インフレーション/デフレーション

Highlights Did October's equity rout ... : Before bouncing back in its final two sessions, October was the S&P 500's 12th-worst month of the postwar era. ... represent a watershed for financial markets?: Shaken investors have begun asking if the equity bull market is finally over, and if Treasury yields are in the process of making their cyclical highs. Not according to the macro backdrop, which still supports risk assets, ... : There is no recession in sight. An earnings contraction sufficient to induce an equity bear market, or a meaningful pickup in defaults, isn't imminent. ... or our rates checklist, which still supports a bearish take: Inflation may be taking its time, but nothing on our rates checklist calls for increasing duration in a bond portfolio. Feature U.S. equity investors were relieved to close the books on October, which was a notably bad month for the S&P 500. Its 7% loss was good for 33rd-worst in the postwar record books, and just missed being a -2 standard-deviation event. Had the month ended before its robust bounce in the final two sessions, it would have been the 12th-worst, two-and-a-half standard deviations below the mean (Chart 1). At its lowest point, a half-hour before the October 29th close, the index was down a whopping 10.5% for the month. Chart 1Standing Out From The Crowd The price action understandably unnerved investors. Monthly declines of this magnitude are almost always associated with bear markets; just seven of the thirty-two larger declines occurred outside of bear markets, two of them by the skin of their teeth. Decomposing the equity returns into changes in earnings estimates and changes in forward multiples shows that sharp multiple contraction is a feature of nearly every bad month (Table 1). Table 1Worst Postwar Monthly Declines It is estimate growth - a robust 0.8% - that makes October something of an outlier among the S&P 500's worst months, and we expect growing forward earnings will keep the S&P out of a bear market for another year, especially now that its multiple is more than 15% off its peak. Earnings growth should also keep spread product out of trouble for the time being. Although we recommend no more than an equal weight in corporate bonds, modest spread widening has boosted their total return prospects. Too Legit To Quit We expect that earnings will keep growing because they rarely contract in a meaningful way outside of recessions. With monetary accommodation likely reinforcing certain fiscal stimulus over the coming year, it is hard to see how the next U.S. recession will occur before 2020. As our U.S. bond strategists pointed out last week, the ongoing market implications of last month's equity decline depend on what precipitated it.1 Was it a simple correction sparked by a valuation reset, or has the market begun to sniff out an economic slowdown? With forward four-quarter earnings growing by an annualized 9.5% in October, it appears that the selloff was nothing more than a valuation reset. As our bond strategists point out, the picture was much different when the S&P 500 corrected in the summer of 2015 and the winter of 2015-16. Those corrections unfolded against the backdrop of a global manufacturing recession (Chart 2). The U.S. economy is not bulletproof, and slowing global growth and tighter financial conditions will eventually bring it to heel, but we think the next recession is still too far down the line for markets to begin selling off in advance of it. Chart 2The Fundamentals Are Much Improved From 2015-16 Checking In With Our Rates Checklist If macro conditions really did change for the worse last month, our bearish rates view may no longer apply, and we would have to rethink our underweight Treasury and below-benchmark-duration calls. We introduced our rates checklist in September to identify and track the key series that could trigger a view change. We review it now to see if perceptions of the Fed, inflation measures, labor-market developments, or financial-market excesses suggest that rates may be at a turning point (Table 2). Table 2Rates View Checklist Market Perceptions Of The Fed We continue to scratch our head over markets' refusal to take the FOMC's terminal-rate projections seriously. The overnight index swap (OIS) curves are calling for a measly two hikes over the next 12 months ... and the next 18 months ... and the next 24 as well (Chart 3). That would leave the terminal fed funds rate for this tightening cycle at a mere 2.75%. The median projection among FOMC voters is 3 1/8%, and we're looking for anywhere from 3.5 to 4%. We will have to start backing off once the gap between our expectations and the market's expectations begins to close, but it's only widened since we established the checklist. Chart 3Stubbornly Staying Behind The Curve We get to our 3.5-4% estimate on the premise that measured inflation will pick up enough to force the Fed to keep hiking beyond its own expectations in a bid to keep inflation from getting out of hand. Client meetings suggest that investors find our inflation call hard to swallow. Some eye-rolling when we mention the Phillips Curve is understandable, but our view is ultimately based on capacity constraints. Tepid investment in the years following the crisis have left the economy's productive potential ill-suited to meet the surge in aggregate demand provoked by tax cuts and fiscal stimulus. An inverted curve would indicate that the bond market has begun to anticipate that rate hikes will soon stifle the economy's momentum. For all the hand-wringing in the media about flattening over the 2-year/10-year segment of the curve, our preferred 3-month/10-year measure remains nowhere near inverting (Chart 4). The yield curve tends to invert way ahead of a recession, so we would look for other indicators to corroborate its message before we changed our big-picture take. We also note that a bear flattening would support below-benchmark-duration positioning. Chart 4The Fed Hasn't Gone Too Far Yet Bottom Line: The bond market remains well behind the Fed, and the Fed may well wind up behind the economy. A broad repricing of the Treasury curve awaits. Inflation Measures Inflation's slow creep has gotten a little slower since we initially rolled out the checklist. Headline PCE and CPI have hooked downward, though their uptrends remain intact (Chart 5). Looking forward, continued tightening of the output gap should boost inflation (Chart 6), though long-term expectations have stalled for now (Chart 7). Inflation is the only section of the checklist that has backslid since September, but not by nearly enough to justify checking any of the boxes. Chart 5Two Steps Forward, One Step Back Chart 6An Economy Running Hot ... Chart 7... Will Eventually Produce Inflation Labor Market Indicators The first item on our list of labor-market indicators is the unemployment gap, the difference between the unemployment rate and NAIRU. NAIRU (the Non-Accelerating-Inflation Rate of Unemployment), is the estimate of the lowest sustainable unemployment rate. The actual rate fell below NAIRU in early 2017, and the gap has been getting steadily more negative ever since (Chart 8, top panel). A negative gap is associated with higher compensation, but the wage response has been muted so far (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 8Supply And Demand Friday's October employment report pointed to further downward pressure on the unemployment gap. The three-month moving average of net payroll additions came in at 218,000, keeping job growth for the last seven years at around 200,000/month (Chart 9). If the trend were to continue for another twelve months, and population growth and the labor force participation rate (Chart 10, middle panel) were to remain constant, the Atlanta Fed Jobs Calculator2 projects that the unemployment rate will fall to 3%. Chart 9A Steady, Job-Rich Recovery Chart 10As 'Hidden' Unemployment Shrinks ... We understand investors' impatience with the Phillips Curve. We admit to being surprised that compensation growth hasn't shown more life to this point (Chart 11). Just because wage gains have been sluggish out of the gate, however, doesn't mean they won't speed up in the future. Ancillary indicators like the broader definition of unemployment that includes discouraged and involuntary part-time workers (Chart 10, top panel), and the ratio of workers voluntarily leaving their jobs (Chart 10, bottom panel), reinforce the unemployment rate's signal that the labor market is on its way to becoming as tight as a drum. Chart 11... Wages Should Rise Broader Indications Of Instability The final three items on our checklist are meant to flag factors that could bump the Fed off its gradual rate-hiking pace. Overheating would encourage the Fed to move more quickly, but there is nothing in the main cyclical elements of the economy that stirs concern (Chart 12). The Fed might move faster if its third mandate - preserving financial stability - dictated it, but the Fed has been quiet about financial-sector imbalances since Governor Brainard expressed concern about corporate lending two months ago. Finally, the Fed is not oblivious to economic strain in the rest of the world, but conditions in even the most vulnerable emerging markets are far from triggering some sort of "EM put." Chart 12No Sign Of Overheating Yet Investment Implications We remain constructive on the economy and markets in the absence of a near-term catalyst to cut off the expansion, the credit cycle and/or the equity bull market. Like our bond strategists, we simply think the U.S. economy is too healthy to merit revising our bearish view on rates. The implication for investors with a balanced mandate is to continue to underweight Treasuries. Within fixed-income portfolios, investors should continue to maintain below-benchmark duration. No investment stance is forever, and we are counting on our checklist to help keep us alert to an approaching inflection point in rates, but the coast is clear for now. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "What Kind Of Correction Is This?," published October 30, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/calculator.aspx?panel=1

Highlights Four high conviction long-term investment views: The Italy versus Spain sovereign yield spread will compress. The yen will go up. The yield shortfall on German bunds versus U.S. T-bonds will compress. Swedish real estate prices will face strong headwinds. Chart of the WeekThe Italy Versus Spain Sovereign Yield Spread Is At An All-Time Wide Feature This week's report focusses on 'must-read' recent commentaries from two giants of central banking: Mario Draghi, President of the ECB 2011-19; and Paul Volcker, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve 1979-87. In the case of Paul Volcker, the term giant is not just metaphorical but also literal, as he stands six feet seven inches tall! The Volcker piece is the more profound of the two commentaries because it shatters a shibboleth of monetary policy - the 2 percent inflation target. But we will begin with Draghi. Draghi Reveals Some Home Truths The first must-read is the transcript of the latest ECB press conference.1 Draghi's remarks provide valuable insights into the direction of euro area monetary policy, the impact on sovereign yield spreads, and a view on the budget spat between the EU and Draghi's country of origin, Italy. Despite the recent wobble in the euro area economy, the ECB remains on course to end QE and gradually raise ultra-accommodative interest rates. Although Draghi acknowledged the deceleration in euro area growth in the third quarter to 0.6 percent (annualised rate), he attributed some of it to "country-specific idiosyncratic phenomena", for example the car sector in Germany having to meet new standards on emissions. Another drag came from exports, but Draghi pointed out that "the emerging market situation seems to have stabilised". Meanwhile, euro area consumption trends remain pretty strong, buoyed by expanding employment and rising wages. Negotiated wages keep on going up. "This is a very comforting sign because it means that wage increases, which have been quite significant in some core countries, are going to stay". Most significantly, "the labour market keeps on expanding but it is progressively getting tighter and tighter, and capacity utilisation rates in most countries are pretty high". Draghi went on to correct a common myth. The ECB's QE (and its end) does not in itself impact euro area sovereign credit spreads, and he gave a powerful illustration. Although the ECB has not bought Greek bonds but has bought Italian bonds, the spread between Greece and Italy has narrowed sharply (Chart I-2). Hence, the end of QE does not imply widening spreads. "We would expect spreads to depend only on perceptions of net issuance... if countries were having the same net issuance, you wouldn't see any change in spreads". Chart I-2The ECB Hasn't Bought Greek Bonds, Yet The Greece Versus Italy Sovereign Spread Has Narrowed Draghi also provided an important insight on the recent low-level game of chicken between EU institutions and the Italian government over its 2019 budget. Draghi explained that for