 290 bps of outperformance by Level 2 model, offset by 51 bps of underperformance from Level 1. Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1)   Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2)   Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations.   GAA Equity Sector Selection Model Chart 4Overall Model Performance The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of August 31, 2019. The model’s relative tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. The model continues to favor a mixed bag of sectors, given the current increased level of uncertainty, and continued lack of evidence that global growth is bottoming. Despite the current liquidity phase tilting the model to favor high-beta sectors, weak growth and momentum inputs offset that. The valuation component continues to remain muted across all sectors. The model is now overweight five sectors in total, two cyclical versus three defensive sectors. The overweight sectors are Consumer Discretionary, Information Technology, Consumer Staples, Healthcare and Utilities. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model,” dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Table 3Model’s Performance (March 1, 2019 - Current) Table 4Current Model Allocations   Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com              

Highlights Four ghosts of 2016 are knocking at the door: Brexit, Trump, Brazil, Italy. President Trump and U.S. trade policy are keeping uncertainty high. Upgrade the odds of a no-deal Brexit to about 33%. Expect limited stimulus from Italy and Germany – for now. Brazil’s pension reform is entering its final stretch – buy the rumor, sell the news. Feature Four major political events of 2016 are returning to affect the global investment landscape this fall – though only two of these ghosts are truly frightening. In order of market relevance: Trump: The election of Donald J. Trump as U.S. president, November 8, 2016 Brexit: The U.K. referendum to leave the European Union, June 23, 2016 Italy: The Italian constitutional referendum, December 4, 2016 Brazil: The removal of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, August 31, 2016 Italy and Brazil are producing market-positive political results in the short run. Brexit and Trump pose substantial and immediate risks to the global bull market. A pivot by Trump is the headline risk to our view that no trade agreement will be concluded by November 2020, as we outlined in a Special Report last week. At the moment tensions are still escalating. President Trump has ordered an increase in tariffs (Chart 1) and threatened to invoke the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977, which would give him the ability to halt transactions, freeze funds, and appropriate assets. China is retaliating proportionately and virtually incapable of softening its tone prior to its National Day celebration on October 1. The next round of negotiations, slated for Washington in September, could be a flop like the talks in July, or it could be canceled. Investors should stay defensive. The equity market will have to fall to force Trump to stage a tactical retreat. Meanwhile China could intervene violently in Hong Kong SAR. That possibility, the nationalist military parade on October 1, and U.S. actions toward the South China Sea and Taiwan, show that sabers are rattling, causing additional market jitters. Chart 1Trump's Latest Tariff Salvo U.S.-China tensions underpin our tactical safe-haven trade recommendations. But we are not shifting to a cyclically bearish stance until we get clarity on Trump’s and Xi’s handling of their immediate predicament. Brexit is the other acute short-term risk. This was true even before Prime Minister Boris Johnson opted to prorogue parliament from September 10 to October 14, shortening the time that parliament has to either pass a law forbidding a no-deal exit or bring down Johnson’s government in a vote of no confidence. We are upgrading the odds of “no deal” to no higher than 33%, using a conservative decision-making process (Diagram 1). No-deal is not our base case because parliament, the public, and even Johnson himself want to avoid a recession, which is the likely outcome, even granting that the Bank of England will not stand idly by. We are upgrading the odds of “no deal” Brexit to about 33%. Diagram 1Brexit Decision Tree (Revised August 29, 2019) From a bird’s eye point of view, the pound is very attractive (Chart 2). But in the near-term the twists and turns of Britain’s political struggle imply that we will see wild volatility. Our foreign exchange strategists expect that a no-deal Brexit would cause GBP/USD to collapse to 1 after October 31. Assuming our one-in-three odds of such an outcome, the probability-weighted average of cable is about 1.2. Hence investors should not short sterling from here, unless they strongly believe we are underrating the odds of no-deal exit. In the worst-case scenario, a no-deal Brexit will cause an economic shock at a time when Europe is on the brink of recession – Italy and Germany are virtually there. This means there is a substantial risk of additional deflationary pressure piling onto German bunds and sustaining the global bond rally. This pressure will be sharply reduced if Johnson loses an early no confidence vote, but that is a 50/50 call so we would not call time on this rally yet. Stay cautious. Chart 2Pound Can Only Go So Low   Italy: Stimulus … Without A Bruising Brussels Battle Italy has avoided a new election by producing an unusual tie-up between the establishment Democratic Party and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S). The coalition still needs to clear some internal hurdles and an online vote by Five Star members, but an agreement is to be presented to President Sergio Mattarella as we go to press. This is the most market-friendly outcome that could have been expected, as is clear through the sharp drop in Italian government bond yields (Chart 3). Our GeoRisk indicator for Italy is also collapsing. Chart 3Markets Cheer New Italian Coalition This development marks the climax of a story line that we outlined in 2016, when Prime Minister Matteo Renzi lost a constitutional referendum that aimed to strengthen Italian governments to enable deeper structural reforms (he subsequently resigned). At that time we argued that Italy would emerge as a market-relevant political risk due to rampant anti-establishment sentiment, but that this risk would subside when Italy’s populists were shown to be pragmatic at heart, i.e. unwilling to push their conflicts with Brussels to a point that truly reignited European break-up risk. This view is now vindicated – and not only for the short-term. The new coalition comes at the nick of time, with Europe teetering on recession and the risk of a no-deal Brexit rising. The new government will have to deliver the 2020 budget to the European Commission by October 15. The budget will aim to provide fiscal support, including a delay of the legislatively mandated hike in the Value Added Tax from 22% to 24.2%, already rolled over from 2019. The Five Star Movement will demand as a price for its participation in the coalition that social spending go up; the Democratic Party will have learned a lesson while out of power and will be more fiscally permissive and strike a tougher tone with