アメリカ合衆国

ハイライト ほとんどの中央銀行は依然として経済リスクを下方リスクに偏ったものと見なしている。 これは、世界的な成長が本格的に回復したとしても、今後3〜6か月は政策が据え置かれる可能性が高いことを意味する。 結論としては、今後数か月の為替の値動きは中央銀行の政策というよりも相対的な成長ファンダメンタルズが主導する可能性が高い。 我々のバイアスは、今年前半は米国以外で成長の勢いが最も強くなるというものだ。DXY指数はショートで構える。 今週の日銀の不作為は、為替ボラティリティの上昇に対する円ロングを安価な保険にしている。USD/JPYはショートを維持し、CHF/JPYはショートを取る。 ポンドは押し目買いだが、今後数か月はユーロに対してやや劣後する公算が大きい。EUR/GBPは0.88に達するはずだ。 カナダ銀行は利率を据え置いたが、我々の期待通りタカ派寄りではなくハト派寄りの判断を示した。CAD/NOKはショート、AUD/CADはロングを維持する。 我々のロングNOK/SEKポジションは1.8%の利益でストップにかかって決済された。より低い水準でこのクロスを買い戻すことを検討する。 特集 チャート I-1 為替市場は穏やかな回復を織り込んでいる 為替市場は穏やかな回復を織り込んでいる 為替市場は穏やかな回復を織り込んでいる 8月の安値以降の世界株式市場の強い反発は、多くの株価指数を買われ過ぎ領域に押し上げた。チャート I-1 は、世界株の上昇が既にグローバル製造業の改善を2012年や2016年の局面と同程度の規模で織り込んでいることを示している。一方で為替市場ははるかに穏やかな結果を織り込んでいる（下段）。 為替と株式のパフォーマンスの乖離は、過去のサイクルで見られたものとは大きく異なる。例えば、ボトムからピークにかけて、為替市場における強欲と恐怖の重要なバロメーターであるAUD/JPYは2012年の局面で40％、2016〜2017年で25％上昇し、株価も上昇した。RUB/JPY、ZAR/JPY、BRL/JPYのようなよりハイオクタンな通貨ペアのパフォーマンスは爆発的だった。今回のように通貨の動きが抑制されていることは、この回復の持続性に疑問符を付ける。 株式は長期資産であるため、2019年の金利低下が相対的な魅力を高め名目価値を押し上げたというのはもっともらしい説明だ。しかし、多くの債券市場でもここ数か月で利回りが上昇しており、この説明だけでは不十分とも言える。別の可能性としては、貿易緊張の緩和やFRBの流動性注入が国内投資家の動物的精神を呼び起こしたのかもしれない。あるいは、世界的な同期化した回復がG10の成長差を縮め、通貨の動きを抑えつつ株価を押し上げたのかもしれない。 世界株の上昇は既にグローバル製造業の改善を織り込んでいる。しかし、為替市場ははるかに穏やかな結末を織り込んでいる。 いずれにせよ、この不協和音の解決は、今後数か月で世界の経済データが著しく改善してプロシクリカル通貨を支持するか、株式市場の消化不良期（ボラティリティ上昇）を迎えるか、あるいはその両方の組み合わせによってもたらされるだろう。少なくとも、これらのダイナミクスを見越して通貨ポートフォリオを調整することを示唆している。 ボラティリティとドルについて 為替市場は相対的なトレンドに関するものだということは誰もが理解している。したがって、世界成長が加速すればドルが弱くなるという暗黙の前提は、この回復の震源地が米国外にあるということを意味する。チャート I-2 は、米国外で経済指標がまだ上振れを示しているわけではないことを示しているが、変化率ベースでは著しい改善が見られる。表面下では、最も強いデータサプライズはユーロ圏、スイス、ニュージーランド、オーストラリアで見られ、カナダと英国は予想外の失望があった。振り返れば、このチャートはカナダドルが2019年にG10で最も好調だった理由、スウェーデンクローナが最も弱かった理由も浮き彫りにしている。 チャート I-2 成長のばらつきは縮小した グロースの分散が減少した グロースの分散が減少した 経済の分散の低下は通貨ボラティリティをほぼ史上最低水準に押し下げている（チャート I-3）。経験豊富な投資家は低ボラティリティに注目し、注目すべきだ。なぜなら、ポートフォリオを破壊するのは熱狂ではなく慢心だからである。これは自明の理に聞こえるかもしれないが、過去3回ボラティリティがこれほど低下した局面ではドルは急騰し、プロシクリカル通貨は大きな損失を被った。誰もが1997〜1998年、2007〜2008年、2014〜2015年を覚えている。今回は同じだろうか？ 通常、ボラティリティの上昇はドル高と結びつくが、今回は3つの重要な相違点がある。 第一に、実質金利は2014年に米国がG10の同業国に対してプラスに転じた（チャート I-4）。これは、通常は資金調達通貨であった米ドル（準備通貨でもある）がキャリートレードの対象になったことを意味する。米国債に資金を振り向けたい資本は5年以上にわたり正の実質キャリーを享受してきたと言ってよい。現在米国の実質相対利回りが頭打ちになっている中で、資本はどちらに向かうだろうか？ チャート I-3 ボラティリティは史上最低水準付近 ボラティリティが記録的低水準に近い ボラティリティが記録的低水準に近い チャート I-4 米国の実質金利は低下 米国で実質金利が低下 米国で実質金利が低下 ドルは2011年以降ブル相場にあり、評価は高い四分位にシフトしている。これは、ドルが前の低ボラティリティ局面でより早い段階でブル相場にあった時とは大きく異なる（チャート I-5）。ドルは長いサイクルで動く傾向があり、ボラティリティの急騰はサイクルの始まりか終わりのいずれかを示すことがある。 以前のレポートで繰り返し強調してきたように、米ドルロングはコンセンサストレードである。我々の主な根拠はCFTCのポジショニングデータだ。しかし、よりタイムリーな先行指標として注視すべきは金と債券の比率だ。通貨は信認に関するものであり、米ドルへの信認の重要な尺度は米10年国債の総リターンと金地金の比率であり、これは崩れている（チャート I-6）。米国の財政赤字はこれから急拡大する見込みであり、過去のドル高の局面では赤字は低く減少傾向にあった。 チャート I-5 ドルは割高である ドルは高い ドルは高い チャート I-6 米国債と金の綱引き 米国債と金の綱引き 米国債と金の綱引き より重要なのは、通貨市場は相対的なファンダメンタルズに合わせて変動する可能性が高いということだ。世界経済の減速は製造業が主因であったため、平均回帰が期待できるのはこの分野だと考えるのが妥当だ。歴史的に見て、多くの経済における景気循環の振幅はサービス（消費）よりも製造業や輸出に牽引される傾向がある。 より具体的には、製造業の減速で最も痛手を被った通貨が最も早いリバーサルを経験する論理的な候補となる。これは既に、対米国での債券利回りの急上昇として現れているvis-à-vis 米国の利回りに対してである。例えば、ノルウェー、スウェーデン、スイス、日本の利回りはボトム以降、対米で大幅に上昇している。世界的な成長の同期回復は米国の利回り優位をさらに削ぐだろう。 通貨は信認に関するものであり、米ドルへの信認の重要な尺度は米10年国債の総リターンと金地金の比較である。 結論： DXY指数はショートを維持、当面のターゲットを90、ストップロスを100に設定する。 ポートフォリオ保険としての円 もし我々の2020年のドルに対する下落トレンドという仮説が正しければ、それは一直線には進まないだろう。したがって、ポートフォリオ保険を持つことが理にかなっている。 今週の日銀の不作為は気を逸らすためのものだった可能性がある。なぜなら近月の資産市場で最も強力な動きの一つは日本の利回りに有利な+130ベーシスポイントの動きだったからだ（チャート I-7）。USD/JPYと実質金利のギャップは希少な裁定機会を生んでいる。世界的なリスク資産の売りが顕在化すれば円は強くなるだろう。一方で、世界成長が最終的に加速すれば円は通貨クロスで弱含む可能性があるが、対ドルでは強まる可能性がある。これによりUSD/JPYのショートは「勝てば大きく勝つ、負けてもそれほど失わない」という好ましい構図になる。 日本の利回り上昇は、次の3つの重要な転換点で駆動されている： 過去5年間の大半で、日銀は資産買入れの点で最も積極的な中央銀行の一つだった。これは貿易加重の円安の大きな要因だった（チャート I-8）。FRBのバランスシートの再拡大により、日本との相対的な金融政策は引き締まりつつある。日銀の年間総資産買入れは現在約20兆円、JGB買入れは約15兆円の水準で推移している。これは目標の80兆円という緩やかな目標からはほど遠く、当面変わる見込みはない。 チャート I-7 日本の国債利回りは急騰した 日本の債券利回りが急騰している 日本の債券利回りが急騰している チャート I-8 円と量的緩和（QE） 円と量的緩和 円と量的緩和 円の動きは日本の巨大小売輸出セクターを考慮すると、国内要因と同様に外部環境の影響も大きい。景気循環的なセクターのクレジット・デフォルト・スワップスプレッドは新たな安値へと収縮しており、収益見通しの改善を示唆している（チャート I-9）。これは成長要因が日本の利回りを押し上げていることを示唆する（日本のCPIスワップは実際には横ばい）。これはアジアの景気循環セクターが防御的セクターに対して最近アウトパフォームしている動きとも一致する。 安倍政権は昨年、大規模な財政パッケージを発表した。これは壊滅的だった台風被害と来たる五輪に部分的に起因する。これにより日銀は最新の政策分科会で成長見通しを上方修正した。建設・エンジニアリング株の相対パフォーマンスは、資金が経済に流入しているかどうかの重要なバロメーターである（チャート I-10）。 チャート I-9 日本のデフォルトリスク緩和 日本でデフォルト・リスクが緩和 日本でデフォルト・リスクが緩和 チャート I-10 財政刺激と建設株 財政刺激策と建設株 財政刺激策と建設株 防御通貨としての円は、グローバル成長が改善すると資金調達通貨として使われるため通常は弱含む傾向がある。とはいえ我々の主張は、円はクロスでは確かに弱まるだろうが、対ドルではなお強くなり得るということだ。前述したように、その触媒の一つは実質金利との従来の関係からの乖離である。 より重要なのは、USD/JPYとDXYは正の相関を持つ傾向があることで、なぜならドルが多くの場合円を動かすからだ。一方で、円に対するネットショートポジションは逆張りの観点から魅力的に見える（チャート I-11）。極めて低いボラティリティを考えると、USD/JPYのショートはボラティリティ上昇をプレイする魅力的な手段となる。 チャート I-11 投資家は円をショートしている 投資家は円をショートしている 投資家は円をショートしている より保守的な投資家はCHF/JPYをショートすることもできる。最近のスイスフラン高はインフレ回復の芽を脅かしており（チャート I-12）、一方で円安は国内でのトレード可能財の価格を押し上げるだろう。これにより日銀よりもスイス国立銀行に対するプレッシャーが強まる。また、セーフヘイブンとして円はフランよりも割安である。これは当社の多数の社内モデルでも確認されている。 簡単に言えば、過去数十年で米国に対する相対的インフレは日本の方が低かったが、フランの方が強かった。 簡単に言えば、過去数十年で米国に対する相対的インフレは日本の方が低かったが、フランの方が強かった（チャート I-13）。一方で、過去2年間ではボラティリティ上昇はフランよりも円に有利に働いている。 チャート I-12 強いフランはスイスのインフレにとって逆風である 強いスイスフランはスイスのインフレにとって逆風だ 強いスイスフランはスイスのインフレにとって逆風だ チャート I-13 円はより割安 ##br##保険 円はより安い保険 円はより安い保険 結論： 現時点では円が最も魅力的なセーフヘイブン通貨である。USD/JPYはショートを維持し、CHF/JPYを売る。 