Italy, escalating the game of chicken risks higher interest rates through the bond market's perceptions for net issuance. But paradoxically, this reduces the room to expand the budget. The weakened capital position of Italian banks from lower bond prices (Chart I-3) combined with deteriorating funding conditions squeezes bank credit, economic growth, and thereby the very space that is needed for fiscal expansion. The latest bank credit data show signs of this danger (Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Capital Position Of Italian Banks Is Weak... Chart I-4...And Italian Bank Credit Growth Has Faltered Meanwhile, for the EU, escalating the game of chicken risks financial market contagion to other so-called 'non-core' countries such as Spain. But so far, the sovereign yield spreads of the non-core countries indicate few signs of such danger (Chart I-5). Chart I-5No Major Contagion From Italy To Other Non-Core Countries... Yet Hence, at this stage in the low-level game of chicken, the onus to budge falls more on Italy than on the EU. Opining on his country of origin, Draghi says that in the end "it is just good common sense and perception of what is good for the country and the interests of the Italian people that will lead parties to converge to some sort of agreement". On the basis of Draghi's confidence, the long-term investment opportunity is the Italy versus Spain sovereign 10-year yield spread (Chart of the Week). At almost 200 bps, the spread is at its all-time widest, and incongruous with the vanishing gap between the non-performing loans ratios in Italy and Spain (Chart I-6). Still, for those interested in timing, our tactical stance is to wait for the 10-year BTP yield to move closer to 3 percent before buying Italian assets. Chart I-6Spain Fixed Its Banks In 2013, Italy Is Fixing Its Banks Now What's Wrong With The 2 Percent Inflation Target The second, and more profound, must-read is a Bloomberg op-ed by Paul Volcker, What's Wrong With The 2 Percent Inflation Target.2 To be fair, we have an ulterior motive as the Volcker op-ed repeats almost word for word a Special Report that we penned three years ago, Mission Impossible: 2 Percent Inflation, and its subsequent update last year.3 Of course, we are not implying that Volcker based his piece on ours. Rather that it is a great honour that a central banking colossus such as Volcker would endorse every heterodox argument that we made. The 2 percent inflation target is a relatively recent phenomenon, whose origin can be traced back to New Zealand's Reserve Bank Act of 1989 (Chart I-7). But Volcker's (and our) overarching point is that in trying to manage an economy, "false precision can lead to dangerous policies". Price stability is that state in which expected changes in the general price level do not effectively alter business or household decisions (Chart I-8). However, it is ill-advised to define that state with a point target, such as 2 percent (Chart I-9). Chart I-7The 2 Percent Inflation Target Was Born In New Zealand In 1989 Chart I-8Excluding Wars, Britain Had Price Stability For Centuries Chart I-9Switzerland And Japan Have Had Price Stability For Decades Despite Not Achieving 2 Percent Inflation To paraphrase Volcker, a 2 percent target, or limit, is not in the textbooks; there is no theoretical justification; it is difficult to be both a target and a limit at the same time; and no price index can capture, down to a tenth or a quarter of a percent, the real change in consumer prices. Yet with economic growth robust and unemployment rates near historic lows, concerns are being voiced that consumer prices are growing too slowly - just because they are a quarter percent or so below the 2 percent target! Could that be a signal to delay restraint? That would be nonsense. The seeming numerical precision of 2 percent suggests that it is possible to fine-tune policy with more flexible targeting as conditions change. Unfortunately, the tools of monetary and fiscal policy simply do not permit that degree of precision. Another argument runs, let's keep a little inflation - even in a recession - as a kind of safeguard against deflation, and a backdoor way of keeping real interest rates negative. Borrowers will be enticed to borrow at zero or low interest rates, to invest before prices rise further. However, all these arguments seem to have little empirical support. Actual deflation is rare, yet the exaggerated fear of it can lead to policies that inadvertently increase the risk. Deflation is a threat posed by a critical breakdown of the financial system, so the real danger comes from encouraging extreme speculation and risk taking, in effect standing by while bubbles and excesses threaten financial markets (Chart 10). Previously, we wrote that "the single minded pursuit of 2 percent inflation creates risks and instabilities". Volcker issues a strikingly similar warning: "Ironically, the easy money, striving for a little inflation, as a means of forestalling deflation, could, in the end, be what brings it about". Chart I-10The Real Danger Comes From Bubbles And Financial Market Excesses Hence, the central banks whose interest rates remain at the zero bound - the BoJ, ECB, and Riksbank - are the ones whose policy is most dangerous and incongruous with their economic fundamentals. On this premise we hold three high conviction multi-year investment views: The yen will go up. The yield shortfall on German bunds versus U.S. T-bonds will compress. Swedish real estate prices will face strong headwinds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2018/html/ecb.is181025.en.html. 2 https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-24/what-s-wrong-with-the-2-percent-inflation-target 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation' August 20, 2015 and Weekly Report 'Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation An Update' July 20, 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* Long Eurostoxx50 versus Nikkei225 achieved its 3.5% profit target and is now closed. There are no trades this week, leaving three open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model RECOMMENDATIONS Asset Allocation Equity Regional And Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond And Interest Rate Allocation Currency And Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

特別レポート

The Great Recession and financial crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policymakers and investors for years to come. The roots of the crisis are already well known. The first of a two-part series looks forward by examining the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. First, the financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. Debt and market liquidity are two key concerns. Corporate leverage will not cause the next recession. Nonetheless, when one does occur, corporate spreads in the U.S. and (to a lesser extent) the Eurozone will widen by more for any given degree of recession. This reflects a low interest coverage ratio, poor market liquidity, the downward trend in credit quality and covenant erosion. Second, the shock of the Great Recession and its aftermath appears to have affected the relationship between economic slack and inflation. Firms have been extra reluctant to grant wage gains. However, we argue that the "shell shock" effect will wane. The fact that inflation has been depressed for so long may actually cultivate the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside in the coming years. Investors should hold inflation-protection in the inflation swaps market, or by overweighting inflation-linked bonds versus conventional issues. Third, the events of the last decade have left a lasting impression on monetary policymakers. They will err on the side of allowing the economy to overheat and inflation to modestly overshoot the target in the major economies, despite signs of financial froth. The Fed will respond only with a lag to the current fiscally-driven surge in U.S. growth, leading to a boom/bust economic scenario. Central bankers will have no trouble employing unorthodox policies again in the future, and will be willing to push the boundaries even further during the next recession. Expect aggressive manipulation of the long-end of the yield curve when the time arrives to ease policy. We may also observe more coordination between monetary and fiscal policies. Fourth, global bond yields fell to unprecedented levels, reflecting both structural and cyclical headwinds to demand growth. A dismal productivity performance is another culprit. Productivity growth is poised to recover to some extent, while some of the growth headwinds have reached an inflection point. We do not expect nominal bond yields to return to pre-Lehman norms, and yields could even fall back to previous lows in the case of a recession. Nonetheless, we expect a yield pattern of higher lows and higher highs over the coming business cycles. The 10-year anniversary of the Lehman shock this autumn sparked an avalanche of analysis on the events and underlying causes of the Great Recession and financial crisis. It is a woeful story of greed, a classic bubble, inadequate regulation, new-fangled financial instruments, and a globalized financial system that spread the shock around the world. The crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policymakers and investors for many years to come. The roots of the crisis are well known, so we will not spend any time going over well-trodden ground. Rather, this Special Report looks forward by examining the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. In Part I, we cover the corporate bond market, the inflation outlook, central bank policymaking and equilibrium bond yields. Part II will look at the debt overhang, systemic risk in the financial sector, asset correlations, the cult of equity and the rise of populism. While not an exhaustive list, we believe these are the key areas of structural change. (1) Corporate Bond Market: Leverage And Downgrade Risk The financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. Debt and market liquidity are two key concerns. An extraordinarily long period of extremely low interest rates was too much for corporate CEOs to pass up. However, because the durability of the economic recovery was so uncertain, it seemed more attractive to hand over the borrowed cash to shareholders than to use it to aggressively expand productive capacity. The ongoing equity bull market rewarded CEOs for the financial engineering, serving to create a self-reinforcing feedback loop. And so far, corporate bondholders have not policed this activity. The result is that the U.S. corporate bond market has grown in leaps and bounds since 2009 (Chart II-1A and Chart II-1B). The average duration of the Bloomberg Barclays index has also risen as firms locked in attractive financing rates. The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the Eurozone. Chart II-1AU.S. BBB-Rated Share Rising... Chart II-1B...Same In The Eurozone Balance sheet health is obviously not the key driver of corporate bond relative returns at the moment. Nonetheless, investors will begin to worry about the growth outlook if interest rates continue to rise. The U.S. national accounts data suggest that interest coverage remains relatively healthy, but this includes large companies such as some of the FAANGs that have little debt and a lot of cash. The national accounts data are unrepresentative of the companies that are included in the Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond index, which are heavy debt issuers. To gain a clearer picture, we calculated a bottom-up Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for a sample of U.S. companies that provides a sector and credit-quality composition that roughly matches the Bloomberg Barclay's index. The CHM is the composite of six critical financial ratios. Chart II-2 highlights that the investment-grade (IG) CHM has improved over the past two years due to the profitability sub-components. However, the debt/equity ratio has been in a steep uptrend. Interest coverage does not appear alarming by historical standards at the moment, but one can argue that it should be much higher given the extremely low average coupon on corporate bonds, and given that profit margins are extraordinarily high in the U.S. The rapid accumulation of debt has overwhelmed these other factors. Evidence of rising leverage is broadly based across sectors and ratings. Chart II-2U.S. IG Corporate Health Unfortunately, the profit tailwind won't last forever. At some point, earnings growth will stall and this cycle's debt accumulation will start to bite in the context of rising interest rates. To gauge the risk, we estimate the change in the interest coverage ratio over the next three years for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt.1 For our universe of Investment-grade U.S. companies, the interest coverage ratio would drop from a little over 7 to under 6, which is close to the lows of the Great Recession (denoted as "x" in Chart II-3). Of course, the decline in interest coverage will be much worse if the Fed steps too far and monetary tightening sparks a recession. The "o" in