Brussels. The Italian budget talks will be a non-issue: the coalition will cooperate with Brussels. The episode demonstrates that the Italian risk to financial markets is overrated. This point goes beyond the fact that the Democrats and Five Star were able to cooperate. Italy’s leading populist parties have already shown that they are pragmatic and will play the game with Brussels to avoid a financial breakdown. In May 2018, the newly formed populist coalition proposed a gigantic “wish list” budget that would have increased the budget deficit to roughly 7.3% of GDP in 2019. They also appointed a euroskeptic economy minister who almost prevented government formation. The ensuing conflict with Brussels triggered considerable turmoil (Chart 4). Ultimately, however, the populists did precisely what we expected: they bowed to the severe financial constraint on Italy’s banking system. They agreed to a 2019 and 2020 deficit of 2.04% and 2.1%, respectively (Chart 5). Chart 4Italian Populists Prove Pragmatic Chart 5Even Salvini Compromised On Budget Clash At present, the market is relieved that an election was avoided that might have seen Salvini and the League form a government with a much smaller right-wing party (Fratelli D’Italia) (Chart 6) – but the truth is that Salvini had already capitulated to the EU, both on budget matters and the euro currency. He was hardly likely to push for a budget more aggressive than that of the initial proposal in 2018. The clash with Brussels would have been a flash in the pan; the result would have been greater fiscal thrust, which would have been market-positive in the current environment. Chart 6Election Would Have Meant More Stimulus ... And More Political Risk M5S will also push for more spending and has also moderated their stance on the euro. A coalition with the Democrats will not work if the purpose is to push a euroskeptic agenda. There will be a focus on counter-cyclical fiscal policy, pragmatic reforms that the two can agree on, and fighting corruption. The budget talks will be a non-issue: the Democratic Party is an establishment party and the coalition will cooperate with Brussels. Furthermore, the context has changed since 2018 in a way that will reduce budget frictions. There is a need for countercyclical fiscal policy in light of the global slowdown, so the European Commission will have to be more flexible on the budget. This is particularly true if Germany itself loosens its belt on a cyclical basis. The risk to the above is that the coalition shaping up between the Democrats and Five Star is an alliance of convenience that will break down over time. Five Star will remain hard-line on immigration, which is driving anti-establishment sentiment. Italian elections are a frequent affair. Salvini and the League will be waiting in the wings, especially if Brussels proves too tight-fisted or if the Democrats do not toughen their stance on immigration. But as outlined above, Salvini’s own evolution on the euro, on northern Italy, and on the budget and financial stability shows that the economy will have to get a lot worse before Italian euroskepticism presents a renewed systemic risk. Bottom Line: The tentative coalition taking shape in Italy will produce a modest increase in fiscal thrust with minimal frictions with Brussels. As such it is the most market-friendly outcome that could have occurred from Salvini’s push to seize power. Beneath this episode of government change is the political arrangement taking shape in Italy, and across Europe, which calls for a commitment to the European project and currency. The price of this commitment is a tougher line on immigration from European leaders. Germany: Fiscal Loosening, But Not For The States (Yet) Our GeoRisk indicator for Germany is pointing to an increase in risk in recent weeks. Germany is threatened by a potential technical recession and while fiscal stimulus is in preparation, there will not be a fiscal game-changer until Merkel steps down in 2021 – barring a total collapse in the economy that forces her hand in the meantime. The outlook is not improving (Chart 7, top panel). The economy shrank by 0.1% in Q2 2019, exports are falling, and passenger car production is at the lowest level ever recorded (Chart 7, bottom panels). Chart 7German Economy Gets Pummeled Chart 8Germany: Expect Orthodox Stimulus For Now Finance Minister Olaf Scholz has announced that Germany could increase government spending by $55 billion within the context of European and German budget constraints. Split proportionally between 2019 and 2020, this additional spending would not put Germany in violation of the “black zero” rule – a commitment to a balanced budget that limits the federal structural deficit to 0.35% of GDP – even without any additional revenue (Chart 8).   There will not be a fiscal game-changer in Germany until Merkel steps down – barring a crisis. The German Chancellery reports that it does not see the need for stimulus in the short term – as long as trade tensions do not escalate and there is no hard Brexit. At present, however, trade tensions are escalating and the odds of a no-deal Brexit are increasing. Moreover China’s economy and stimulus efforts continue to disappoint. In this context Germany’s ruling coalition is putting together a climate change package that would entail additional spending (while stealing some thunder from the increasingly popular Green Party). Given the European Commission’s forecast of Germany’s 2020 budget surplus, 0.8% of GDP, the government could ultimately go further than Scholz’s ~$50bn. This is because the black zero rule provides for exceptions in case of recession (or natural disasters or other crises out of governmental control) with a majority vote in the Bundestag. Hence we are not so much concerned about the magnitude of the stimulus as its timing. First, Merkel and her coalition typically move slower than the market would like in the face of financial and economic challenges. Second, according to the black zero rule, which is transcribed in the German constitution (the Basic Law), the Länder cannot run budget deficits from 2020. Amending the constitution to delay this deadline requires a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag and the Bundesrat – a much taller order than the simple majority needed to boost federal deficits. The governing coalition currently holds 56% of the seats in the Bundestag. If the Greens were brought on board, which they would be inclined to do, this number falls just short of two-thirds at 65.6%. In order to obtain a two-thirds majority in the Bundesrat, the Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, and the Greens would need the support of another party, either the Left or the Free Democrats. This could be done but it would require political will, which is only likely to be sufficient if the German and global economy get worse from here. Meanwhile financial markets will have to settle for the gradual implementation of a stimulus package on the order of 1% of GDP – the one the government is planning. Bottom Line: While Germany will likely roll out a stimulus package by Q4, if third quarter GDP data confirm that the country is in a technical recession, Merkel’s hesitation and budget limits mean that this stimulus will likely be moderate. A marginal upside surprise is possible but it will not represent a