ハウスキーピング 我々のロングNOK/SEKポジションは1.8%の利益でストップにかかって決済された。より低い水準でこのクロスを買い戻すつもりだ。このトレードは主にキャリーに関するものであり、我々はNOKとSEKの両方に対してポジティブである。したがってマーケットタイミングが重要になる。NOK/SEKが1.04なら魅力的だ。今週の各中央銀行会合の文脈ではノルゲス銀行からの新たな示唆はなかった。 我々はポンドを押し目買いで仕込む機会も探るが、EURまたはGBPのボラティリティを買う方が良い賭けかもしれない。今のところ、堅調な雇用報告にもかかわらず英国の経済サプライズは依然としてマイナスである（チャート I-14）。続報を注目してほしい。 チャート I-14 GBPは脆弱である 英ポンドは弱含み 英ポンドは弱含み Chester Ntonifor 外国為替ストラテジスト chestern@bcaresearch.com 通貨 米ドル チャート II-1 USD テクニカル 1 米ドルのテクニカル（1） 米ドルのテクニカル（1） チャート II-2 USD テクニカル 2 米ドルのテクニカル分析 2 米ドルのテクニカル分析 2 最近の米国のデータは混在している： 鉱工業生産は12月に前年同月比で1%減少した。 ミシガン大学消費者信頼感の速報値は1月に99.1へやや低下した。 MBA住宅ローン申請件数は1月17日までの週で1.2%減少した。しかし既存住宅販売は12月に月次で3.6%増加し予想を上回った。 シカゴ地区連銀の全国活動指数は12月に0.41から-0.35へ低下した。 新規失業保険申請件数は1月17日までの週で211Kに増加し、予想より良かった。 DXY指数は今週0.4%上昇した。中国のコロナウイルスが世界成長を大幅に押し下げるのではないかという懸念が高まっている。これは短期的にはつまずきに過ぎないが、我々は依然としてポジティブで、金融条件の緩和と貿易戦争リスクの後退により今年は世界成長が加速すると考えている。 レポートリンク： On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 ユーロ チャート II-3 EUR テクニカル 1 EURのテクニカル指標 1 EURのテクニカル指標 1 チャート II-4 EUR テクニカル 2 EURのテクニカル分析 2 EURのテクニカル分析 2 ユーロ圏の最近のデータは概ねポジティブである： 経常収支は11月に339億ユーロとなった。 ヘッドラインとコアのインフレ率はともに12月に前年比1.3%で横ばいだった。 ZEW景況感調査は1月に11.2から25.6へ急上昇した。 ユーロは今週対米ドルで0.8%下落した。木曜日にECBは政策金利を-0.5%で据え置いた。ECBの最大の示唆は、彼らが金融政策目標の見直しに取り組んでおり、それがより緩和的な姿勢の増加につながる可能性があるという点だ。明示的な2%インフレ目標への切り替えや量的緩和の判断に気候変動目標を組み入れることは、はるかにハト派的なECBの到来を告げる。長期のEUR/CADのストップを1.42へ引き締めている。 レポートリンク： Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 日本円 チャート II-5 JPY テクニカル 1 JPYのテクニカル1 JPYのテクニカル1 チャート II-6 JPY テクニカル 2 JPY テクニカル分析 2 JPY テクニカル分析 2 日本の最近のデータは軟調である： 鉱工業生産は11月に前年同月比で8.2%減少した。 貿易収支は12月に1525億円の赤字に拡大した。輸出入はそれぞれ前年同月比で4.9%および6.3%減少した。 全産業活動指数は11月に前月比0.9%上昇した。 一致指数と先行指数は11月にそれぞれ94.7と90.8に低下した。 日本円は今週対米ドルで0.3%上昇した。日銀は予想通り政策金利を据え置いた。より重要なのは、見通し報告が2020会計年度の成長見通しを0.7%から0.9%に上方修正したことだ。さらに日銀は原油安を受けてインフレ見通しを10ベーシスポイント下方修正した。日本円に関する詳しい分析は本号の前半を参照されたい。 レポートリンク： Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Signposts For A Reversal In The Dollar Bull Market - November 1, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 英ポンド チャート II-7 GBP テクニカル 1 GBP テクニカル 1 GBP テクニカル 1 チャート II-8 GBP テクニカル 2 GBP テクニカル分析 2 GBP テクニカル分析 2 英国の最近のデータはポジティブである： 小売売上高は12月に前年同月比で0.9%増加した。 Rightmoveの住宅価格指数は1月に前年同月比で2.7%上昇した。 ILO方式の失業率は11月に3.8%で横ばいだった。 平均賃金は11月に前年同月比で3.2%増加した。これは2019年の大半で低迷していた雇用報告の後、3か月で就業者が20.8万人改善したことに続く。 英ポンドは今週対米ドルで0.7%上昇した。今後数週間で欧州通貨の最大のボラティリティはEUR/GBPクロスで生じる可能性が高い。欧州の経済データはベース効果もあってここ数週間で最も良いポジティブサプライズを示している。しかし今週のECB議事録は通貨の強さに対して牽制する姿勢を示唆している。英国では当面ポンドは政治の影響を部分的に受けるだろう。GBPおよびEURのボラティリティを買うのは良い賭けに見える。 レポートリンク： Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 オーストラリアドル チャート II-9 AUD テクニカル 1 AUD テクニカル分析 1 AUD テクニカル分析 1 チャート II-10 AUD テクニカル 2 AUDのテクニカル分析 2 AUDのテクニカル分析 2 オーストラリアの最近のデータはポジティブである： Westpac消費者信頼感指数は1月に1.8%低下した。 消費者のインフレ期待は1月に4%から4.7%へ上昇した。 12月には28.9Kの雇用が創出され、コンセンサスを上回った。これは29.2Kのパートタイム雇用増だがフルタイムは0.3K減少した。 参加率は12月に66%で横ばい、失業率はさらに低下して5.1%となった。 オーストラリアドルは今週対米ドルで0.6%下落した。ポジティブな雇用報告はAUDを支えたが、コロナウイルスの懸念がヘッドラインを支配し始めるとすぐに薄れた。我々は先週AUDを詳述し、68セントで買い手だ。主な根拠は強力な逆張りの賭けであるためだ。 レポートリンク： On AUD And CNY - January 17, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 ニュージーランドドル チャート II-11 NZD テクニカル 1 NZDテクニカル 1 NZDテクニカル 1 チャート II-12 NZD テクニカル 2 NZDテクニカル分析 2 NZDテクニカル分析 2 ニュージーランドの最近のデータは弱含みである： 訪問者数は11月に前年同月比で3.5%減少した。 純移民は11月に3400から2610へ減少した。 パフォーマンスサービス指数は12月に52.9から51.9へ低下した。 ニュージーランドドルは今週対米ドルで0.5%下落した。我々はキウイが世界成長の改善の中で今年は米ドルをアウトパフォームすると考えているが、純移民の減少など国内制約が上昇余地を制限する可能性がある。AUD/NZDとSEK/NZDはロングを維持する。 レポートリンク： Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 カナダドル チャート II-13 CAD テクニカル 1 CADのテクニカル分析 1 CADのテクニカル分析 1 チャート II-14 CAD テクニカル 2 CADのテクニカル指標 2 CADのテクニカル指標 2 カナダの最近のデータは軟調である： 製造業売上高は11月に前月比で0.6%減少した。 ヘッドラインのインフレ率は12月に前年比2.2%で横ばいだった。コアインフレは12月に1.9%から1.7%へ低下した。 新築住宅価格は12月に前年同月比で0.1%上昇した。 カナダドルは今週対米ドルで0.8%下落した。水曜日にカナダ銀行は利率を据え置くことを決めたが、カナダのデータが失望すれば今年後半に利下げの可能性を開く余地を残した。要するに他の多くの中央銀行と同様に、カナダ銀行もデータ依存だ。我々のCADに関するストーリーは単純で、成長リバウンドの震源地が米国外にあるならCADは対極の通貨に対して下振れするということだ。AUD/CADはロングを維持する。 レポートリンク： The Loonie: Upside Versus The Dollar, But Downside At The Crosses Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 スイスフラン チャート II-15 CHF テクニカル 1 CHF テクニカル 1 CHF テクニカル 1 チャート II-16 CHF テクニカル 2 CHF テクニカルズ 2 CHF テクニカルズ 2 今週スイスからのデータは乏しかった： 生産者物価は12月に前年同月比で1.7%下落し、前月の2.5%減から改善した。 マネーサプライ（M3）は12月に前年同月比で0.7%増加した。 スイスフランは今週対米ドルでほぼ横ばいだった。我々は世界的リスクが持続する限りスイスフランを支持し続ける、コロナウイルスへの懸念を含めて。しかし、本レポート前半で議論したように、現時点では円の方がフランよりも優れたヘッジである。 レポートリンク： Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Notes On The SNB - October 4, 2019 What To Do About The Swiss Franc? - May 17, 2019 ノルウェークローネ チャート II-17 NOK テクニカル 1 NOK テクニカル指標 1 NOK テクニカル指標 1 チャート II-18 NOK テクニカル 2 NOK テクニカルズ 2 NOK テクニカルズ 2 今週ノルウェーからのデータは乏しかった： 労働力調査は11月に失業率が4%に上昇したと記録した。 ノルウェークローネは今週エネルギー価格の下落を受けて対米ドルで1.3%下落した。木曜日にノルゲス銀行は政策金利を1.5%で据え置き、広く予想されていたとおりだった。さらにオイステイン・オルセン総裁は「委員会の現在の見通しとリスクのバランス評価は、政策金利が当面現在の水準のままである可能性が高いことを示している」と述べ、短期的な政策変更の可能性を示唆しなかった。これは今後は政策決定よりも相対的なファンダメンタルズがNOKの進路を決めることを示唆している。我々のバイアスはバリュエーションのクッションがロングNOKの安全マージンを提供しているというものだ。USD/NOKとCAD/NOKはショートを維持する。 レポートリンク： On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 スウェーデンクローナ チャート II-19 SEK テクニカル 1 SEKのテクニカル1 SEKのテクニカル1 チャート II-20 SEK テクニカル 2 SEK テクニカル指標 2 SEK テクニカル指標 2 今週スウェーデンからのデータは乏しかった： 11月に6%から6.8%へ上昇した後、失業率は12月に6%へ戻った。 スウェーデンクローナは今週対米ドルで0.2%下落した。今後は世界成長の改善、貿易緊張の緩和、短期的な景気後退懸念の後退がスウェーデン経済とクローナを下支えする。SEKは世界的な製造業のリバウンドをプレイするための最も有力なG10クロスである。 レポートリンク： Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 トレードと予想 予想サマリー コアポートフォリオ タクティカルトレード 指値注文 決済済みトレード