Chart II-3 denotes the combination of a 100 basis-point interest rate shock and a mild recession in which the S&P 500 suffers a 25% peak-to-trough decline in EPS. The overall interest coverage ratio plunges close to all-time lows at 4½. Chart II-3Interest Coverage To Plunge... These simulations imply that, for any given size of recession, the next economic downturn will have a larger negative impact on corporate health than in the past. Rating agencies have undertaken some downgrading related to shareholder-friendly activity, but downgrades will proliferate when the agencies realize that the economy is turning and the profit boom is over (Chart II-4). Banks will belatedly tighten lending standards, adding to funding pressure for the corporate sector. Chart II-4...And Ratings To Be Slashed Fallen Angels The potential for a large wave of fallen angels means that downgrade activity will be particularly painful for corporate bond investors. The surge in lower-quality issuance has led to a downward trend in the average credit rating and has significantly raised the size of the BBB-rated bonds relative to the IG index and relative to the broader universe of corporate bonds including high yield (Chart II-5, and Chart II-1A).2 The downward trend in credit quality predates Lehman, but events since the Great Recession have likely reinforced the trend. Chart II-5Lower Ratings And Longer Duration Studies show that bonds that get downgraded into junk status can perform well for a period thereafter, suggesting that investors holding a fallen angel should not necessarily sell immediately. Nonetheless, the process of transitioning from investment-grade to high-yield involves return underperformance as the spread widens. Poor market liquidity and covenant erosion will intensify pressure for corporate spreads to widen when the bear market arrives. Market turnover has decreased substantially since the pre-Lehman years, especially for IG (Chart II-6). The poor liquidity backdrop appears to be structural, reflecting regulation that has curtailed banks' market-making activity and prop trading, among other factors. Chart II-6Poor Market Liquidity The Eurozone corporate bond market has also seen rapid growth and a deterioration in the average credit rating. Liquidity is an issue there as well. That said, the Eurozone corporate sector is less advanced in the leverage cycle than the U.S. Interest coverage ratios will fall during the next recession, but this will be concentrated among foreign issuers - domestic issuers are much less at risk to rising interest rates and/or an economic downturn.3 Bottom Line: Corporate leverage will not cause the next recession. Nonetheless, when one does occur, corporate spreads in the U.S. and (to a lesser extent) Eurozone will widen by more for any given degree of recession. Current spreads do not compensate for this risk. (2) Inflation Undershoot Breeds Overshoot Inflation in the U.S. and other developed economies has been sticky since the financial crisis. First, inflation did not fall as much in the recession and early years of the recovery as many had predicted, despite the worst economic contraction in the post-war period. Subsequently, central banks have had trouble raising inflation back to target. In the U.S., core PCE inflation has only recently returned to 2%. Several structural factors have been blamed, but continuing tepid wage growth in the face of a very tight labor market raises the possibility that the inflation-generating process has been fundamentally altered by the Great Recession. In other words, the relationship between slack in the labor market (or market for goods and services) and inflation has changed. In theory, inflation should rise when the economy's output is above its potential level or when the unemployment rate is below its full-employment level. Inflation should fall when the reverse is true. This means that the change (not the level) in inflation should be positively correlated with the level of the output gap or the labor market gap. Chart II-7 presents the change in U.S. core inflation with the output gap. Although inflation appears to have become less responsive to shifts in the output gap after 1990, it has been particularly insensitive in the post-Lehman period. Chart II-7The U.S. Phillips Curve: RIP? One reason may be that the business sector was shell-shocked by the Great Recession and financial crisis to such an extent that business leaders have been more reluctant to grant wage gains than in past cycles. Equally-unnerved workers felt lucky just to have a job, and have been less willing to demand raises. Dampened inflation expectations meant that low actual inflation became self-reinforcing. We have some sympathy with this view. Long-term inflation expectations have been sticky at levels that are inconsistent with the major central banks meeting their inflation targets over the long term. This suggests that people believe that central banks lack the tools necessary to overwhelm the deflationary forces. The lesson for investors and policymakers is that, while unorthodox monetary policies helped to limit the downside for inflation and inflation expectations during and just after the recession, these policies have had limited success in reversing even the modest decline that did occur. That said, readers should keep in mind a few important points: One should not expect inflation to rise much until economies break through their non-inflationary limits. The major advanced economies have only recently reached that point to varying degrees; Inflation lags the business cycle (Chart II-8). This is especially the case in long 'slow burn' economic expansions, as we have demonstrated in previous research; and The historical relationship between inflation and economic slack has been non-linear. As shown in Chart II-9, U.S. inflation has tended to accelerate quickly when unemployment drops below 4½%. Chart II-8U.S. Inflation Lags The Cycle Chart II-9A Kinked Phillips Curve Shell Shock Is Fading We believe that the "shell shock" effect of the Great Recession on inflation will wane over time. Indeed, my colleague Peter Berezin has made the case that the fact that inflation has been depressed for so long actually cultivates the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside in the coming years.4 Central bankers have been alarmed by the economic and financial events of the last decade. They also cast a wary eye on Japan's inability to generate inflation even in the face of massive and prolonged monetary stimulus. Policymakers at the FOMC are determined to boost inflation and inflation expectations before the next economic downturn strikes. They are also willing to not only tolerate, but actively encourage, an overshoot of the 2% inflation target in order to ensure that long-term inflation expectations return "sustainably" to a level consistent with meeting the 2% target over the long term. In other words, the Fed is going to err on the side of too much stimulus rather than too little. This is an important legacy of the last recession (see below). Meanwhile, other structural explanations for low inflation are less powerful than many believe. For example, globalization has leveled off and rising tariff and non-tariff barriers will hinder important global supply chains. Our research also suggests that the rising industrial use of robots and the e-commerce effect on retail prices have had only a small depressing effect on U.S. inflation. Bottom Line: The Phillips curve relationship has probably not changed in a permanent way since Lehman went down. It is quite flat when the labor market is not far away from full employment, but the relationship is probably non-linear. As the unemployment rate drops further, the business sector will have no choice but to lift wages as labor becomes increasingly scarce. The kinked nature of the Phillips curve augments the odds that the Fed will eventually find itself behind the curve, and inflation will rise more than the market is expecting. The same arguments apply to the Bank of England and possibly even the European Central Bank. Gold offers some protection against inflation risk, but the precious metal is still quite expensive in real terms. Investors would be better off simply buying inflation-protection in the inflation swaps market or overweighting inflation-linked bonds over conventional issues. (3) Monetary Policy: Destined To Fight The Last War There are several reasons to believe that the shocking events of the crisis and its aftermath have left a lasting impression on monetary policymakers. Several factors suggest that they will err on the side of allowing the economy to overheat and inflation to modestly overshoot the target: Inflation Persistence: As discussed above, there is a greater awareness that it is difficult to lift both actual inflation and inflation expectations once they have fallen. Some FOMC members believe that long-term inflation expectations are still too low to be consistent with the Fed meeting its 2% inflation target over the long term. A modest inflation overshoot in this cycle would be beneficial, according to this view, in the sense that it would boost inflation expectations and thereby raise the probability that the FOMC will indeed meet its goals over the long term. It might also encourage some discouraged workers to re-enter the labor market. Some policymakers also believe that the Fed is not taking much of a risk by pushing the economy hard, because the Phillips curve is so flat. Zero Bound: Low inflation expectations, among other factors, have combined to dramatically reduce the level of so-called r-star - the short-term rate of interest that is neither accommodative nor restrictive in terms of growth and inflation. R-star is thought to be rising now, at least for the U.S., but it is probably still low by historical standards across the major economies. This increases the risk that policy rates will again hit the lower bound during the next recession, making it difficult for central banks to engineer a real policy rate that is low enough to generate faster growth.5 Fighting the Last War: Memories of the crisis linger in the minds of policymakers. The global economy came dangerously close to a replay of the Great Depression, and policymakers want to ensure that it never happens again. Some monetary officials have argued that a risk-based approach means that it is better to take some inflation risks to limit the possibility of making a deflationary policy mistake down the road. Fears that the major economies are now more vulnerable to deflationary shocks seem destined to keep central banks too-easy-for-too-long. Central bankers will also be quicker and more aggressive in responding when negative shocks arrive in the future. This applies more to the U.S., the U.K. and Japan than the European Central Bank, but even for the latter there has been a clear change in the monetary committee's reaction function since Mario Draghi took over the reins. Financial Stability Concerns Policymakers are also more concerned about financial stability. Pre-crisis, the consensus among the monetary elite was that financial stability should play second fiddle to the inflation target. It was felt that central banks should focus on the latter, and pay attention to signs of financial froth only when they affect the inflation outlook. In practice, this meant paying only lip service to financial excess until it was too late. It was difficult to justify rate increases when inflation was not threatening. It was thought that macro-prudential regulation on its own was enough to contain financial excesses. Today, policymakers see financial stability as playing a key role in meeting the inflation target. It is abundantly clear that a burst bubble can be highly deflationary. Some policymakers still believe that aggressive macro-prudential policies can be effective in directly targeting financial excesses. However, others feel there is no substitute for higher interest rates; as ex-Governor Jeremy Stein stated, interest rates get "in all the cracks". Moreover, the Fed does not regulate the shadow banking sector. The Fed is thus balancing concerns over signs of financial froth against the zero-bound problem and fears of the next deflationary shock. We believe that the latter will dominate their policy choices, because it will still be difficult to justify rate hikes to the public when there is no obvious inflation problem. In the U.S., this implies that the economic risks are skewed toward a boom/bust scenario in which the FOMC is slow to respond to a fiscally-driven late cycle mini-boom. Inflation and inflation expectations react with a lag, but a subsequent acceleration in both forces the Fed to aggressively choke off growth. Policy Toolkit Central bankers will be quite willing to employ their new-found policy tools again in the next recession. The new toolbox includes asset purchases, aggressive forms of forward guidance, negative interest rates, and low-cost direct lending to banks and non-banks in some countries. Policymakers generally view these tools as being at least somewhat effective, although some have argued that the costs of using negative interest rates have outweighed