true “game changer” on fiscal policy in Germany. The game changer is more likely after Merkel steps down in 2021. The Green Party is surging in Germany and could possibly lead the next government. Even if it doesn’t, its success and Europe-wide developments are pushing German leaders to become more accommodative. Brazil: Reform Or Bust Political turmoil in Brazil over the past five years has ultimately resulted in a right-wing populist government under President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is pursuing a pension reform that is universally acknowledged as necessary to straighten out Brazil’s fiscal books, but that the previous government tried and failed to pass. On this front the news is market-positive: having cleared the lower Chamber of Deputies, the pension reforms are now likely to pass the senate. This will lift investor confidence and give Bolsonaro an initial success that he may then be able to translate into additional economic reforms. The Brazilian economy and financial markets are moving in opposite directions. The currency and equities staged a mid-year rally despite negative data releases – shrinking retail sales and industrial production amid high unemployment (Chart 9). More recently these assets relapsed despite tentative signs of improvement on the economic front (Chart 10). All the while, chaos and controversies surrounding Bolsonaro’s government have weighed on his approval rating, ending the honeymoon period after election (Chart 11). Chart 9Brazil: Signs Of Improvement   Chart 10Brazil: Markets Sold Despite Pension Progress Chart 11Bolsonaro’s Honeymoon Is Long Gone The mid-year equity re-rating was driven by an improvement in sentiment on the back of the government’s pension reform. The relapse occurred despite the passage of the pension reform bill in the lower house, indicating that global economic pessimism has dominated. The bill’s next step goes to the senate where it faces two rounds of voting before enactment (Diagram 2). It should clear this hurdle by a large margin, though we expect delays. Diagram 2Brazil: Pension Reform Timeline In the second round vote in the lower house on August 6 – which had a smaller margin of victory than the first round – deputies voted largely in line with party alliances (Charts 12A & 12B). Assuming legislators in the senate behave in the same way, the reform should gain the support of 64 of the 81 senators – easily surpassing the 49 votes needed. Even in a more pessimistic scenario where all opposition parties and all independent parties vote against the bill – along with two defecting senators from government-allied parties – the reform would pass by 56-25. Chart 12APension Bill Sailed Through Lower House ... Chart 12B... And Should Pass Senate In Time This favorable outlook is also supported by popular opinion, which indicates that the majority of those polled agree that pension reforms are necessary (Chart 13). This leaves two questions: How soon will the bill clear the senate? According to senate party leaders’ proposed timetable, the bill will undergo its first upper house vote on September 18 with the second round slated for October 2. This is ambitious. The strategy of Senator Tasso Jereissati – who has been appointed senate pension reform rapporteur – is to approve the text in its current form and create a parallel proposed amendment to the constitution (PEC) which will bring together the amendments that senators make to the original text. Dozens of amendments have been filed with the Commission on Constitution and Justice. These will prolong the enactment of the final bill and dilute its impact. We doubt the senate will let Jereissati have his way entirely and hence expect delays and dilution. Chart 13Brazil: Public Now Favors Pension Reform Chart 14Brazil: Pension Reform Not Enough How much savings will the bill generate? Will the reforms be sufficient to improve public debt dynamics in Brazil? The Independent Fiscal Institute of the senate estimates that the reform will generate BRL 744 billion of savings. This is significantly less than the BRL 1.2 trillion initially proposed, and lower than the BRL 860 billion that Economy Minister Paulo Guedes has indicated as the minimum fiscal savings required. Our Emerging Markets strategists argue that the bill falls short of what is needed. While the plan will reduce the fiscal deficit and slow debt accumulation, it will be insufficient to generate primary surpluses over the coming years (Chart 14).1 Moreover, estimated savings in the final bill will likely be further revised down as the bill undergoes more amendments in the senate. What comes after pension reform? The market has focused almost exclusively on this issue to the neglect of Bolsonaro’s wider economic reform agenda. The agenda includes privatization, trade liberalization, tax reforms, and deregulation. Here we are more skeptical. First, Bolsonaro will have spent a lot of political capital on pensions. Second, while the economy and unemployment are always important, they are not the foremost concern for Brazilians (Chart 15). Chart 15Bolsonaro Will Lose Political Capital After Pension Bill Third, the economic agenda is often at odds with Bolsonaro’s social, foreign, and environmental policies: The new Mercosur-European Union trade agreement and ongoing trade negotiations between Mercosur and Canada are positive developments. However the G7 summit in France highlighted that the deal with the EU is at risk due to dissatisfaction with Bolsonaro’s response to the Amazon fires. France and Ireland have threatened to withhold support of the ratification. With world leaders concerned about the political risks of trade liberalization, and with Trump having issued a license to foreign leaders for trade weaponization, an escalation of tensions between the Europeans and Bolsonaro could lead to punitive measures even beyond the delay to the Mercosur-EU deal. Brazil’s China problem: Bolsonaro has been cozying up to President Donald Trump while striking a more aggressive tone with China. This is a risky strategy as it may undermine Brazil’s economic interests. The country’s exports are much more leveraged to China than to the U.S. and have been benefitting on the back of the trade war as China substitutes away from the U.S. (Chart 16). The president’s planned trip to China in October reveals an attempt to mend ties after having accused China of dominating key Brazilian sectors during his election campaign. But it is not clear yet that Bolsonaro will stage a retreat. And if President Trump backtracks on his trade war in order to clinch a deal, Bolsonaro may have lost some goodwill with China without receiving the benefit of China’s substitution effects. Hence Bolsonaro will have to soften his approach to China to make progress on the trade aspect of the reform agenda. Chart 16Brazil: Time To Mend Ties With China Bottom Line: We expect the passage of a diluted pension reform bill that will slow the growth of public debt to some extent. However global headwinds are persisting. And any success on pensions should not be extrapolated to other items on the economic reform agenda. Bolsonaro’s trade liberalization faces difficulties on the surface. Other domestic reforms are even more difficult to achieve in the wake of painful pension cuts. Reforms that enjoy public support and do not require a complicated legislative process are the most likely to be implemented, but even then, legislation and implementation are likely to be long-in-coming in Brazil’s highly fractured congress. As a result we share the view with our Emerging Markets Strategy that the pension reform is a “buy the rumor, sell the news” phenomenon. Housekeeping We are booking gains on our long BCA global defense basket for a 17% gain since inception in October 2018. The underlying thesis for this trade remains strong and we will reinstitute it at an appropriate time, though likely on a relative basis to minimize headwinds to cyclical sectors. We are also finally throwing in the towel on our long rare earth / strategic metals equity trade. The logic behind the trade is intact but it was very poorly timed and the basket has depreciated 24% since inception.