Highlights The Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in China is now being priced into commodity markets, with comparisons to the 2003 SARS outbreak serving as an early benchmark.1 If it follows the SARS trajectory its impact likely will be limited, although oil demand could fall at the margin as global travel falls. The IMF expects growth in EM economies, the engine for commodity demand, to come in at 4.4% and 4.6% this year and next, respectively, down two-tenths of a percent from its previous forecast, but still up from 2019’s 3.7% rate. The Fund’s risk assessment tilts slightly to the upside, nonetheless, in the wake of global monetary and fiscal stimulus. We introduce our 2021 oil balances and price forecasts this week. We expect Brent crude oil to average $70/bbl next year, and for WTI to average $4/bbl below that. We are maintaining our $67/bbl Brent and $63/bbl WTI 2020 forecasts (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekCrude Oil Price Forecasts For 2020, 2021 Feature In its latest World Economic Outlook – Tentative Stabilization, Sluggish Recovery? – the IMF flags key risks to EM growth, which will continue to feed the economic policy uncertainty that dogs commodity demand.2 The Fund’s “downward revision primarily reflects negative surprises to economic activity in a few emerging market economies, notably India, which led to a reassessment of growth prospects over the next two years. In a few cases, this reassessment also reflects the impact of increased social unrest.” That said, the Fund sees the balance of risk slightly tilted to the upside versus its earlier assessment in October, in the wake of global monetary and fiscal stimulus. This is in line with our view that the effects of monetary stimulus – deployed over the better part of last year and still expected to remain accommodative this year – will boost growth this year. Our view remains tempered by risks we’ve been highlighting that keep political and economic policy uncertainty elevated – e.g., trade tensions, civil unrest, and the still-underappreciated risks to oil markets arising from US-Iran tensions and social unrest in Iraq, which remains high (Chart 2). The loss of 800k b/d from Libya is significant, but the world does not lack spare light-sweet crude oil production capacity – the US shales, in particular, abound in this type of crude oil. Chart 2Policy Uncertainty Will Trend Lower, But Continues To Dog Commodities Oil Fundamentals Improving As is typically the case, we expect global oil-demand growth this year will be led by EM economies. Crude oil fundamentals continue to favor higher prices: Production management and capital discipline will constrain the rate of growth of oil supplies, and, as discussed above, demand will benefit from policy stimulus globally (Chart 3). Oil demand growth will recover this year, following a lower-than-normal rate of just 830k b/d last year, based on the US EIA’s most recent estimates of historical consumption. We continue to expect demand to grow 1.4mm b/d this year.  For 2021, we expect growth of just under 1.5mm b/d, reaching 103.65mm b/d globally. For its part, the EIA’s estimating growth of 1.34mm and 1.37mm b/d for 2020 and 2021, respectively. As is typically the case, we expect global oil-demand growth this year will be led by EM economies, proxied by non-OECD oil consumption, of 1.26mm b/d. For next year, we expect EM demand growth to come in at 1.34mm b/d, or just over 90% of global oil consumption growth in 2021. On the supply side, we continue to expect OPEC 2.0 output to increase slightly in 2Q20 and return to levels consistent with its previous agreement to cut 1.2mm b/d of production. Our modeling also assumes this level of production remains flat for the rest of 2020. Chart 3Fundamental Supply-Demand Balances Support Higher Crude Oil Prices Next year, we assume the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia to increase production by 350k b/d in 1H21. In addition, we gradually remove 300k b/d of KSA’s overcompliance of 400k b/d next year, which moves its crude oil output in 2021 to 9.94mm b/d vs 9.76mm b/d this year. For Russia, we anticipate an increase in its condensate production, which it lobbied for last year. This will put our estimate of Russia’s crude and condensate production at 11.4mm b/d in 2020 and 11.64mm b/d in 2021.3 Most of the production cuts realized by OPEC 2.0 – ~ 2mm b/d – come at the expense of Venezuela and Iran, both of which are under sanctions limiting their production imposed by the US. We are holding Venezuela’s production at ~ 700k b/d in 2021, and will be monitoring this closely for any indication it is significantly changing. For Iran, we are keeping its production at 2.10mm b/d this year and next, assuming US sanctions remain in place. Oil production in both countries could be impacted by the outcome of US elections in November, and right now this is a