the benefits in Europe and Japan. The debate on how to deal with the zero-bound problem in the U.S. has focused on lifting r-star, including raising the inflation target, adopting a price level target, policies to boost productivity, and traditional fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, ex-Fed Chair Yellen's comments at the Jackson Hole conference in 2016 underscored that it will be more of the same in the event that the zero bound is again reached - quantitative easing and forward guidance.6 No doubt, the major central banks will rely heavily on both of these tools in order to manipulate yields far out the curve. Forward guidance may be threshold-based. For example, policymakers could promise to keep the policy rate frozen until unemployment or inflation reaches a given level. Now that central bankers have crossed the line into unorthodox monetary policy and inflation did not surge, future policymakers will be willing to stretch the boundaries even further in the event of a recession. For example, they may consider price-level targeting, which would institutionalize inflation overshoots to make up for past inflation undershoots. It is also possible that we will observe more coordination between monetary and fiscal policies in the next recession. The combination of fiscal stimulus and a cap on bond yields would be highly stimulative in theory, in part by driving the currency lower. Japan has gone half way in this direction by implementing a yield curve control (YCC) policy. However, it has failed so far to provide any meaningful fiscal stimulus since the yield cap has been in place. It also appears likely that central bank balance sheets will not return to levels as a percent of GDP that existed before the crisis. An abundance of bank deposits at the central bank will help to satisfy a structural increase in the demand for cash-like risk-free assets. Maintaining a bloated balance sheet will also allow central banks to provide substantial amounts of reverse repos (RRPs) into the market, which should improve the functioning of money markets that have been impaired to some degree by regulation. We do not expect that a structural increase in central bank balance sheets will have any material lasting impact on asset prices or inflation. We believe that inflation will surprise on the upside, but not because central banks will continue to hold significant amounts of government bonds on their balance sheets over the medium term. Bottom Line: The implication is that the monetary authorities will have a greater tolerance for an overshoot of the inflation target than in the past. The Fed will respond only with a lag to the fiscally-driven surge in U.S. growth, leading to a boom/bust economic scenario. During the next recession, policymakers will rely heavily on quantitative easing and forward guidance to manipulate the yield curve (after the policy rate reaches the lower bound). (4) Bond Prices: Structural Factors Turning Less Bullish Perhaps the most dramatic and lasting impact of the GFC has been evident in the global bond market. Government yields fell to levels never before observed across the developed countries and have remained extremely depressed, even as the expansion matured and economic slack was gradually absorbed. Real government bond yields are still negative even at the medium and long parts of the curve in the Eurozone and Japan (Chart II-10). It is tempting to conclude that there has been a permanent shift down in global bond yields. Chart II-10Real Yields Still Depressed Equilibrium bond yields are tied to the supply side of the economy. Potential GDP growth is the sum of trend productivity growth and the pace of expansion of the labor force. Equilibrium bond yields may fall below the potential growth rate for extended periods to the extent that aggregate demand faces persistent headwinds. The headwinds in place over the past decade include fiscal austerity, demographics, household deleveraging, increased regulation and lingering problems in the banking sector that limited the expansion of credit, among others. These headwinds either affect the desire to save or the desire to invest, the interplay of which affects equilibrium bond yields. Some of these economic headwinds predate 2007, but the financial crisis reinforced the desire to save more and invest less. Space limitations prevent a full review of the forces that depressed bond yields, but a summary is contained in Appendix 1 and we encourage interested readers to see our 2017 Special Report for full details.7 The Great Supply-Side Shortfall Falling potential output growth in the major advanced economies also helped to drag down equilibrium bond yields. The pace of expansion in the global labor force has plunged from 1¾% in 2005, to under 1% today (Chart II-11). The labor force has peaked in absolute terms in the G7, and is already shrinking in China. Chart II-11Slower Labor Force Expansion... Productivity growth took a dramatic turn for the worst after 2007 (Chart II-12). The dismal productivity performance is not fully understood, but likely reflected the peaking in globalization, increased regulation and the dramatic decline in capital spending relative to GDP. The latter was reflected in a collapse in the growth rate of the global capital stock (Chart II-13). In the U.S., for which we have a longer history of data, growth in the capital stocks has lead shifts in productivity growth with a 3-year lag. Firms have also been slower to adopt new technologies over the past decade. Chart II-12...And Lower Productivity Chart II-13Productivity And Investment The resulting impact on the level of GDP today has been nothing short of remarkable. The current IMF estimate for the level of potential GDP in 2018 is 10% lower than was projected by the IMF in 2008 (Chart II-14). There has been a similar downgrading of capacity in Europe, Japan and the U.K. Actual GDP has closed the gap with potential GDP to varying degrees in the major countries, but at a much lower level than was projected a decade ago. Paul Krugman has dubbed this the "Great Shortfall". Chart II-14A Permanent Loss Of Output The Great Shortfall was even greater with respect to capital spending. For 2017, the IMF estimates that global investment was more than 20% below the level implied by the pre-crisis trend (Chart II-15). Reduced credit intermediation, from a combination of supply and demand factors, was a significant factor behind the structural loss of economic capacity according to the IMF study.8 Chart II-15Permanent Scars On Capital Spending By curtailing the business investment relative to GDP for a prolonged period, major economic slumps can have a permanent effect on an economy's long-term prospects. The loss of output since the financial crisis will never be regained. That said, bond yields in theory are related to the growth rate of productivity, not its level. The IMF report noted that there may even be some long-lasting effects on the growth rate of productivity. The crisis left lingering scars on future growth due to both reduced global labor force migration and fertility rates. The latter rose in the decade before the crisis in several advanced economies, only to decline afterward. Households postponed births in the face of the economic and financial upheaval. The IMF argues that not all of the decline in fertility rates will be reversed. An Inflection Point In Global Bond Yields On a positive note, the pickup in business capital spending in the major countries in recent years implies an acceleration in the growth rate of the capital stock and, thus, productivity. In the U.S., this relationship suggests that productivity growth could rise by a percentage point over the coming few years (Chart II-13). This should correspond to a roughly equivalent rise in equilibrium bond yields. Moreover, some of the other structural factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. For example, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool as people retire and begin to deplete their nest eggs. Household savings rates will trend sharply lower in the coming years. Again, we encourage readers to read the 2017 Special Report for a full account of the structural factors that are shifting in a less bond-bullish direction. QE Reversal To Weigh On Bond Prices And let's not forget the unwinding of central bank balance sheets. The idea that central bank asset purchases on their own had a significant depressing effect on global bond yields is controversial. Some argue that the impact on yields occurred more via forward guidance; quantitative easing was a signal to markets that the central bank would stay on hold for an extended period, which pulled down yields far out the curve. This publication believes that QE had a meaningful impact on global bond yields on its own (Chart II-16). Nonetheless, either way, the Fed is now shrinking its balance sheet and the European Central Bank will soon end asset purchases. This means that the private sector this year is being forced to absorb a net increase in government bonds available to the private sector for the first time since 2014 (Chart II-17). Investors may demand juicier yields in order to boost their allocation to fixed-income assets. Chart II-16Reverse QE To Weigh On Bonds Chart II-17Private Investors Will Have To Buy More We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors still have an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2027 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart II-18). The implied path of real rates in the U.S. looks more reasonable, but there is still upside potential. Moreover, there is room for the inflation expectations component of nominal yields to shift up, as discussed above. Chart II-18Real Yields Still Too Low Another way of making this point is shown in Chart II-19. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is still very low by historical standards. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year/5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart II-19Market Expectations Still Low Bottom Line: Global bond yields fell to unprecedented levels due to a combination of cyclical and structural factors. The bond-bullish structural factors were reinforced by shifts in desired savings and business investment as a result of the Great Recession and financial crisis. Some of these structural factors will linger in the coming years, but others are shifting in a less bond-bullish direction. We do not expect nominal bond yields to return to pre-Lehman norms, and yields could even return close to previous lows in the case of a recession. Nonetheless, we expect a yield pattern of higher lows and higher highs over the coming business cycles. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Appendix 1: Key Factors Behind The Decline In Equilibrium Global Bond Yields The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. A key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. China became a major source of global savings after it joined the WTO, and its large trade surplus was recycled into the global pool of savings. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. The increase in ex-ante savings and reduction in ex-ante capital spending resulted in a substantial drop in equilibrium global interest rates. The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie. A positive labor supply shock should benefit global living standards in the long run, but the adjustment costs related to China's integration into the global economy imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting. The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. Moreover, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners. This represents a headwind to growth that requires lower interest rates all along the curve. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. 1 We make the simplifying assumptions that companies do not issue any more debt over the three years, and that EBIT is unchanged, in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. 2 The average credit rating for the U.S. is unavailable before 2000 in the Bloomberg Barclays index. However, other data sources confirm the long-term downward trend. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The Eurozone Corporate Sector," dated May 31, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Reports "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1)," dated August 10, 2018 and "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2)," dated August 24, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 The lower bound is zero in the U.S., but is in negative territory for those central banks willing to impose negative rates on the banking sector. 6 For more background on the zero bound debate, the usefulness of a large central bank balance sheet and ways to lift r-star, please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Herding Cats At the Fed," dated October 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," dated April 27, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 8 The Global Economic Recovery 10 Years After the 2008 Financial Meltdown. IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2018.