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report “On Chinese Banks And Brazil,” dated July 18, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. France: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator   Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator   Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Geopolitical Calendar

Informe especial

Dear Client, We will not be publishing a report next week as we take an end-of-summer break. Our next report will be published on Tuesday, September 10th. Best regards, Robert Robis  Highlights Canadian Corporates: The small but growing Canadian corporate bond market has delivered performance comparable to other developed market credit over the past decade, with less duration risk and higher average credit quality compared to the larger U.S. corporate debt market. Returns: Our new regression model for Canadian corporate bond excess returns is calling for modest positive gains for Canadian corporate debt over the next year.  Corporate Health: Canadian companies’ financial health remains a positive for corporate bond returns on a cyclical basis, but high leverage and mediocre profitability are longer-term concerns. Allocation: We recommend overweight allocations into Canadian investment grade corporates, versus both Canadian government bonds and U.S. investment grade corporates. Amid elevated global policy uncertainty, favor the moderate spread volatility and attractive valuation in Canadian corporates. Feature Canadian corporate bonds do not get much attention from global fixed income investors due to the relatively small size of the market. Yet Canadian corporates have delivered returns in line with their global peers over the past decade, delivering an average excess return over Canadian government bonds (hedged into U.S. dollars) of 2.8% (Chart  of the Week). Looking ahead, Canadian corporates may present an opportunity for diversification in what is becoming an increasingly challenging environment for corporate bond investors, offering relatively higher yields and better credit quality with an economy that has held up well relative to the current weakening trend in global growth. In this Special Report, we outline the contours of the Canadian corporate bond market, assess the macroeconomic factors driving Canadian corporate bond returns, and survey the current overall financial health of Canadian companies. We also take a high-level look at the state of Canadian corporate debt at the sector level, while offering our recommendations on which ones to favor over the next 6-12 months. A Brief Overview The bulk of outstanding Canadian corporate debt is rated investment grade (IG), but this represents only 5% of the global IG market (Chart 2), using the Bloomberg Barclays Global Corporates Index as a proxy.1 However, the total market capitalization of Canadian corporate bonds is 30% of Canadian GDP – a ratio as large as seen in other major developed countries like the U.S., U.K. and Switzerland (Chart 3).  Like those other markets, Canadian companies have taken advantage of historically low borrowing rates and increased demand for income-generating assets to add leverage to their balance sheets.   On the demand side, Canadian corporates have traditionally been more of an institutional investment product, although domestic retail investor interest has picked up in recent years (mostly through mutual funds and exchange traded funds). The buy-and-hold nature of those local institutional investors reduces liquidity, particularly in comparison to the more widely-traded debt of Canadian federal and provincial governments. Yet according to a September 2018 Bank of Canada (BoC) report, domestic investor concerns over a perceived deterioration of Canadian corporate bond market liquidity appeared overstated.2 The report concluded that corporate bond market liquidity had generally been improving since 2010, with only short-lived bouts of illiquidity around events such as the 2011 European Debt Crisis and the 2014/15 collapse in oil prices. That medium-term improvement in liquidity was especially concentrated in high-grade corporate debt and bonds issued by banks, although the BoC concluded that liquidity and trading activity in low-grade and non-bank bonds have generally been stable. Issuance is dominated by financials, utilities, and energy companies. Unsurprisingly, the defensive utilities sector, which has high borrowing requirements, has been the top-performing industry group in 2019 (total return of +14% year-to-date) against a backdrop of falling bond yields and increased investor nervousness about future global growth (Chart 4). Yet all Canadian corporate bonds have generally performed well, with the overall Bloomberg Barclays Canadian Corporate Index delivering a total return of +8.2% so far in 2019, compared to 11.4% for Canadian equities and 5.6% for Canadian government bonds. Canadian corporate credit spreads have been remarkably stable since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.  The overall index option-adjusted spread (OAS) has stayed in a range between 100-200bps, while both total and excess (duration-matched versus government debt) returns exhibiting fairly low volatility since 2008 (Chart 5). Canadian corporate credit spreads have been remarkably stable since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.  The overall index option-adjusted spread (OAS) has stayed in a range between 100-200bps, while both total and excess (duration-matched versus government debt) returns exhibiting fairly low volatility since 2008 The duration of the benchmark Canadian IG corporate index is now 6.4 years, well below the equivalent level for U.S IG (7.9 years) even though it has steadily increased over the past decade.  