near-impossible call to make. US Shales: No Longer A Growth Story? We continue to see slower production growth in the US than the EIA, particularly in the shales, as we expect capital markets to continue to discipline shale producers by only funding those firms that are able to return capital to shareholders or to deliver steady and increasing dividends. In our modeling, total US onshore production this year and next is expected to rise 800k b/d, and 310k b/d for 2021. We also continue to expect drilled-but-uncompleted (DUC) wells to continue to make significant contributions to overall shale-oil production in the US. Indeed, we expect DUCs to continue to offset part of the decline implied by lower rig counts, as they require less capex than drilling and completing new wells. We add ~ 500k b/d of production from DUCs completion over 2020 and 2021. Future production will depend heavily on the Majors and on productivity and lateral length. Our US crude and condensate production estimates for 2020 and 2021 reflect these constraints, and the slowing rate of growth being imposed by capital markets. For 2020, we expect total US crude and condensate production of 13.16mm b/d, of which 9.20mm b/d will come from the main shale basins led by the Permian.4 Tighter Fundamentals, Steeper Backwardations Our fundamental supply-demand balances are tighter than those assumed by the US EIA and the Paris-based IEA (Table 1). We expect US crude and liquids production to grow 1.6mm b/d this year, and only 500k b/d next year. We see global production growing 1.15mm b/d and 1.39mm b/d in 2020 and 2021, respectively. With demand growing 1.4mm b/d and close to 1.5mm b/d in 2020 and 2021, respectively, against this supply backdrop, our balances point to a deficit this year vs. the surplus expected by the IEA  (Table 2 and Chart 4). Table 1Fundamentals Comparison Table 2BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Chart 4BCA Research's Balances Estimates Point To Falling Inventories Chart 5Tighter Storage, Steeper Backwardation For this reason, we continue to anticipate a steepening in the Brent and WTI forward curves – i.e., more backwardation – which will support our long 2H20 Brent vs. short 2H21 Brent curve trade (Chart 5). As a result of the steeper backwardation, we expect higher volatility, and will be getting long 4Q20 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short 4Q20 Brent $70/bbl calls (Chart 6). Bottom Line: We continue to expect crude oil markets to tighten, given persistent production restraint by OPEC 2.0, capital-market-imposed restraint on US shale-oil producers, and revived global demand growth in 2020 and 2021. The IMF’s assessment re the balance of risk being tilted to the upside, in the wake of global monetary stimulus, is broadly consistent with our maintained view. While we expect global policy uncertainty to fall following the so-called phase-one US-China trade deal and a definitive Brexit vote in the UK, geopolitical tension remains high, particularly in the Persian Gulf. Chart 6Steeper Backwardation To Higher Implied Volatility We will be getting long 4Q20 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short 4Q20 Brent $70/bbl calls, in anticipation of higher volatility in the wake of lower inventories. As a result, we are keeping our 2020 Brent forecast at $67/bbl, and are expecting 2021 Brent to trade at $70/bbl; WTI is expected to trade $4/bbl below Brent this year and next, on average. At tonight’s close, we will be getting long 4Q20 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short 4Q20 Brent $70/bbl calls, in anticipation of higher volatility in the wake of lower inventories.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Brent prices traded sideways ~ $64/bbl since last Tuesday, dismissing the US and China phase-one agreement and disruptions to Libyan production and exports which could total as much as 800k b/d.  Over the weekend, concerns re the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in China started being priced into commodities, particularly oil.  Separately, the US Treasury Department renewed Chevron’s waiver to operate in Venezuela for another three months.  The company is scheduled to export 1mm barrels of oil produced by PDVSA via a joint-venture, partially dodging US sanctions on Venezuelan oil.5  We expect the country’s output to stabilize close to its current level of 710 kb/d this year. Base Metals: Neutral On Tuesday Beijing reported more than 400 people had been infected with the Wuhan coronavirus, confirming person-to-person transmission of the virus. Concerns that a wider spread over the lunar New Year holidays starting this weekend will impact economic growth in the world’s top metal consumer brought copper prices down 1.8% on Tuesday.  Zinc reached two-month highs this week amidst concerns of low LME warehouses stocks, now close to their 20-year lows at 50,900 MT (Chart 7).  Supply concerns stemming from low iron ore stocked in China’s ports, along with good Chinese macro data, lifted iron-ore prices. Precious Metals: Neutral The US dollar is a key missing piece needed to propel gold prices higher from current levels. The 2.4% decline in the trade-weighted dollar index supported gold’s 5% increase since October 1, 2019 (Chart 8).  