Highlights Duration: Foreign economic growth continues to diverge negatively from growth in the United States. The resulting upward pressure on the U.S. dollar will eventually drag U.S. growth down, and could temporarily threaten the cyclical uptrend in Treasury yields. But so far there is no evidence that dollar strength is too much for the U.S. economy to handle. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration until signs of contagion are more apparent. Yield Curve: A reading of the macro drivers of the yield curve suggests that the slope of the curve will not steepen or flatten dramatically during the next 6-12 months. In this environment, trades that are long the belly of the curve and short a duration-matched barbell consisting of the short and long ends will profit, due to extremely attractive valuation. We currently recommend going long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell. Feature If investors were already worried about the impact of restrictive Fed policy on credit spreads and equities, the minutes from September's FOMC meeting - released last Wednesday - did nothing to calm their nerves. The minutes revealed that "a few participants expected that policy would need to become modestly restrictive for a time" while an additional "number" of participants "judged that it would be necessary to temporarily raise the federal funds rate above their assessments of its longer-run level." There is a small distinction between the "few" participants who expect that a fed funds rate above the estimated longer-run neutral level of 3% will be necessary because restrictive monetary policy will be warranted and the "number" of participants who think that the fed funds rate will move above 3% without policy turning restrictive. However, the main takeaway for investors should be that a large portion of the committee expects that rate hikes will continue until the fed funds rate is at least above 3%. In last week's report we explored the risk that higher yields lead to an excessive tightening of financial conditions and actually sow the seeds of their own decline.1 But we do not view that as the greatest threat to our recommended below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. The biggest risk to that view comes from the ongoing divergence between strong U.S. and weak foreign economic growth. No Contagion... Yet Chart 1 shows that, since 1993, every time our Global (ex. U.S.) Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) has fallen below zero, the U.S. LEI has eventually followed. But while the Global (ex. U.S.) LEI has now been below zero for nine consecutive months, there is so far no evidence of contagion into the United States. The resilience of the U.S. economy probably explains why the September FOMC minutes only briefly mentioned the risk from weak foreign growth. Chart 1U.S. And Foreign Growth Continue To Diverge From the minutes:2 The divergence between domestic and foreign economic growth prospects and monetary policies was cited as presenting a downside risk because of the potential for further strengthening of the U.S. dollar... But: Participants generally agreed that risks to the outlook appeared roughly balanced. The concern is that, much like in the 2014-16 period, the divergence in growth between the U.S. and the rest of the world puts so much upward pressure on the dollar that it eventually drags U.S. growth and bond yields lower. But despite this year's 4.6% appreciation in the trade-weighted dollar, we have yet to see any impact on our Fed Monitor and Treasury yields remain in an uptrend (Chart 2). This suggests that we have not yet reached peak divergence between U.S. and foreign growth. Further divergence and dollar strength is necessary before the U.S. economy is negatively impacted. Chart 2More $ Strength Required The reason why the dollar's recent appreciation has not yet exerted a discernible impact on the U.S. economy might be because overall global GDP growth is on a more solid footing than it was in 2014-16 (Chart 3). The IMF forecasts that global GDP growth will be 3.7% in 2018 and 2019, compared to 3.5% in 2015. Meanwhile, the moderation in Eurozone growth represents a decline from lofty 2017 GDP growth of 2.4%. Even in emerging markets, where the global growth slowdown is most apparent, the IMF is still forecasting GDP growth of 4.7% for both 2018 and 2019, a far cry from the 4.3% seen in 2015 (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3Global Growth Stronger Than 2014-16 Of course, IMF forecasts can always change, and they likely will be revised lower if current trends continue. However, the key point for bond investors is that the global economy is in much better shape than it was between 2014 and 2016. This means that non-U.S. growth needs to see further significant weakness before the uptrend in U.S. Treasury yields is threatened. Bottom Line: Foreign economic growth continues to diverge negatively from growth in the United States. The resulting upward pressure on the U.S. dollar will eventually drag U.S. growth down, and could temporarily threaten the cyclical uptrend in Treasury yields. But so far there is no evidence that dollar strength is too much for the U.S. economy to handle. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration until signs of contagion are more apparent. Can Uncertainty Steepen The Yield Curve? The yield curve has steepened somewhat during the past few weeks, the result of much higher yields at the long-end of the curve and short-end yields that have been roughly unchanged. We think Fed communication has been an important catalyst for this curve action. Specifically, the Fed's deliberate attempt to introduce uncertainty around its estimates of the neutral fed funds rate.3 Bond investors are finally getting the message that the Fed's median forecast of a 3% longer-run fed funds rate is not written in stone. Depending on the economic outlook, the funds rate could peak for the cycle at a level that is well above or below 3%. Given the recent spate of strong U.S. economic data, the market is starting to discount a peak that is above 3%, no matter what median forecast appears in the Fed's dots. This raises the question of whether a further un-anchoring of long-dated yields could occur. Is it possible that the yield curve will continue to steepen, even with the Fed lifting short rates at a gradual pace of 25 basis points per quarter? Below, we review a few different macro drivers of the yield curve and conclude that neither a large steepening nor large flattening is likely during the next 6-12 months. Nominal GDP Growth One useful rule-of-thumb for when monetary policy turns restrictive is when the 10-year Treasury yield exceeds the rate of growth in nominal GDP. In the past, a 10-year yield above the rate of growth in nominal GDP has coincided with downward pressure on core inflation (Chart 4). With that in mind, we note that nominal GDP has grown by 5.44% during the past year, by 3.98% (annualized) during the past two years and by 3.85% (annualized) during the past three years. Chart 410-Year Yield & Nominal GDP We discount the recent 5.44% growth rate because it was largely fueled by fiscal thrust that will fade in the coming quarters. This leaves us with a recent trend of 3.85% - 4% in nominal GDP growth. Even with no further deterioration in growth as the cycle matures, this puts an approximate cap on how high long-dated yields can rise before policy becomes restrictive and the cycle starts to turn. With the 10-year Treasury yield already at 3.19%, it can rise by between 66 bps and 81 bps before it reaches that range. If that adjustment were to occur very quickly, then the yield curve would steepen sharply and then re-flatten as the Fed lifted rates to catch up with the long end. Alternatively, if that adjustment were to occur over a period of 6-9 months, with the Fed hiking at a pace of 25 bps per quarter, the slope of the yield curve would be roughly unchanged. Wage Growth While nominal GDP growth is useful for thinking about long-maturity yields, wage growth correlates quite strongly with the slope of the yield curve itself. Specifically, rapid wage gains tend to coincide with curve flattening, and vice-versa. In fact, a typical cyclical pattern is that first the yield curve flattens and then wage growth accelerates to catch up with the curve (Chart 5). It would be highly unusual for the yield curve to steepen significantly while wage growth is rising, which it finally appears to be doing. Chart 5Higher Wage Growth = Flatter Curve We cannot completely rule out the possibility that stronger productivity growth actually causes unit labor costs to decelerate even as "top line" wage pressures mount. Unit labor costs are essentially the ratio of wages (compensation per hour) to productivity (output-per-hour), and the bottom panel of Chart 5 shows that a deceleration in unit labor costs could cause the yield curve to steepen. However, we note that there is not much precedent for strong productivity growth overwhelming an acceleration in wages, causing unit labor costs to diverge from other wage measures. For example, even as productivity growth strengthened in the 1990s, unit labor costs continued to rise alongside other measures of wage growth. Inflation Expectations We have frequently noted that inflation expectations embedded in long-dated Treasury yields remain too low compared to levels that are consistent with inflation being well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. It stands to reason that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates could steepen the yield curve as they adjust higher. However, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 2.11%, only slightly below the range of 2.3% to 2.5% that has historically been consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations (Chart 6). In other words, the upside in long-dated breakevens is now fairly limited. In contrast, the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate stands at only 1.70%, still considerably below "well-anchored" levels (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6More Upside In Short-Dated Breakevens Further, since the financial crisis, breakevens at both the short- and long-ends of the curve have been driven by trends in the actual inflation data (Chart 7). If it is rising realized inflation that has driven both the 2-year and 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates higher this cycle, and the 2-year rate is further away from target than the 10-year rate, then it stands to reason that inflation expectations are more likely to exert flattening pressure on the nominal yield curve than steepening pressure. Chart 7Realized Inflation Is Driving Expectations Rate Volatility & The Term Premium One final macro driver that could steepen the yield curve would be a spike in interest rate volatility and an increase in the term premium at the long-end of the curve. Our prior research has shown that implied interest rate volatility is linked to uncertainty about the macro environment, and Chart 8 shows that the MOVE index of implied interest rate volatility has tended to track the dispersion of individual forecasts of 3-month T-bill rates and GDP growth. In this context, it should not be surprising that implied volatility fell to very low levels when interest rates were pinned at zero and not expected to move for an extended period. Chart 8Macro Uncertainty & Rate Volatility But, as was mentioned above, the Fed has been trying scale back its forward guidance and inject some uncertainty into the market. Indeed, we think this is one reason why the yield curve steepened and rate volatility increased during the past few weeks. Taking a broader view, we also observe that, historically, macro uncertainty and implied interest rate volatility have tended to fall when the Fed is hiking rates, only spiking once monetary policy becomes restrictive and the economic recovery is threatened. The yield curve is typically inverted by that point. This leaves us to conclude that some further increase in interest rate volatility from exceptionally low levels is possible, but a large spike is unlikely until monetary policy becomes restrictive. Investment Implications A survey of the macro drivers of the yield curve leaves us to conclude that the most likely outcome for the next 6-12 months is that the slope of the curve remains close to its current level, meaning that the curve undergoes a roughly parallel upward shift as the Fed continues to lift rates. However, if nominal GDP growth fails to decelerate from its current 5.44% clip, it is possible that the yield curve steepens first and then flattens as the Fed lifts rates more quickly to catch up. This is not the most likely outcome, but rather a risk to our base case scenario. The final piece of the puzzle is the observation that curve steepener trades continue to look attractively priced. Our current recommendation is to favor the 7-year bullet over a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 1-year and 20-year notes. This trade offers a spread of +8 bps above the reading from our fair value model (Chart 9). Or alternatively, our model shows that the 1/7/20 butterfly spread is currently priced for 29 bps of 1/20 curve flattening during the next six months (Chart 9, bottom panel). Chart 9Curve Steepeners Are Still Attractive That much curve flattening is highly unlikely in the current macro environment, and we continue to recommend curve steepener trades to profit from an unchanged yield curve during the next six months. Bottom Line: A reading of the macro drivers of the yield curve suggests that the slope of the curve will not steepen or flatten dramatically during the next 6-12 months. In this environment, trades that are long the belly of the curve and short a duration-matched barbell consisting of the short and long ends will profit, due to extremely attractive valuation. We currently recommend going long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rate Shock", dated October 16, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20180926.pdf 3Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty", dated June 19, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Duration: Our Fed Policy Loop provides a framework for understanding last week's equity market correction and its implications for future Fed policy. So far, the equity sell-off is not severe enough to deter the Fed. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Credit: With the Fed lifting rates and the market still not priced for the likely pace of hikes, it is highly likely that we will witness further periods where corporate spreads and Treasury yields rise in unison. We recommend steps investors can take to insulate their portfolios from this risk. Inflation: The macroeconomic environment remains highly inflationary. The unemployment rate is very low and wage growth is rising. However, recent trends suggest that the year-over-year growth rate in core CPI will stay close to its current level, near the Fed's target, for the next six months. This will not alter the Fed's "gradual" +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. Feature Chart 1The Second Rate Shock Of 2018 Last week's equity market rout was the second time this year that stocks reacted negatively to a sharp rise in bond yields (Chart 1). As was the case in February, our Fed Policy Loop remains the appropriate framework for understanding the relationship between bond yields and the stock market (Chart 2).1 It can be explained as follows: Chart 2The Fed Policy Loop Step 1: The perception of easy Fed policy fuels strong performance in the stock market. Rising stock prices and "easing financial conditions" cause economic growth to strengthen and sow the seeds of inflation. Step 2: Equity investors catch a whiff of inflation and start to price-in a more restrictive monetary environment. This leads to a stock market correction. Step 3: Falling stock prices and "tightening financial conditions" cause the Fed to downgrade its economic outlook and adopt a more dovish policy stance. Return To Step 1. The Equity Correction For Bond Investors At this juncture, the important question for bond investors is whether financial conditions have tightened enough to prompt a slower pace of rate hikes from the Fed. If so, then it might be appropriate to buy the dip in the bond market. We think such a move would be premature, for two reasons. First, the increase in bond yields that spooked the equity market was concentrated at the long-end of the curve and was fueled by Fed Chairman Powell's comment that the funds rate is "a long way from neutral." A steeper yield curve offsets some of the financial conditions tightening caused by falling stock prices (Chart 3). This is because it signals that monetary policy is becoming more accommodative - the fed funds rate is further below neutral than previously thought. This intuition is confirmed by the bounce in gold, a move that often coincides with an upward rerating of the neutral fed funds rate.2 Chart 3Steeper Curve Will Reassure The Fed Second, the amount of financial market pain that the Fed can tolerate depends on the economic environment. Our Fed Monitor is an indicator that is designed to signal whether the Fed should be hiking or cutting interest rates (Chart 4). It consists of 44 variables that can be grouped into three categories: Chart 4The BCA Fed Monitor Economic growth indicators (Chart 4, panel 3). Inflation indicators (Chart 4, panel 4). Financial conditions indicators (Chart 4, bottom panel). The overall Fed Monitor is currently deep in positive territory, signaling that rate hikes are appropriate. This is true despite the fact that the financial conditions component of the monitor has been falling (tightening) since the beginning of the year. Last week's equity market drop will not be reflected in the indicator until the end of the month, so further downside in the financial conditions component is forthcoming. But so far, tighter financial conditions have barely made a dent in the overall Fed Monitor because they have been offset by rising economic growth and stronger inflation. The conclusion is that the Fed is able to tolerate more market pain when growth is strong and inflation is high. Viewed through this lens, it is clear that a lot more market pain is required before the Fed backs away from its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. In fact, the Fed likely views some tightening of financial conditions as desirable, as long as the tightening doesn't severely impede the economic outlook. Just last week New York Fed President John Williams said: Normalization of the monetary policy, I think, has the added benefit of reducing somewhat, on the margin, some of the risk of imbalances in financial markets.3 While a few weeks ago, Fed Governor Lael Brainard noted: The past few times unemployment fell to levels as low as those projected over the next year, signs of overheating showed up in financial-sector imbalances rather than in accelerating inflation.4 In other words, the Fed is increasingly cognizant of the fact that higher interest rates might be necessary to prevent excessive risk-taking in financial markets, even if inflation stays well contained near target. Unless financial conditions tighten so much that they cause the reading from our Fed Monitor to hook down, the Fed will be inclined to view the market correction as healthy. It is also important to note that while a large increase in long-maturity Treasury yields prompted last week's stock market action, the short-end of the yield curve didn't move much at all. In fact, overnight index swap forwards show that the market is just barely priced for three rate hikes during the next 12 months. According to our golden rule of bond investing, if you expect the Fed to lift rates by more than what is priced in for the next 12 months, you should keep portfolio duration low.5 Bottom Line: Last week's equity market sell-off is not enough to prompt the Fed to back away from its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. On The Correlation Between Yields And Spreads It wasn't just the stock market that struggled to digest higher Treasury yields last week. Corporate bond spreads also widened, particularly in the high-yield credit tiers (Chart 5). As with equities, this is the second time in 2018 that credit spreads widened sharply alongside higher Treasury yields. Chart 5Credit Also Struggling With Higher Rates Credit spreads and Treasury yields tend to be negatively correlated, a feature that benefits bond investors by reducing the volatility in corporate bond yields and total returns. But, as evidenced by last week's price moves, the correlation does occasionally turn positive. This is particularly damaging during sell-offs when both the rate and spread components of corporate bond yields rise. Chart 6 shows the frequency of negative and positive yield/spread correlations since 1994, using 3-month investment horizons. It shows that yields and spreads were negatively correlated in 64% of 3-month periods. Yields fell alongside tighter spreads in 23% of cases, while yields and spreads rose together only 13% of the time. Chart 6The Correlation Between Yields And Spreads Is Typically Negative Since those periods when both yields and spreads rise in unison are particularly damaging for bond investors, it is worth exploring them in more detail. Table 1 lists all 13 quarters since 1994 when junk spreads and duration-matched Treasury yields rose together. Using the logic of our Fed Policy Loop, we also identify three risk factors that might be associated with those periods. The main idea being that yields and spreads are likely to rise together in periods when the market starts to price-in much more restrictive monetary policy, and an earlier end to the economic recovery. The three risk factors we identify are: Table 1Periods When Both Treasury Yields And Junk Spreads Rose Since 1994 Whether the Fed raised interest rates during the investment horizon. Whether our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter increased during the investment horizon, meaning that the market priced-in a more aggressive near-term rate hike path. Whether the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose during the investment horizon. Higher long-dated inflation expectations could cause the Fed to respond with a more restrictive monetary policy. The single most important risk factor is whether the Fed raised rates during the investment horizon. Nine of the 13 episodes coincided with a Fed rate hike, and three of the four episodes that didn't coincide with a rate hike occurred between Q2 2013 and Q4 2015. The fed funds rate was pinned at zero during that period, but the Fed was starting to turn hawkish by backing away from QE and preparing for liftoff. This leaves the second quarter of 2007 as the only true outlier. The Fed did not lift rates during this period, but it is clear that markets were spooked by overly restrictive Fed policy all the same. The 2/10 Treasury slope was only 7 bps at the start of the quarter, signaling that monetary policy was already quite restrictive. Meanwhile, long-dated inflation expectations rose during the quarter and the market went from discounting 60 bps of rate cuts during the next 12 months to only 17 bps. An inflationary shock when monetary policy is already restrictive is an environment where yields and spreads are very likely to rise at the same time. An upward move in our 12-month discounter is also associated with periods of rising yields and spreads in 9 out of 13 cases. This risk factor didn't work in Q4 2005 or Q2 2006, but once again it is quite clear that markets were spooked by overly restrictive monetary policy in those periods. The yield curve was inverted in both of those quarters, and the Fed lifted rates despite an inverted yield curve. That combination sends a clear signal to markets that the Fed is trying to choke off the recovery. The 12-month discounter also failed to send the correct signal in Q3 1999 and Q2 2000. In those cases the culprit appears to be a large jump in long-dated inflation expectations while the Fed was in the midst of a rate hike cycle. Since rate hikes should dampen inflation, rising inflation expectations suggest that rate hikes might need to speed up. Thinking about the current environment, we are very much in the danger zone where yields and spreads could rise at the same time. The Fed is in the midst of a rate hike cycle and the market is still not priced for quarterly rate hikes to continue for the next 12 months. Finally, long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates are almost back to the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with "well-anchored" inflation expectations (Chart 7). The higher long-dated breakevens get, the more likely it is that the Fed will respond forcefully to further increases. Chart 7Almost Re-Anchored With all three of our risk factors present, it is highly likely that we will see more episodes where credit spreads widen and Treasury yields rise. The risk will only dissipate once the full extent of the Fed's rate hike cycle is reflected in the Treasury curve, but we are not there yet. While this is not a great environment for bond investors, there are steps investors can take to limit the damage from periods of rising spreads and yields. First, investors should maintain portfolio duration at below-benchmark. Second, while it is too early in the cycle to completely abandon credit, a more defensive posture is advisable. We recommend only a neutral allocation to spread product, focused on the higher-quality credit tiers.6 To the extent possible, investors should also seek to focus their spread exposure at the long-end of the maturity spectrum, while also limiting overall portfolio duration by favoring the short-end of the Treasury curve.7 Inflation Uptrend On Hold Lost in the shuffle amidst last week's market turmoil, the consumer price index (CPI) for September was released and it delivered a soft month-over-month print for the second month in a row. The top panel of Chart 8 shows that the year-over-year trend in core CPI rose rapidly earlier in the year, but now appears to be leveling off. We do not envision a meaningful deceleration in core CPI, but it seems likely that the year-over-year rate of change will stay near current levels for the next six months. Chart 8Core Inflation & Pipeline Pressures Our Pipeline Inflation Indicator remains consistent with rising inflationary pressures in the economy, but it has softened of late. This is mostly due to weaker commodity prices (Chart 8, bottom panel). Further, our Base Effects Indicator - based on rates of change in the core CPI that have already been realized - is now consistent with a lower year-over-year core CPI growth rate six months from now (Chart 9).8 Chart 9Expect Year-Over-Year Core CPI To Flatten-Off, Or Even Decline Looking at the main components of core CPI, the last two monthly prints have been dragged down by the core goods component, with most of the weakness in apparel and used vehicles (Chart 10). This could reverse in the near-term as core goods prices catch up with import prices, which have been rising for some time. However, non-oil import prices have decelerated recently, on the back of a stronger dollar. In other words, any near-term increase in core goods inflation will probably not last very long. Chart 10Core CPI Components The core services excluding shelter component continues to have the most potential upside, since it is highly geared to rising wage growth. Shelter inflation, the largest component of core CPI, has been flat for some time and our models suggest this will continue to be the case for the next six months. Bottom Line: The macroeconomic environment remains highly inflationary. The unemployment rate is very low and wage growth is rising. However, recent trends suggest that the year-over-year growth rate in core CPI will stay close to its current level, near the Fed's target, for the next six months. This will not alter the Fed's "gradual" +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The MOVE", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?" dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-10/williams-says-fed-rate-hikes-helping-curb-financial-risk-taking 