Over that same period, the average credit quality has deteriorated, with 40% of the Canadian corporate index now rated BBB (Chart 6). This is below the BBB share seen in the U.S. (50%) and euro area (52%), though, making Canadian IG relatively less exposed to potential downgrades to junk bond status. Chart 5Low Volatility Of Spreads & Returns Since 2008 Chart 6Lower Share Of BBBs Compared To The U.S. & Europe Bottom Line: The small but growing Canadian corporate bond market has delivered performance comparable to other developed market credit over the past decade, with less duration risk and higher average credit quality compared to the large U.S. corporate debt market. A Fundamental Model To Forecast Canadian Corporate Bond Returns In order to help forecast Canadian corporate bond performance, we have developed a factor-based regression model of Canadian IG excess returns (in local currency terms). We first determined the independent variables in the regression by compiling a list of potential drivers of bond returns which map to four factor groups: growth, inflation, financial variables, and other miscellaneous factors. After statistically testing those factors, the insignificant and unrelated ones were dropped. The final result of this analysis is shown in Table 1. Table 1Regression Details Of The Fundamental Canadian Corporate Bond Return Model We concluded that five variables explain the bulk of Canadian corporate bond returns:  the annual percentage change in oil prices (using the Canadian benchmark, Western Canadian Select), non-residential fixed investment growth, the M3 measure of money supply growth, the Canadian dollar trade-weighted index (CAD TWI), and the level of Canadian industrial capacity utilization. We concluded that five variables explain the bulk of Canadian corporate bond returns:  the annual percentage change in oil prices (using the Canadian benchmark, Western Canadian Select), non-residential fixed investment growth, the M3 measure of money supply growth, the Canadian dollar trade-weighted index (CAD TWI), and the level of Canadian industrial capacity utilization. Chart 7A Fundamental Model Of Canadian Corporate Bond Returns Looking at recent excess return history (Chart 7), it is not surprising that oil prices significantly affect returns given the importance of Canada’s energy sector to the overall Canadian economy.  Moreover, growth in non-residential fixed asset investment also positively influences excess returns as faster capital spending can potentially increase the profitability of Canadian firms. In contrast, the inflation factors - money supply and capacity utilization – are detrimental to returns. Increases in both of those factors can result in higher inflation and rising bond yields as the BoC is forced to tighten monetary policy, which often results in rising risk premiums and wider corporate credit spreads (falling excess returns). Finally, the CAD TWI is (weakly) positively correlated to corporate bond excess returns. A stronger currency is a reflection of a strong domestic economy, but it also helps lower imported input costs for Canadian companies – both of which boost corporate profits and corporate bond returns. We now turn to the outlook for these factors over the next 6-12 months, which remain generally supportive for moderate positive excess returns for Canadian corporates: Oil prices: BCA’s commodity strategists expect global oil prices to increase moderately over the next year as global inventory drawdowns outpace expectations (Iran sanctions, Venezuela production collapsing and OPEC 2.0 production discipline are likely sources of supply restraint). In addition, if global growth starts to rebound from the end of this year, as we expect, oil demand will also rise. Non-residential fixed investment: According to the BoC’s most recent Business Outlook Survey of Canadian companies, investment spending plans of firms remain healthy – although that survey was taken at the end of June before the latest increase in uncertainty over global trade and economic growth.3  Moreover, relatively easy credit conditions have made it easier for firms to finance capex. Therefore, our baseline scenario is still to expect moderate growth in non-residential fixed capital investment, although risks are to the downside given the global macro uncertainties. Money supply: The most recent reading of the annual growth of Canadian M3 from June was a solid +7.5%. The BoC is expected to maintain an accommodative monetary policy stance, keeping the current policy rate on hold until the end of 2020. Therefore, money supply growth is likely to remain firm – a negative for Canadian corporate bond returns in our model, although perhaps less so than in the past since rapid money growth will not generate the same type of monetary tightening response from the BoC. Capacity utilization: The Canadian capacity utilization rate is currently at 81%, a meaningful pullback from the 84% level seen in early 2018. According to the latest BoC Monetary Policy Report, the Canadian economy is operating below potential (the output gap in Q1 was estimated to be between -1.25% to -0.25% of potential GDP) and that gap is only expected to close over the next two years.  Thus, capacity utilization is not expected to have a major impact on corporate excess returns over the next 6-12 months. Canadian Dollar: The CAD TWI has shown no change over the past year, and will likely remain near current levels in the short term. Although we do not expect the BoC to cut interest rates as much as currently discounted by markets (-40bps over the next twelve months), Canadian monetary policy will still remain accommodative and will likely keep the CAD relatively soft until global manufacturing growth and trade activity stabilize and begin to revive. The CAD is likely to be a neutral factor for Canadian corporate returns over the next year. Bottom Line: Our new regression model for Canadian corporate bond excess returns is calling for modest positive gains for Canadian corporate debt over the next year.  Canadian Corporate Balance Sheet Health: OK For Now, But At Risk If The Economy Weakens Chart 8The BCA Canadian Corporate Health Monitors Regular readers of our work will be familiar with our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) framework. In this approach, we combine financial ratios that are most important for corporate creditworthiness of the entire non-financial corporate sector of a given country into a summary indicator that is designed to track corporate credit spreads. We introduced a Canadian CHM in April 2018, both using top-down national accounts data and aggregated bottom-up ratios from actual company financial statements.4  The latest reading from our top-down and bottom-up Canadian CHMs suggest that the overall health of Canadian corporates is decent, with the CHMs both below the zero line (Chart 8).5  Digging into the individual ratios, however, does reveal some potential signs of future weakness.  Leverage is relatively high, while profitability metrics and interest coverage ratios are at the low end of the historical range.  However, in our CHM framework, how the latest data compares to the medium-term trend – rather than the absolute level of the ratios - is most relevant for corporate bond performance. On that front, the latest data points for the CHM ratios do represent modest improvements versus the levels seen in 2014 and 2015, which is why our CHMs remain in the “improving health” zone. The more cyclically-driven ratios (profit margins, return on capital, interest coverage) declined amid the sharp plunge in Canadian economic growth at the end of 2018. However, given the recent reacceleration visible in some Canadian economic data, those cyclically-driven ratios may end up showing signs of stabilization, if not improvement, once the underlying CHM data for Q2/2019 and Q3/2019 are available. Looking ahead, Canadian corporate debt would be vulnerable to spread widening (rising risk premiums) in the event of a sustained slowing of the Canadian economy, given the poor absolute levels of the CHM component ratios. With the BoC maintaining an accommodative monetary policy stance, however, and the Canadian economy likely to continue growing at a trend-like pace supported by consumer spending, we think the backdrop will remain conducive to credit spread stability in Canada over the next 6-12 months. With the BoC maintaining an accommodative monetary policy stance, however, and the Canadian economy likely to continue growing at a trend-like pace supported by consumer spending, we think the backdrop will remain conducive to credit spread stability in Canada over the next 6-12 months. Bottom Line: The financial health of Canadian companies remains a positive for corporate bond returns on a cyclical basis, but there are longer-term concerns given high leverage and mediocre profitability. Canadian Corporate Bond Sector Valuation For IG corporate sectors in the U.S., euro area and the U.K., we utilize a relative value framework to rank credit spreads within the benchmark corporate universe.  