We expect the dollar to continue depreciating in 2020, as global growth rebounds and the Fed remains accommodative, keeping gold prices well bid.  Most precious metals have followed gold’s lead this year; palladium and platinum are up 17.63% and 3.15%, respectively. Chart 7 Chart 8 Ags/Softs:  Underweight CBOT Corn and soybeans futures traded lower on Tuesday as markets awaited evidence of China purchasing additional U.S. agricultural goods, fulfilling its commitment to buy $32 billion of agricultural goods over two years per the phase-one deal negotiated between China and the US earlier this month.  Corn traded lower, as US grain elevators have yet to confirm any Chinese buying.  Soybeans, further weakened by expectations of a massive harvest in rival exporter Brazil.  Wheat was the only ag posting gains early in the week on the back of strong Black Sea export demand.     Footnotes 1     Please see CDC SARS Response Timeline, published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  The SARS outbreak was identified in February 2003 and lasted six months.  The CDC noted: “Globally, WHO received reports of SARS from 29 countries and regions; 8,096 persons with probable SARS resulting in 774 deaths. In the United States, eight SARS infections were documented by laboratory testing and an additional 19 probable SARS infections were reported.”  According to Chinese officials, there were 440 confirmed cases of the new coronavirus as of Wednesday; nine people were reported to have died thus far.  The World Health Organization met Wednesday to assess the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.  The 2003 coronavirus outbreak was minor compared to the typical influenza outbreak: by way of comparison, every year there are an estimated one billion cases of influenza, resulting in 290,000 to 650,000 deaths, according to the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations in Switzerland. 2               Economic policy uncertainty is a recurrent theme in our research.  It has been driving safe-haven demand for the USD and gold for months, as we recently discussed in Iran Responds To US Strike; Oil Markets Remain Taut.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3     We use World Bank growth estimates to drive our EM demand forecasts.  Earlier this month, the Bank forecast EM GDP growth of 4.1% for 2020 and 4.3% for next year.  This will outpace last year’s growth rate of 3.5%. 4     US production growth, particularly in the Permian and Bakken basins, could be constrained by environmental restrictions, if state regulators crack down on the massive flaring occurring in both states.  Please see Lingering Oil-Demand Weakness Will Fade, published November 21, 2019, where we discuss this risk in more depth. 5     Please see Exclusive: PDVSA's partners act as traders of Venezuelan oil amid sanctions - documents, published by reuters.com January 13, 2020.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Overweight US refiners enjoyed a solid run for the better part of 2019, but over the past three months have retraced roughly a third of those relative gains. Nevertheless, we remain overweight the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing (O&G R&M) index for three reasons. First, US gasoline inventories are on the cusp of contracting anew. Whittled down inventories have historically underpinned US refiners’ margins (gasoline inventories shown inverted, second panel). Second, historically rising crack spreads have been synonymous with expanding relative forward earnings growth. Thus, an inventory-led boost to refining margins should continue to underpin relative profit growth (third panel). Finally, the dollar is a key driver behind the entire commodity complex as well as commodity exposed equities. Since the 2015 manufacturing recession, US refiners have been tightly inversely correlated with the greenback and the current message is that the sell-off in the S&P O&G R&M index is near exhaustion (US dollar shown inverted, bottom line). Bottom Line: We remain overweight the S&P O&G R&M index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5OILR – MPC, VLO, PSX, HFC.

Overweight In our most recent Special Report we outline why we believe the S&P industrials index is set to outperform the market. Among other reasons, industrials forward earnings breadth – defined as the net number of sub-sectors with higher forward earnings revisions – has bounced off extreme lows signaling that the sell-off in relative share prices is reaching exhaustion. Historically, similar sharp bounces have marked previous price reversals (second panel). With regard to fundamentals, expanding profit margins since mid-2018 also reflect positive sector dynamics, despite the industry having borne the brunt of the US/China trade war. In fact, CEOs managed to compensate for the falling selling prices at the expense of labor (third & bottom panels). Bottom Line: Remain overweight the S&P industrials index. For more details please refer to the most recent Special Report.