4https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20180912a.htm 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing," dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty," dated June 19, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync," dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Powell Doctrine Emerges," dated September 4, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Asset allocation: Go long industrial commodities versus equities on a 6-month horizon. If an inflationary impulse is dominating, beaten-down industrial commodities have more upside than richly valued equities; and if a disinflationary impulse is dominating, its main casualty will be equities. Currencies: Take profits on long EUR/CNY. Maintain a broadly neutral stance to EUR, with short EUR/JPY counterbalancing long EUR/USD. Equity sectors: overweight basic materials versus the market. And within the basic materials sector, overweight basic resources versus chemicals. Chart of the WeekChina's 6-Month Credit Impulse Provides A Perfect Explanation For Commodity Inflation Feature Equity markets are entering the crossfire between two opposing forces: an inflationary impulse coming from the global economy; and a disinflationary impulse as higher bond yields threaten to deflate the very rich valuations of equities and other risk-assets. As this battle plays out in the coming months a good strategy is to go long commodities versus equities. The logic is simple: if the inflationary impulse from the economy is dominating, then beaten-down industrial commodities have more upside than richly valued equities; and if the disinflationary impulse from higher bond yields is dominating, then commodities have less downside than equities, because commodities have a much weaker valuation link with bond yields. Therefore, going long industrial commodities versus equities on a 6-month horizon should be a good strategy however the battle between inflationary and disinflationary impulses plays out. Inflationary Impulse Battles Disinflationary Impulse Chart I-2 shows the credit impulse oscillations in the euro area, U.S., and China since the start of the millennium, all expressed in dollars to allow a comparison between the three major economies. It is a fascinating chart because the change in the dominant oscillation - the one with the highest amplitude - perfectly illustrates the shift in global economic power and influence from Europe and the U.S. to China. Chart I-2The Shift In Economic Power From Europe And The U.S. To China Through 2000-08 the impulses in the euro area and the U.S. dominated. But during the global financial crisis that all changed: the credit stimulus from China dwarfed the responses from the western economies. Then through 2009-12 the impulse oscillations from the three major economies were briefly the same size, before China took on the undisputed mantle of dominant impulse, which it has held consistently since 2013. The world's three major economies are now all in 'up' oscillations according to their credit impulses. This means the global economy will experience an inflationary impulse for the next couple of quarters or so. However, battling the inflationary impulse is a disinflationary impulse. As the inflationary impulse pushes up bond yields, it threatens to deflate the very rich valuations of equities (and other risk-assets). Crucially, this disinflationary force is particularly vicious when bond yields are rising from ultra-low levels. We have described this dynamic exhaustively in previous reports, so we will not go into the detail here. But in a nutshell, both parts of an equity's required return - the risk-free component and the risk premium - go up together when bond yields are rising from ultra-low levels. Meaning that rising yields deflate equity valuations exponentially (Chart I-3).1 Chart I-3At Low Bond Yields The Valuation Of Equities Changes Exponentially But Which Inflationary Impulse? At our recent investment conference in Toronto, the three speakers on the China panel gave three different conclusions on China: aggressively bullish, moderately bullish, and bearish! The aggressive bull pointed out that the 3-month credit impulse has gone vertical (Chart I-4); the moderate bull pointed out that the 6-month credit impulse appears to be turning up (Chart I-5); while the bearish argument was that the level of the 12-month credit and fiscal impulse remains depressed. Chart I-4The 3-Month Impulse Is Up Sharply... Chart I-5But The 6-Month Impulse Is Just Turning So which narrative should we use? The answer is the one that provides the best explanatory power for the cycles that we actually observe in the economic and financial market data. As we described in our Special Report The Cobweb Theory And Market Cycles, the theory and evidence powerfully identifies the 6-month credit impulse as the one with the best explanatory power for the oscillations that we actually observe in the economy and markets - because the 6-month period aligns most closely with the lag between credit demand and credit supply.2 In any case, as we use the 6-month impulse to powerful effect in Europe, consistency demands that we must use the 6-month impulses in U.S. and China too. For the sceptics, the Chart of the Week should finally obliterate any lingering doubts. China's 6-month impulse gives a spookily perfect explanation for the industrial commodity inflation cycle. The important takeaway right now is that if the 6-month impulse is turning up, so will industrial commodity inflation. What Does All Of This Mean For Investors? This brings us to our central message. As we have just seen, an up-oscillation in 6-month impulses, especially in China, will lift industrial commodity inflation. But it will likely have a much smaller influence on developed market equities which, in these circumstances, will be under the strong constraining spell of higher bond yields. On this basis the asset allocation recommendation is to go long industrial commodities versus equities on a 6-month horizon (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Go Long Commodities Vs. Equities Interestingly, technical analysis also supports this recommendation over the next three months or so. Our tried and tested measure of excessive trending and groupthink suggests that the recent underperformance of industrial commodities relative to developed market equities is extreme and at a point which indicates a countertrend move, or at least a trend exhaustion (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Underperformance Of Industrial Commodities Is Technically Stretched For currencies, the foregoing analysis and charts means it is time to take profits in our long position in the euro versus the Chinese yuan. This leaves us with a broadly neutral exposure to the euro, with a short position versus the yen counterbalancing a long position versus the dollar. As for European equities, many years ago they were a pure play on events in Europe. Today, this might still be true for European 'tail-events' such as the euro sovereign debt crisis, or a potential 'no deal' Brexit. However, for the most part, European equity markets are tightly integrated with global equity markets - at least in direction if not level. Given that industrial commodity inflation takes its cue from the 6-month credit impulse - especially in China - it is hardly surprising that the European basic materials sector follows exactly the same cycle, both in absolute terms (Chart I-8) and relative to the broader equity market (Chart I-9). Therefore the equity sector recommendation is to overweight basic materials versus the market. Chart I-8China's 6-Month Credit Impulse Drives Europe's Basic Material Equities In Absolute Terms... Chart I-9...And In Relative Terms Interestingly, there is also a play within the basic materials sector. The basic resources sector which represents the miners and extractors of raw materials should fare better than the chemicals sector which uses these raw materials as an input (Chart I-10). Hence, overweight basic resources versus chemicals. Chart I-10Overweight Basic Resources Vs. Chemicals Readers may argue that most of the foregoing charts illustrate the same cycle. But that's precisely the point! Never forget that financial markets follow the Pareto principle: the most important 20 percent of analysis explains 80 percent of the moves across all asset classes across all geographies across all times. The key to successful investing is to find the most important 20 percent of analysis. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Reports 'Trapped: Have Equities Trapped Bonds?' September 13, 2018 and 'The Rule Of 4 For Equities And Bonds' August 2, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'The Cobweb Theory And Market Cycles' January 11, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* It was a busy week for our trades. Long basic resources versus chemicals achieved its profit target, but short U.S. telecom versus U.S. autos hit its stop-loss. Meanwhile, short trade-weighted dollar reached the end of its 65 day holding period broadly flat. All three trades are now closed. In line with the main body of the report, this week's trade recommendation is to go long industrial commodities (represented by the CRB industrials index) versus equities (represented by the MSCI World Index in USD). The profit target is 2% with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart 11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

特別レポート

Highlights European and Japanese wages have firmed significantly, suggesting upside to inflation in these economies. However, the gain in European wages will soon reverse, as the slowdown in global trade percolates through the European economy. The ECB will not raise rates sooner or faster than currently discounted in markets, and German Bunds remain attractive in currency hedged terms. Japanese wage growth seems more sustainable but Japanese inflation expectations remain anchored to the downside, and Japan will suffer from a fiscal shock when the consumption tax is increased next October. Japan's YCC policy will remain in place for at least another 18 months, and fixed-income investors should continue to overweight JGBs in currency-hedged fixed income portfolios. Feature The pick-up in wage growth this summer in the euro area and Japan has been an interesting development. It raises the risk that inflation in these two economies is about to hit an inflection point. Since growth has returned to these two regions, if inflation were to join the party, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan would finally be able to follow in the Federal Reserve's footsteps and begin increasing rates sooner rather than later. This week we explore whether or not inflationary pressures are building in Europe and Japan, and whether or not the expected policy path of the ECB and the BoJ needs to be re-assessed. While cyclical pressures are growing, clouds above the global economy - the EM space in particular - suggest that the policy path currently anticipated by money markets is just right, and no glaring mis-pricings are evident. Euro Area: A Dawn Is Not A Sunrise The Necessary Condition For Inflation Is Here... There is no denying that we have seen massive improvements in the euro area economy. In fact, we would argue that the euro area has finally hit a stage where the necessary condition for a re-emergence of inflation has been met: Economic slack has vanished. There seems to be little spare capacity in the aggregate euro area economy. Today the OECD measure for the output gap stands at +0.5% of GDP. Additionally, a basic approach comparing the level of industrial production to a simple statistical filter further confirms this assessment, showing that production stands 2% above trend (Chart 1). The capacity utilization measure published by the European Commission goes one step further, showing that utilization is at its highest level since 2008. This represents a very significant change from the days of 2011-2015, when capacity utilization stood below the average that prevailed from the time of the euro's introduction (Chart 2). Chart 1No More Slack In Europe Chart 2Capacity Utilization Is At Previous Cycle Peaks The labor market has been a particular source of concern for euro area watchers. After all, how can an economy generate any domestic inflationary pressures if wages remain depressed? On that front too, there is plenty to rejoice about. The gap between the euro area's unemployment rate and the OECD's estimate of the non-accelerating rate of unemployment (NAIRU) has nearly fully disappeared. Historically, such an occurrence has been associated with a rise in European core inflation (Chart 3). In fact, the ECB's labor underutilization survey is now at its lowest level in 10 years. Moreover, in its various business conditions surveys, the European Commission asks firms whether labor is a factor limiting production. With the exception of Italy, the number of firms reporting that labor shortages are a problem in most of the major economies stands at or near record highs (Chart 4). This confirms the simple impression provided by the gap between the unemployment rate and NAIRU that the labor market is beginning to create generalized inflationary and wage pressures. Chart 3Diminishing Labor Market Slack Leads##br## To Growing Inflationary Pressures Chart 4Labor Shortages In ##br##The Euro Area ...But The Sufficient Conditions Remain Murkier While the tight labor market suggests that wages have cyclical upside, is it even true that higher wages do lead to higher inflation in the euro area? The answer is yes. Chart 5 shows that euro area wages tend to lead core CPI by approximately three quarters, with an explanatory power of nearly 87%. This makes sense. Higher wages increase the cost of production for businesses, which results in cost-push inflation. This is even more true if wages rise in real terms, which boosts household's income and supports consumption. Thus, it is likely that the recent spike