We can apply that same approach to assess valuations of Canadian corporate bond sectors. In our sector relative value model, the “fair value” option-adjusted spread (OAS) for each sector within the Bloomberg Barclays Canadian IG Corporate index is estimated based on a panel regression. The explanatory variables in the regression are the modified duration, convexity and credit rating of each industry sub-sector within the index. The regression produces a set of common coefficients for all sectors that can be used to estimate a fair value OAS for each industry group as a function of its own interest rate duration, convexity and credit quality – all important drivers of corporate bond returns. The Risk-Adjusted Valuation is the difference between each sector’s current OAS and the model estimate of the sector’s fair value OAS.  A positive Risk-Adjusted Valuation implies undervaluation for the sector in question, and a negative reading implies overvaluation. Table 2 shows the recommended positioning of the Canadian IG industry sectors based on our relative value model. Sectors with positive Risk-Adjusted Valuations have overweight allocations versus the benchmark, with the opposite holds true for sectors with negative valuations. Sectors with spreads that are very close to fair value (within a range of +5bps to -5bps) have only a neutral recommended weighting versus the benchmark. Table 2Canada Investment Grade Corporate Bond Aggregate: Sector Relative Valuation* Chart 9 depicts the risk/reward tradeoff between the valuation metric and the riskiness of each sector as measured by its duration-times-spread (DTS).  Valuation is measured along the vertical axis of the chart, while DTS is measured along the horizontal axis. Sectors with higher DTS exhibit greater excess return volatility and are thus riskier. In the current environment of heightened uncertainty and slowing global growth, but with the BoC and other global central banks responding with a more dovish monetary policy stance, targeting cheap sectors that are less risky (i.e. DTS scores close to or below the average DTS of all sectors) is a prudent strategy.  Those would be sectors that appear in the upper left quadrant of Chart 9, like Metals & Mining, Finance Companies and Office REITs. Chart 10Positive Support For Canadian Consumer Cyclicals We also see a case for overweighting the cheap Consumer Cyclical Services sector, even with a DTS that is modestly higher than the overall index, given the continued strength in the Canadian labor market which supports consumer confidence through rising earning power (Chart 10). Recommended underweights are in the bottom right quadrant of Chart 9, with expensive valuations and high DTS scores, like Utilities: Natural Gas, Utilities: Electric, Supermarkets and Food & Beverage. Bottom Line: Favor Canadian corporate bond sectors with cheap valuations and spread volatility close to that of the overall benchmark index. Investment Conclusions Chart 11Canadian Corporates Outperformance Vs U.S. Will Continue Canadian IG corporates now offer a potential opportunity to diversify corporate bond exposure away from the larger markets in the U.S. and Europe.  The Canadian economy remains resilient despite slowing global growth, while the fundamental drivers of Canadian corporate bond returns are stabilizing or even improving. At the same time, the economic weakness abroad and heightened trade/political uncertainty will ensure that the BoC maintains an accommodative monetary stance over the next 6-12 months. That is not to say that Canadian corporates are not without risk. Canada is not a low-beta market - spreads do widen during “risk-off” periods in global financial markets. Also, underlying Canadian corporate credit fundamentals look poor on a long-term basis; Canadian private sector debt levels are high (especially for households); and the export-intensive Canadian economy is vulnerable to any incremental deceleration of global growth in particular, and the US more specifically.  Yet as a relative value trade versus the much larger corporate bond market to the south, Canadian corporates are well positioned to continue their recent bout of outperformance versus U.S. equivalents over the next 6-12 months, for the following reasons (Chart 11): While markets are priced for rate cuts from both the Fed and the BoC, the starting point for monetary conditions is easier in Canada than in the U.S. given the much weaker level of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar. There is a wide gap between the corporate credit fundamentals in Canada and the U.S. according to our top-down Corporate Health Monitors for both countries, such that Canadian balance sheets are more robust. There is a wide gap between the corporate credit fundamentals in Canada and the U.S. according to our top-down Corporate Health Monitors for both countries, such that Canadian balance sheets are more robust. Bottom Line: We recommend that domestic Canadian investors continue to stay overweight Canadian corporates versus Canadian government bonds, while keeping an overall level of spread risk close to benchmark. Global credit investors that have access to the Canadian corporate bond market should consider allocations out of U.S. investment grade corporates into Canadian equivalents. Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA,  Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com  Footnotes 1 Throughout this report, we solely use data on Canadian corporate debt from the Bloomberg Barclays bond indices, which is the main index data we use in all our global bond research. Comprehensive data is also available from other providers such as FTSE Russell and S&P Global. 2 Bank of Canada September 2018 Staff Analytical Note 2018-31, “Have Liquidity and Trading Activity in the Canadian Corporate Bond Market Deteriorated?” 3 https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2019/06/business-outlook-survey-summer-2019/ 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “BCA Corporate Health Monitor Chartbook Update: Growth Is Papering Over The Cracks”, dated April 24, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 5 A CHM below zero implies improving financial health, while a CHM above zero indicates deteriorating financial health. Thus, the direction of the CHM is designed to be positively correlated with corporate credit spreads.