Highlights The recently signed Phase One deal is positive for China and global equity markets as it brings a temporary truce to the trade war. However, China is unlikely to change its current policy trajectory to create additional domestic demand to consume $200 billion in new imports from the US. China is likely to meet the commitment only half way in the next two years, and meet the 2020 import target from the US by a redistribution of its purchases overseas. The RMB will modestly appreciate in the next three to six months. On the monetary policy front, there is no sign of further monetary easing from the PBoC. We continue to recommend an overweight stance towards Chinese stocks in the next six months, relative to the global benchmark. Feature Economic data released last week, including Q4 GDP growth, December industrial production, fixed-asset investment and trade data, all suggest that the Chinese economy bottomed before the end of 2019. The Phase One trade deal between China and the US marks a significant de-escalation in a two-year trade war. The RMB appreciated by 1.4% against the greenback since the beginning of the year, pushing USD-CNY firmly below the key psychological 7 mark. The performance of equities in China’s onshore and offshore markets confirms that the economy has bottomed. Since December 11, 2019, Chinese cyclical sectors have outperformed defensives and both the investable and domestic markets have broken above their respective 200-day moving averages versus global stocks (Chart 1A and 1B). Chart 1ABoth Onshore And Offshore Equities Signal A Bottoming In China's Economy Chart 1BCyclicals Have Significantly Outperformed Defensives Lately We continue to recommend a cyclical long stance on Chinese stocks. We expect pro-growth policy support to accelerate in the first quarter, economic recovery to further solidify, and the Phase One trade deal to reduce economic and financial market volatility until the November 2020 US presidential election. All of these factors should support an outperformance in Chinese stocks relative to their global peers. Some Inconvenient Truth To The Truce China’s commitment to purchase an additional $200 billion in goods from the US was more than market participants anticipated. We do not think China will honor this commitment to its full extent. Moreover, we also do not think this will change China’s domestic economic policy trajectory for 2020. Details in Chapter 6 of the Phase One trade agreement titled “Expanding Trade”1 include: In the next 2 years, China is committed to purchase an additional $200 billion worth of goods and services from the US, from the 2017 baseline. The additional $200 billion amount is split over the next two years: China will need to add no less than $77 billion of imports from the US in 2020, and $123 billion in 2021. This amounts to a 41% increase in 2020 and a 66% increase in 2021, from the 2017 baseline of $186 billion (Chart 2). The text from Chapter 6 of the Phase One deal also specifies that, between January 2020 and December 2021, China will add a total of $77.7 billion in purchases of manufactured goods (including aircraft components), $32 billion in agricultural products, $52.4 billion in energy and $37.9 billion in services from the US (Chart 3). Chart 2Phase One Trade Deal Sets An Ambitious Import Target For The Next Two Years Chart 3Chinese Imports Of Agro And Energy Goods From The US Likely To See The Biggest Increase In 2020 From 2019   China’s annual import growth from the US in 2017 was the highest one in the past ten years.  If we assume that China will simply add $200 billion of new imports in the next two years from the US to this high starting point, it will need to boost domestic demand to accommodate at least a 4-6% increase in total imports in the next two years from 2019.2 In contrast, growth in China’s total imports in 2019 contracted by 3% from 2018, and averaged at only 2% in the last five years. In other words, in 2020 and 2021, even if China does not increase imports from other countries, just the commitment from purchases of US goods alone would require a sizable boost in China’s domestic demand. However, the assumption above is overly simplified and optimistic. Even though Chinese leadership may have shifted their policy priority from financial deleveraging to supporting economic growth this year, we do not think they will fully abandon the battle against systemic risks in the financial sector. Therefore, China is unlikely to significantly deviate from its current policy trajectory and stimulate aggressively to create additional domestic demand to consume the agreed $200 billion in new imports from the US. It is equally unlikely that China will absorb the $200 billion additional imports from the US, at the expense of its domestic production. A more plausible approach, which is our base case scenario, is that China will meet a large portion of the 2020 import target before November, to show good faith. After the US presidential election, China will face the challenge of either a re-escalation from the Phase Two trade talk with a re-elected President Trump, or a new US president with his/her own political agenda. In either case, at this point China is unlikely to have the intention to meet the import target for 2021. Chart 4China Likely To Shift Agro And Energy Import Suppliers To The US In 2020, to absorb a $77 billion additional imports from the US, China will likely shift some of its imports, such as agriculture and energy products, from other countries to suppliers in the US. China currently imports $150 billion of agriculture goods and $298 billion of energy related products on an annual basis, so the pie is large enough to absorb some of increased import commitments by shifting the sources of imports (Chart 4). The same logic goes for the manufactured goods category in the trade agreement, which includes cars, airplanes, steel, industrial machinery, and so on.3 China is likely to choose to shift its import suppliers of these goods to the US, while increasing its own share of intermediate goods supplies to the US manufacturers. Almost all of the eight subcategories under the manufactured goods category in the Phase One trade agreement are deeply integrated in the global supply chain. For example, foreign value-added share accounts for 23% of the total output value of the US automobile industry.4 In other words, if a “Made in America” car is worth $20,000, $4,600 is produced by foreign suppliers of intermediate goods. Since China has been the leading source of this foreign value-added in the US automobile industry, a sizeable slice of these additional imports will likely benefit Chinese manufacturers. In this scenario, we expect an increase in bilateral trade between China and the US in 2020, at the expense of other players in the global supply chain. Lastly, while this is not our base case scenario, it is possible the Phase One trade agreement was set up for failure, if China is simply hoping to delay the imposition of additional tariffs as part of a gamble that President Trump will not be re-elected. In this scenario, China might not make any meaningful additional purchases from the US even in 2020 (while claiming that they will be made closer to the election), implying that bilateral trade between China and the US will only revert to its historical average this year, at best. Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers are unlikely willing to alter their existing policy trajectory when accommodating more imports of US goods. China will, at best, reshuffle its supply chain to absorb a portion of the commitment before November 2020. The RMB And Monetary Policy: A Refocus On The Economic Fundamentals As tensions from the US-China trade war abate, investors are starting to refocus on economic fundamentals. The RMB has appreciated by 1.4% against the USD since the beginning of this year (Chart 5). The recent appreciation in the currency is a reversal to its fair value, which reflects an ongoing economic recovery (Chart 6). In the next three to six months, the improvement in China’s economic fundamentals and market sentiment should support a continuation in the RMB’s reversal to its structural trend. Chart 5USD/CNY Has Durably Fallen Below 7 Chart 6The Recent Appreciation In RMB Is A Reversal To Its Fair Value   But Chinese leadership’s cautious approach to boosting domestic demand will also cap the upside potential in the RMB appreciation. We think Chinese policymakers will maintain their tight grip this year on local government spending and bank lending, and will continue to fine-tune policies based on economic conditions. This will limit the magnitude in both the stimulus and economic recovery. Baring a major re-escalation in the trade war, the RMB should oscillate within a relatively narrow band through the third quarter of this year. For that reason, the PBoC is unlikely to intervene in the RMB exchange rate by significantly altering its monetary stance (Chart 7). The 3-month interbank lending rate, China’s de facto policy rate, remains low compared with the 2015-16 easing cycle. There is no sign that the PBoC will allow the rate to fall much more. The recent bank reserve requirement ratio (RRR) rate cut provides additional liquidity to the interbank system, but on a net basis liquidity does not seem excessive (Chart 8). Chart 7PBoC Unlikely To Alter Monetary Policy To Intervene RMB Exchange Rate This Year Chart 8No Sign Of Meaningful Monetary Easing From PBoC   Historically, the 3-month interbank lending rate only falls significantly and durably when the PBoC places consecutive RRR rate cuts (in both 2015 and mid-2018) and/or keeps net fund injections positive through the open market for a prolonged period (such as in the 2015/16 easing cycle). Chart 8 suggests the current monetary environment does not indicate that such an extremely easy stance is in place, as PBoC net fund injections through the open market remain negative. Furthermore, neither the 3-month interbank lending rate nor the 10-year government bond yield has fallen below its most recent lows in the third quarter of last year. Bottom Line: While the current environment supports a stronger RMB, the upside potential in RMB appreciation is capped by a modest scale of economic recovery. There is no sign that the PBoC is easing its monetary stance by lowering the policy rate. Investment Conclusions We have been cyclically overweight Chinese stocks on the basis of a bottoming in the economy in the first quarter of 2020, and the likelihood of an eventual trade deal. These two factors were confirmed in the past two weeks. Last week’s small selloffs in both onshore and offshore Chinese equity markets were likely technical corrections and pre-Chinese New Year profit taking, rather than a fundamental shift in investors’ sentiment towards Chinese stocks (Chart 9). We expect Chinese stocks to resume an upward trajectory after the Chinese New Year. Chart 9Small Corrections Following A 14% Gain Since Dec 2019 Chart 10Offshore Stocks Still Showing More Upside Potential Than Onshore China’s economic conditions and corporate earnings should continue to improve, with investable stocks showing more upside potential than their domestic counterparts (Chart 10). As growth supporting measures continue to work their way through the economy and solidify an economic recovery, China’s leadership may pull back the scale of the stimulus in the second half of the year. Therefore, the relative outperformance in both markets may be front loaded and subsequently subside in the second half of 2020. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rVaHxDBUtdew/v0  2   China’s total imports of goods and services in 2019 was $2604 billion, including $168 billion imports from the US. If China was to fully meet the $200 billion target of additional imports from the US, assuming no change to imports from other countries in 2020 from 2019, China’s total imports would jump to $2699 billion in 2020 and $2745 billion in 2021. 3   The eight subcategories of Manufacturing Goods listed in the Annex 6.1 of the Phase One Trade agreement include: Industrial Machinery, Electrical Equipment and Machinery, Pharmaceutical Products, Aircraft, Vehicles, Optical and Medical Instruments, Iron and Steel, Other Manufactured Goods including solar-grade polysilicon and other organic and inorganic chemicals, hardwood lumber, integrated circuits (manufactured in US), and chemical products. 4   WIOD Data, 2016 release and OECD Input-Output Tables (IOTs), 2015 release. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

特別レポート

Highlights Global Corporates: The cyclical backdrop – accommodative monetary policies, improving global growth momentum, moderate inflation and subdued volatility – is supportive for the continued outperformance of global corporate bonds over sovereign debt in 2020. Corporate Bond Valuation: Extending a valuation framework we’ve introduced for US corporates to non-US credit – looking at volatility-adjusted spreads relative to both their own history and the “phase” of the monetary policy cycle - we calculate spread targets for non-US corporates in the euro area, UK and Canada. 2020 Opportunities: Current corporate spread levels are furthest above our targets (i.e. cheap) for US high-yield (most notably for Ba- and Caa-rated credit), UK high-yield and UK investment grade. Spreads are furthest below our targets (i.e. expensive) for euro area high-yield (mostly Ba-rated), US investment grade (all credit tiers) and Canadian investment grade. Feature Chart 1Deviations From Corporate Spread Targets One of our main investment themes for 2020 is that accommodative monetary policies and faster economic growth will delay the peak in the aging global credit cycle, giving investors another year of corporate bond outperformance versus sovereign debt in the developed economies. Returns this year will be nowhere near as robust as in 2019, however, given rich valuation starting points for much of the global corporate universe. Against this backdrop, fixed income investors will have to be more selective in allocations by country, sector and credit quality in order to outperform. To that end, in this Special Report we extend a valuation framework for corporate bond spreads first introduced for US corporates by our sister service, US Bond Strategy, to non-US credit. This methodology looks at spreads on a volatility-adjusted basis, allowing comparison of valuations versus their own history and relative to similar stages of past monetary policy cycles. Chart 1 shows the deviations of current benchmark index option-adjusted spreads (OAS) from spread targets derived from our methodology for different countries (the US, euro area, the UK and Canada) and credit quality tiers (investment grade vs. high-yield). Positive deviations imply current spreads are above the targets derived from our framework – in other words, relatively undervalued - and vice-versa. Returns this year will be nowhere near as robust as in 2019, however, given rich valuation starting points for much of the global corporate universe. Against this backdrop, fixed income investors will have to be more selective in allocations by country, sector and credit quality in order to outperform. The conclusions are that there are still opportunities for additional spread tightening from current levels for lower-rated US high-yield and both UK investment grade and high-yield corporates. At the same time, valuations are looking most stretched for euro area high-yield, US investment grade (all credit tiers) and Canadian investment grade. A Brief Word On The Outlook For Global Corporate Credit In 2020 Chart 2Positive Backdrop For Corporate Bonds The backdrop for global corporate bond markets will remain positive in 2020 for three main reasons: Global monetary policies will remain accommodative. Central bankers are now focusing more on boosting soft growth and low inflation expectations. Real policy interest rates in the US, euro area, UK and Canada are already below estimates of neutral like r-star (Chart 2, top panel), and will likely remain so throughout 2020. In the past, periods of credit market underperformance have occurred when monetary policy was restrictive, with real rates above neutral or government bond yield curves that were very flat or inverted (more on that later). Global growth momentum will improve. Recent data releases (global manufacturing PMIs, sentiment surveys like the global ZEW and German IFO) have shown that the 2019 global industrial downturn was in the process of bottoming out during the 4th quarter of the year. Additional improvement is likely in the coming months, based on the steady gains of the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI). The elevated level of our global LEI diffusion index – measuring the share of individual country LEIs that are rising and which is itself a leading indicator of both the global LEI and corporate bond returns - suggests that additional outperformance of global corporates versus sovereign bonds is likely within the next 12 months (Chart 2, middle panel). Financial conditions are stimulative. Global equities and credit are off to a strong start in 2020, while market volatility is subdued across a variety of asset classes. For example, the US VIX index is now just above its 2019 low, which is consistent with narrow global corporate bond spreads (Chart 2, bottom panel). That low volatility backdrop – supported by market-friendly central bank policies - is helping keep financial conditions easy enough to lift economic growth, while also boosting investor risk appetite for corporate credit. The overall outlook for global corporate credit is still positive and investors should expect another year of corporate bond outperformance versus sovereign debt in the developed economies. Nonetheless, returns will be lower in 2020 than in 2019 due to expensive valuation starting points. As can be seen from Chart 3, global corporate bond spreads are already fairly tight relative to their long-term historical range. Also, outright index yields in many asset classes, like US high-yield, are now at new all-time lows. We interpret this as a sign that the “easy money” has already been made in being generally long corporate credit versus government bonds. Having the right tools to assess the relative values among differing credit markets will be critical to finding the best investment opportunities in this environment. Chart 3Rich Valuation Starting Points In Corporate Credit We can use the breakeven spread as a valuation tool by looking at the percentile rank relative to its own history, effectively showing the percentage of time that the breakeven spread has been lower in the past. Bottom Line: The cyclical backdrop – accommodative monetary policies, improving global growth momentum, moderate inflation and subdued volatility – is supportive for the continued outperformance of global corporate bonds over sovereign debt in 2020. Valuations are likely to be more of a headwind for corporate bond returns, though. Using Breakeven Spreads As A Credit Valuation Tool As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), one of our main valuation tools for credit instruments is the 12-month breakeven spread. That is, the amount of spread widening required for corporate bond returns to break even with a duration-matched position in government bond securities over a 12-month horizon. It can be approximated by dividing the OAS of a bond (or a benchmark bond index) by its duration. More specifically, we can use the breakeven spread as a valuation tool by looking at the percentile rank relative to its own history, effectively showing the percentage of time that the breakeven spread has been lower in the past. We find this valuation tool to be superior to others for two main reasons: (i) using the breakeven spread rather than the average index OAS allows us to control for the changing average duration of the benchmark bond indices; and (ii) the percentile rank is often a better representation of credit spreads than the spread itself.1 BCA Research US Bond Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy have both regularly shown the percentile rankings of US investment grade and high-yield breakeven spreads as part of our discussion of US corporate bond markets. We have never produced such rankings for non-US credit, until