Highlights A lot has changed in a week and a half, … : The FOMC meeting that we thought would mark the end of global market-moving news until September turned out to be a prelude for the real fireworks. … as U.S.-China trade tensions escalated, … : The imposition of tariffs on the only remaining subset of Chinese imports that had escaped duties so far inspired China to let the yuan fall below a key technical level. … and other countries braced for the fallout: China’s devaluation opened up a new front in the conflict, turning a bilateral tariff spat into a threat to other countries’ well-being and competitiveness. Asia-Pacific central banks swiftly followed with larger-than-expected rate cuts. Below-benchmark-duration positioning is no longer appropriate in the near term, and we recommend moving to benchmark duration: Interest rates will be hard-pressed to rise with global central banks squarely in easing mode. Although we still believe that inflation and the fed funds rate will surprise to the upside, it’s going to take a while. Feature Dear Client, There will be no U.S. Investment Strategy next week as we take our final summer break. U.S. Investment Strategy will return on Monday, August 26th. Best regards, Doug Peta So much for the idea that the July 30-31 FOMC meeting would be the last market-moving event before Labor Day. By lunchtime on August 1st, the S&P 500 was back to its July 30th close above 3,010; the 10-year Treasury yield had settled around 1.96%, ten basis points (“bps”) lower than its pre-meeting level; and gold had fallen by ten bucks, to $1,420, as markets digested the news that the Fed was less concerned about the economy than they were. Then the trade war reared its ugly head in the form of new tariffs on Chinese imports to the U.S., and the S&P slid to 2,822, the 10-year Treasury yield tumbled to 1.59%, and gold surged to $1,510. The new round would ensnare the subset of goods that had previously been spared from import duties, and Beijing promised to retaliate. It’s hard for rates to rise when every central bank has an easing bias as it nervously eyes the U.S.-China tilt.   Chart 1Beijing Plays The Currency Card The retaliation arrived Sunday night in the U.S., when Chinese officials allowed the renminbi to trade above 7 to the dollar for the first time since 2008 (Chart 1). The move provoked a global equity selloff, and the S&P 500 lost 3% in its worst session of the year. With the currency floodgates opened, the trade war morphed from a bilateral tariff spat into a global battle for competitiveness, and central banks in India, Thailand and New Zealand responded with larger-than-expected rate cuts. India is a comparatively closed economy battling a domestic downturn, but it is clear that countries with any reliance on exports are loath to be saddled with a strong currency that will hamstring their global competitiveness. It turns out that the Fed isn’t the only central bank that sees the appeal of taking out some insurance. That is an unfriendly backdrop for below-benchmark-duration positioning, and we are joining our fixed-income colleagues in raising our duration recommendation from underweight to neutral over the tactical timeframe (0-3 months). While we still believe that the fed funds rate and long yields will surprise to the upside, they cannot do so while bond investors are adamant that the Fed is going to have to adopt an easing bias over the near term. Our rates checklist, discussed in the rest of this report, supports the decision. The shift in the rates backdrop undermines our newly established agency mortgage REIT recommendation, and we are watching it closely. The Rates Checklist: The Fed Table 1Rates View Checklist Turning to our rates view checklist (Table 1), the first item is derived from our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s golden rule of bond investing.1 The golden rule asks one simple question to anchor views on Treasuries: Over the next 12 months, will the Fed move the fed funds rate by more or less than the bond market is currently discounting? Since 1990, when the Fed has surprised dovishly (the fed funds rate has turned out to be lower than the money market implied twelve months earlier), Treasuries have almost always generated positive excess returns over cash. Periods of negative excess returns have occurred nearly exclusively when the Fed has delivered a hawkish surprise. We still think inflation will become a problem, but it certainly isn’t one yet. Since we rolled out the checklist last year, we have consistently expected a hawkish surprise. Though we continue to believe that an extended cycle of rate cuts is not in the cards, markets disagree, and we concede that the Fed now has a near-term easing bias, despite Chair Powell’s demurrals at the post-meeting press conference. We are leaving the box unchecked because we believe that nearly four more 25-bps cuts over the next twelve months, equating to a target fed funds rate of 1.25-1.50% (Chart 2), are unlikely. The spread between our expectations and the market’s expectations is still wide enough to merit a below-benchmark-duration view over the next twelve months, even if benchmark duration makes more sense for the rest of the year. Chart 2Four More Rate Cuts Are A Stretch The yield curve’s inversion has become more pronounced in the wake of the re-escalation of the trade war (Chart 3), and we duly check the second box. As a reminder, we track the 3-month/10-year segment of the yield curve to define inversion because it is less susceptible to estimate error, and has been a timelier indicator of recessions, than the more frequently cited 2-year/10-year segment. We have argued before that the unprecedentedly large negative 10-year term premium makes the curve more prone to invert and makes it a less sensitive economic barometer, but part of the rationale of creating a checklist is to limit one’s discretion in interpreting events. Chart 3More Rate Cuts, Please The Rates Checklist: Inflation Inflation has gone AWOL around the globe. Although the U.S. no longer faces the negative output gaps that remain in other major economies, its main measures of consumer prices (Chart 4) do nothing to counteract the widespread view that the Fed has a free pass to devote its energies to shoring up growth. Inflation break-evens were making progress toward the 2.3-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target when we launched the checklist last year, but the plunge in oil prices stopped them in their tracks (Chart 5). Rather than encouraging the Fed to hike, soft inflation expectations helped drive the Fed’s dovish pivot. Chart 4Realized Inflation Is Below Target, ... Chart 5... And So Are Inflation Expectations Our view that the seeds of inflation pressures have been sown has not changed. After slowing on a real final domestic demand basis in the first quarter from the one-two punch of the government shutdown and the fourth quarter’s sharp tightening of financial conditions, the U.S. economy has resumed operating above capacity. Though we check the “sluggish-inflation” boxes, and acknowledge that inflation is not going to inspire a more restrictive turn in Fed policy any time soon, we do think it will become an issue down the road. The Rates Checklist: The Labor Market The labor market remains robust. The headline unemployment rate remains at a level last seen in 1969, and is well below the CBO’s estimate of NAIRU. NAIRU is the minimum structural unemployment rate, and wage gains quicken when the unemployment rate falls below it (Chart 6). The broader definition of unemployment, encompassing discouraged workers and involuntary part-time workers, fell to its lowest level since 2000 in July (Chart 7), and the job openings and job quits rates (Chart 8) indicate that demand for workers remains high. Chart 6Wage Gains Will Accelerate, ... Chart 7... As Slack Has Been Absorbed, ... Chart 8... And Demand Is Robust   3.2% year-over-year growth in average hourly earnings may not be thrilling, but wages do remain in an uptrend. The laws of supply and demand (Chart 9), and the Fed’s best efforts, suggest that the uptrend will continue. We do not check any of the labor market boxes, and expect that we will not over the rest of the year. The Rates Checklist: Instability At Home And Abroad Chart 10No Overheating Yet There continue to be no signs of cyclical overheating in the U.S. economy, as the most cyclical segments of the economy are nowhere near the red end of the tachometer (Chart 10). Financial imbalances have moved to the back burner, but they are part of the Fed’s post-crisis mandate, and we are leaving the imbalances box unticked to reflect that the “low spreads and loosening credit terms” Governor Brainard decried last September2 may stay the Fed from embarking on a full-on easing cycle. We are checking the international duress box, at least for the time being, given the potential for a self-reinforcing rate-cutting cycle that could hold down the entire term structure of rates around the world. Bottom Line: The inverted yield curve, a lack of consumer price inflation, and the cloud cast by the trade war all suggest that bond markets will require some convincing before they allow rates to rise much higher. We conclude that a neutral duration stance is appropriate in the near term. Keeping Score We have been staunch supporters of below-benchmark duration positioning since the end of last July,3 given that we thought the 10-year Treasury yield was too low relative to our assessment of the strength of the U.S. economy and the potential for inflation to begin to rise. It appears that our stronger-than-consensus economic view was correct, but we were myopic in failing to grasp how punk growth in the rest of the world would keep long-maturity Treasury yields from making a sustained move higher. We were way early on inflation’s ETA, and slow to grasp how sensitive the Fed would be to faltering global growth and escalating trade tensions in its absence. In short, both our model of the Fed’s reaction function and the inputs to our model turned out to be faulty. The duration call stings, but our asset allocation recommendations have worked out. The fix we are making is to wait until inflation is a clear and present danger before assuming that the Fed will respond to it. Although we got the duration call wrong, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds have outperformed Treasuries in the aggregate since we upgraded them to overweight versus Treasuries at the end of January (Chart 11). BCA as a house niftily sidestepped the fourth-quarter selloff in equities by downgrading them to equal weight, and raising cash to overweight, late last June. We upgraded equities to overweight versus cash and fixed income in our first publication of the year, and the S&P 500 has handily outperformed Treasuries since that date, despite the nasty selloff following the July FOMC meeting and the new round of tariffs (Chart 12). Chart 11Spread Product Has Modestly Outperformed Treasuries, ... Chart 12... But Equities Have Crushed Them Agency Mortgage REIT Implications We recommended agency mortgage REITs a day before the FOMC meeting, suggesting that investors allocate capital away from equities and high yield as a way to reduce equity beta and boost portfolio income away from the herd chasing lower and lower high-yield bond yields. Through Thursday’s close, the Bloomberg Mortgage REIT Index has gained about 35 bps on a total return basis, while the Barclays High Yield Index is off 70 bps and the S&P 500 is down 2.7%. Unfortunately, the agency mREITs we sought out for their yield curve exposure have lagged badly as the yield curve has relentlessly flattened. For now, only the one agency mREIT with a dedicated adjustable-rate mortgage portfolio faces immediate earnings pressure. The rest are subject to refinancing volumes, which are likely to be higher than we expected when we projected that the 10-year Treasury yield wouldn’t fall much below 2%. The specter of increased prepayments makes the agency mREITs a less attractive investment than we thought they would be two weeks ago. On the other hand, their exclusively domestic exposure, and low credit risk, increases their value as a haven from global turmoil. Net-net, we are sticking with them, though they are now on a far shorter leash than they were when we made the recommendation. We will not stick with a position to save face, or to avoid looking irresolute. Flexibility and a willingness to admit mistakes are essential characteristics of successful investors. When the facts change, we change our mind, without the faintest hint of embarrassment. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the July 24, 2018 U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing,” available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Brainard, Lael (2018). “What Do We Mean by Neutral And What Role Does It Play in Monetary Policy,” speech delivered at the Detroit Economic Club, Detroit, Mich., September 12, 2018. 3 Please see the July 30, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rates Outlook,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Feature GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of July 31, 2019.  The quant model reversed its abnormal upgrade of Sweden in the previous model update. In hindsight, the model’s behavior when a bond yield moves close to zero needs to be watched closely. Currently, the model still favors Spain, Italy, Germany, Netherland and Australia at the expenses of U.S., Japan, U.K., France and Canada, as shown in Table 1.  As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model underperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 94 bps in July, largely driven by 146 bps of underperformance from the Level 2 model, and 26 bps of underperformance from the Level 1. Directionally, 7 out of the 12 choices generated positive alpha. However, the overweight in Sweden and Spain generated outsized underperformance. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 94 bps, with 297 bps of outperformance by the Level 2 model, offset by 42 bps of underperformance from the Level 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2)   Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of July 31, 2019. Chart 4Overall Model Performance The model’s tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. Following the Fed’s decision to cut interest rates yesterday, the liquidity component shifted its inputs to phase 4 – a period in which the central bank is cutting rates, while simulative monetary conditions persist. Although this should favor most cyclical sectors, the lack of evidence of global growth bottoming is tilting the model to favor a mixed bag of sectors. The valuation component continues to remain muted across all sectors. The model is now overweight 4 sectors in total, 2 cyclical and 2 defensive sectors. These are Consumer Discretionary, Information Technology, Consumer Staples, and Healthcare. Table 3Model’s Performance (March 1, 2019 - Current) Table 4Current Model Allocations   For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model,” dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com Footnotes