now. InCharts 4- 7, we show those percentile ranks relative to history for credit in the US and, for the first time, the euro area, UK, Canada, Japan, Australia and Emerging Markets US dollar denominated corporates. We also provide the breakeven spread historical percentile ranks for each individual credit tier in the Appendix charts on pages 13-16. Chart 4US: Corporate Bond Breakeven Spreads Chart 5Euro Area: Corporate Bond Breakeven Spreads Chart 6UK: Corporate Bond Breakeven Spreads Using these charts, we can gauge which markets offer the best (or worst) level of spread, adjusted by its own volatility and compared to its own history. The most attractive corporate credit spreads on a volatility-adjusted basis are: US high-yield (mostly Caa-rated and B-rated) Japan investment grade (mostly Baa-rated and A-rated) Canada Aaa-rated UK high-yield (excluding financials) Chart 7Other Countries: Corporate Bond Breakeven Spreads The least attractive corporate credit spreads on a volatility-adjusted basis are: US investment grade (all credit tiers) UK Aaa-rated Canada Baa-rated Euro Area high-yield Using this metric, US Caa-rated junk bonds look most “undervalued”, with a volatility-adjusted spread in the upper 20% of all observations. Chart 8 displays the current breakeven spread historical percentile ranks across countries and credit quality, with high-yield markets shown in red. Using this metric, US Caa-rated junk bonds look most “undervalued”, with a volatility-adjusted spread in the upper 20% of all observations. While this chart provides a quick overview of which corporate bond markets are cheap/expensive with respect to their own history, it does not allow for comparisons of the relative cheapness between markets. To do this, we need to find a way to convert the percentile rankings into some measure of a “fair value” credit spread. Chart 8Global Corporate Bond 12-Month Breakeven Spreads By Percentile Rank (%) Using Monetary Policy Cycles To Determine Corporate Spread Targets Our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy have come up with a novel approach for determining spread targets for US corporate credit, based on the breakeven spread percentile rankings.2 Essentially, the stance of US monetary policy, as measured by the slope of the US Treasury curve, is used to predict changes in the US credit cycle, helping to determine “cyclical” spread targets relative to the stance of monetary policy. The first step of this process is to group corporate bond excess returns (vs government debt) into buckets defined by the following “phases” of the US monetary policy cycle, measured by the yield differential between 10-year and 3-year Treasuries: Phase 1: from the end of the previous recession until the slope goes below 50 bps. Phase 2: from the time that the slope crosses below 50 bps until it inverts. Phase 3: from the time that the yield curve first inverts to the start of the next recession. Recessionary periods are not included in these phases, as all corporate credit exhibits the worst returns during those episodes. That is because economic growth and downgrade/default risks, and not the state of monetary policy, are the driving factor behind credit spread moves during recessions. Chart 9 shows the history of the US corporate bond markets broken down into “curve-defined” cycles.3 Dating back to 1974, the earliest date for investment grade bond index data, there have been five such cycles. Chart 9US Corporate Bond Performance And The Yield Curve In Charts 10-12, we show the same phases for the euro area, the UK and Canada, using their own government bond yield curves to determine the phase of the monetary policy cycle in the same fashion as was done for the US.4 Once the phases of the monetary policy cycle are defined, we can then calculate corporate bond excess returns during each phase. Chart 10Euro Area: Corporate Bond Performance And The Yield Curve Chart 11UK: Corporate Bond Performance And The Yield Curve Chart 12Canada: Corporate Bond Performance And The Yield Curve Table 1 shows the average corporate bond annualized excess returns under each phase across every cycle that can be defined with available data. Excess returns tend to be highest in Phase 1, quite low but still positive in Phase 2, and usually turn negative during Phase 3, once the yield curve has inverted. Table 1Corporate Bond Annualized Excess Returns* (%) Under Each Phase Of The Cycle Currently, we are in Phase 2 in the US, euro area and UK, with yield curves that are relatively flat but still positively sloped. Historically, such periods have generated positive excess returns for corporate debt versus duration-matched government bonds, although of far smaller magnitudes compared to Phase 1 periods. Given our expectation that the Fed, ECB and Bank of England will maintain a dovish bias throughout 2020, we expect the no shift from Phase 2 for the US, euro area and the UK that would hurt corporate bond excess returns in those countries. With the Canadian yield curve now slightly inverted, however, Canada is now in Phase 3. This raises the risk that the recent strong outperformance of Canadian investment grade corporate bonds could end if the Bank of Canada does not deliver the monetary easing currently discounted in the Canadian yield curve. How We Determine Corporate Spread Targets Having defined the three phases of the monetary policy cycle, we then re-calculate our corporate bond breakeven spread percentile ranks within each phase. We then back-out a spread target for each credit tier by taking the median 12-month breakeven spread seen in similar monetary policy environments, as determined by the slope of the yield curve.5 Finally, we convert those “median” breakeven spreads into OAS targets using the current benchmark index duration and credit rating distribution. We are assuming that a reasonable spread target for any corporate bond market is determined by adjusting for both spread volatility AND the monetary policy cycle. So, essentially, we are assuming that a reasonable spread target for any corporate bond market is determined by adjusting for both spread volatility AND the monetary policy cycle. Charts 13-16 show the index OAS and their respective targets for the US (both investment grade and high-yield), euro area (both investment grade and high-yield), the UK (both investment grade and high-yield excluding financials), and Canada (only investment grade). Further, the spread targets for each individual credit tier are provided in the Appendix on pages 17-19. Chart 13US: Corporate Bond Spread Targets Chart 14Euro Area: Corporate Bond Spread Targets Chart 15UK: Corporate Bond Spread Targets Chart 16Canada: Corporate Bond Spread Targets For example, our spread target for US B-rated high-yield is 227bps, which is 80bps below the current index OAS. From the charts, we can make the following conclusions about the relative attractiveness of current spread levels: The largest deviations from our spread target (i.e. potentially most undervalued) are: US high-yield (mostly Caa-rated and B-rated) UK high-yield (excluding financials) The lowest deviations from our spread target (i.e. potentially most overvalued) are: Euro Area high-yield (mostly Ba-rated) Canada investment grade US investment grade (all credit tiers) This framework is an interesting way to derive corporate bond value, by adjusting for both the volatility and monetary policy backdrop. Of course, there are other factors that are more difficult to quantify that can keep spreads too tight or too wide versus these fair value levels, like investor risk tolerance or risk premia for political uncertainty. In terms of factors that are quantifiable, however, this spread target methodology is a useful way to get a sense of the richness or cheapness of global corporate debt. In terms of factors that are quantifiable, however, this spread target methodology is a useful way to get a sense of the richness or cheapness of global corporate debt. We will regularly update these targets in future BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy reports. Bottom Line: Current corporate spread levels are furthest above our targets (i.e. cheap) for US high-yield (most notably for Ba- and Caa-rated credit), UK high-yield and UK investment grade. Spreads are furthest below our targets (i.e. expensive) for euro area high-yield (mostly Ba-rated), US investment grade (all credit tiers) and Canadian investment grade.   Jeremie Peloso Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 This is because credit spreads often tighten to very low levels and then remain tight for an extended period. Thus, by showing the percentage of time that a given spread has been tighter than its current level, the percentile rank gives a better sense of this pattern than the actual spread. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For US Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Note that the Treasury curve used for this analysis is the spread between the 10-year Treasury and the 3-year Treasury yield. The more widely-followed 2-year Treasury was not used as there was more historical data available for the 3-year maturity. 4 Note that there are fewer cycles to analyze for these countries due to the shorter available history of corporate bond market data outside the US. 5 For more details on the spread targets please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Chart 1AUS: Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads Chart 1BUS: High-Yield Breakeven Spreads Chart 1CEuro Area: Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads By Credit Tiers Chart 1DEuro Area: High-Yield Breakeven Spreads By Credit Tiers Chart 1EUK: Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads Chart 1FCanada: Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads Chart 1GJapan: Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads Chart 2AUS: Investment Grade Spread Targets Chart 2BUS: High-Yield Spread Targets Chart 2CEuro Area: Investment Grade Spread Targets By Credit Tiers Chart 2DEuro Area: High-Yield Spread Targets By Credit Tiers Chart 2EUK: Investment Grade Spread Targets By Credit Tiers Chart 2FCanada: Investment Grade Spread Targets By Credit Tiers