in wages will lead to higher core inflation. Despite this positive backdrop, some key cyclical worries remain. First, our CPI diffusion index for the euro area, measuring the breadth of inflation increases within the subcomponents of the CPI, is in free-fall. Historically, this has been a worrying sign for core inflation, and for both nominal and real wages (Chart 6). Chart 5In Europe, Wages ##br##Lead Core CPI Chart 6But CPI Diffusion Index Suggests Real Wages ##br##And Core CPI Could Hit A Speed Bump The bigger risk originates from outside the euro area. We have shown in the past that EM shocks can have a disproportionate impact on European economic activity.1 This link seems to run deeper than we had originally realized. As Chart 7 shows, euro area nominal and real wages tend to follow the trend in European exports to EM and China. The logical conclusion is that export shocks end up affecting the whole economy by depressing profits, capex and the willingness of firms to provide wage increases to their employees. This also ends up reverberating into consumption as both nominal and, more importantly, real wages suffer. Today, weakening exports to EM and China suggest that European wages may soon roll over. This would take the wind out of price inflation as well, since wages lead core CPI by roughly three quarters. BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service as well as our Emerging Market Strategy sister publication have already highlighted that EM economies are likely to slow further in the coming quarters as China works to de-lever - a process which has already begun (Chart 8).2 Thus, the negative impact of EM on European growth and wages is likely only to grow over the coming quarters. The euro area leading economic indicator (LEI) has already picked up on these dynamics. The deterioration in the LEI suggests that real wages are likely to soon suffer, which will further dent euro area consumption and weigh on core inflation (Chart 9). Chart 7Exports To EM Are The Culprit##br## Behind This Speed Bump Chart 8Limited Upside Ahead##br## In Chinese Growth Chart 9Euro Area LEI Confirms##br## The Message From Exports Adding up those various message we conclude that while we could soon see some upside in inflation via a pass-through of the recent pick-up in wages, the upside is likely to prove transitory as the euro area economy will soon feel the deflationary impact of the slowdown in EM economic activity. What Will The ECB Do? The ECB will end its asset purchase program at the end of this year. Money markets are currently pricing in a full 25-basis-point hike in interest rates by March 2020. However, various formulations of the Taylor Rule suggest that euro area interest rates should already be higher than they currently are (Chart 10). What are interest rates likely to really do in relation to this date? Despite these hawkish Taylor Rule estimates, we think the ECB is likely to wait and see. As we highlighted above, the slack in the euro area economy is dissipating, and therefore inflationary pressures are bound to build up. However, the slowdown in EM that is reverberating through global trade will weigh on inflation over the coming six months. Additionally, we need to monitor developments in shadow policy rates.3 After the Fed began tapering its asset purchases in 2014, the U.S. shadow rate increased by roughly 300 basis points. While the actual fed funds rate was not raised until the end of 2015, the implied tightening from the rise in the shadow rate was enough to cause both U.S. and non-U.S. growth to slow sharply in 2015. Since bottoming in November 2016, the ECB's shadow rate has increased by 450 basis points. Even if European monetary conditions remain accommodative, this is a large and sudden shock to absorb - one that goes a long way in explaining the sudden contraction in the euro area credit impulse (Chart 11). Chart 10Does Europe Really Need Higher Rates? Chart 11Large Tightening In Euro Area Shadow Rate Ultimately, while the reduction in the euro area economic slack is real, the aforementioned dynamics are worrisome. Hence, we do not think that the ECB will want to prematurely kill off the recovery. Memories of the policy mistake of 2010, when the ECB raised rates in a too-weak economy, are still very much alive on the ECB's Governing Council. This means that a small first hike of less than 25 basis points in late 2019 or early 2020 seems appropriate, as there should be more convincing evidence by then that the economy can tolerate higher interest rates. Hence, there does not seem to currently be any mis-pricing in the European interest rate curve since investors are correctly pricing in a full 25-basis points of hikes from the ECB by March 2020. Investment Implications We continue to recommend U.S. investors hold European bonds while hedging the currency exposure back into U.S. dollar. A hedged 10-year Bund currently yields 3.66%, compared to 3.2% for a 10-year Treasury note. The picture above does not suggest that Bund yields will have enough upside to generate the capital losses needed to offset this yield pick-up, especially as Treasury prices suffer greater potential downside. This also means that once hedging costs are taken into account, European fixed-income investors are better off staying at home than playing in the U.S. government bond market. The impact for EUR/USD is more complex. The U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve is currently pricing in roughly three rate hikes by the Fed over the next 12 months. BCA think that there could be even more U.S. rate hikes as the Fed continues to follow a 25 basis-points-per-quarter pace. Thus, we do not see the spread between U.S. and euro area interest rates narrowing in a more bullish direction for the euro Moreover, currencies trade on more than just interest rate differentials. The dollar has historically responded favorably to slowing EM growth. Moreover, as we highlighted three weeks ago, since the U.S. balance of payments is currently in surplus, this means that the U.S. is sucking in liquidity from the rest of the world.4 This is another way of saying that the world is buying more dollars than the U.S. is supplying. As a result, the dollar could continue to experience upside versus the euro over this period from factors beyond simple rate differentials. Bottom Line: The euro area economic slack has greatly dissipated and the medium term outlook for inflation is improving. Moreover, the recent pick-up in euro area wages suggest that core CPI could also pick up in the coming months. However, this increase in inflation is likely to prove temporary. Before inflation can increase durably, Europe will first have to digest the deflationary impact of slowing EM economies and global trade. This means that the ECB is likely to proceed with policy normalization very cautiously. The current pricing of 25 basis points of hikes by March 2020 is sensible. Hence, investors should continue to overweight Bunds hedged back into dollars in global fixed income portfolios. Moreover, EUR/USD could experience additional weaknesses on a 12-month basis. Japan: Fragile Progress, But Not Enough This past June, Japanese wage growth hit rates not seen in 21 years. This is enough to begin wondering if Japan is finally escaping its two-decades-long deflationary trap. After all, as Chart 12 shows, Japanese wages are a slow but nonetheless leading indicator of core inflation. Giving even more comfort to forecasts of higher Japanese inflation is the fact that, after falling continuously from the bubble peak in the early 1990s until Q1 2017, Japanese land prices have been slowly but surely increasing. Inflationary pressures in Japan are building up because the economy is at full employment. According to the BoJ, the output gap stands at +1.9% and has been positive for two years. The unemployment rate is at a stunningly low level of 2.4%, and the active job opening-to-applicant ratio stands at a four-decade high. The implications of this backdrop are evident. Chart 13 shows the demand/supply condition component of the Tankan survey of Japanese businesses, both in the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors. It has historically been a good explanatory variable for wage developments in Japan, and currently points to additional strength. Chart 12Rising Japanese Wages Should Boost Core Inflation Chart 13Capacity Pressures Are Lifting Japanese Wages Despite these positive developments, there remain some nagging worries. For one, the pick-up in wages seems strange in an economy where total hours worked are not rising (Chart 14). Moreover, Japanese households are currently increasing their savings ratio, which means that while they might be earning more, they are keeping this money in their bank accounts rather than spending it (Chart 14, bottom panel). As a result, there has been a limited pass-through of the recent wage acceleration into higher consumption. Additionally, like in Europe, the Japanese economy is at risk from foreign shocks. While the domestic economy seems robust, foreign machinery orders have been weakening. Industrial production has followed this path, decelerating sharply (Chart 15). Historically, Japanese inflation is very sensitive to the level of broader economic activity, so this weakening trend in industrial activity points to limited upside for overall inflation. Chart 14Weird Dynamics In Japan Chart 15Japan: The Domestic Front Is Healthy, The Foreign One Is Not The biggest problem faced by the BoJ, however, remains the weakness in inflation expectations. In the eyes of the Japanese central bank, the reason why Japanese realized inflation and wage growth have remained tepid is because decades of low inflation have created embedded expectations among the Japanese to not expect rising prices. Today, Japanese inflation expectations are once again weakening, a common occurrence when global growth slows (Chart 16). Additionally, Japan could hit a fiscal cliff of sorts next year. In October 2019, the consumption tax will increase from 8% to 10%. The last such increase - a three-percentage point hike in 2014 - caused a major slowdown in economic activity that had a deep deflationary impact. While the increase this time around is smaller and the Japanese economy is stronger than in 2014-2015, it remains to be seen how the country handles the shock of a fiscal tightening via a higher sales tax, especially if exports to EM remain on their downward path. The BoJ is likely to be very cognizant of this risk. Currently, the low level of inflation means that the real BoJ policy rate is in line with that of the U.S., a much stronger economy (Chart 17, top panel). Since Japan still faces a fiscal cliff next year and inflation expectations have not yet been unmoored to the upside, the current increase in wages is not enough to push the BoJ to abandon its Yield Curve Control (YCC) policy. What about QQE? The low shadow rate means that the BoJ does not need to buy assets anymore (Chart 17, bottom panel). Yet, the problem for Japan is that QQE possesses a strong signaling component. Ending this program is likely to cause markets to price in the end of YCC, which would drive nominal rates higher and thus result in both higher real rates and a significant tightening in monetary policy. As a result, we expect QQE to remain in place so that YCC will stay credible. However, the program is likely to have a slower pace of buying than before and will be too small to fully absorb the new issuances of JGBs by the MoF (Chart 18). Chart 16The BoJ's ##br##Number 1 Problem Chart 17The Signaling Effect Of QQE Is##br## Still Needed Because Of YCC... Chart 18...But QQE Doesn't Need To Be ##br##Quite As Large Anymore In terms of signposts that would signal to us to begin betting on an end to YCC, we continue to target three things that must ALL happen in unison, highlighted by BCA's Chief Global Fixed Income Strategist, Rob Robis, in February:5 USD/JPY rises at least to the 115-120 range; Japanese core CPI and nominal wage inflation both rise above 1.5%; 10-year JGB yields reaching an overvalued extreme, based on a model that includes potential GDP, BoJ purchases and the level of 10-year Treasury yields. So far, none of these conditions has been met. In fact, the slowdown in global trade and EM activity could even threaten the current improvement witnessed in wages. As a result, we expect all three of these developments to only happen in 2020, leaving Japanese yields with very limited upside. Investment Implications Japanese fixed-income investors continue to be subsidized to remain at home and avoid U.S. Treasuries. Because short rates in Japan are so low, the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries hedged into yen yield is 0.05%, less than the 0.16% yield on 10-year JGBs. At the same time, U.S. fixed income investors are incentivized to buy JGBs and hedge the currency exposure into dollars. Additionally, with the BoJ unlikely to abandon its YCC program for potentially two more years, JGBs with up to 10-year maturities are unlikely to suffer capital losses. Largely for this reason, BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy's recommended model bond portfolio, maintains a large overweight position in JGBs, but only for maturities less than 10 years as the BoJ's YCC program is not focused on yields beyond the 10-year point. Regarding the yen, the outlooks is treacherous. On one hand, a strong USD implies a weaker yen. So do higher 10-year Treasury yields, especially if JGB yields possess little upside. On the other hand, weakness in the EM space tends to result in a stronger yen as carry trades get unwound. Due to these bifurcated risks, we do not recommend buying the yen against the dollar. However, we think that at current levels the yen remains an attractive play against the euro and against the Australian dollar, especially on a six- to nine-month basis. Bottom Line: Japanese wages have enjoyed significant upside, but Japanese inflation expectations remain moribund. Moreover, Japan is likely to experience a negative fiscal shock next year as the consumption tax will once again be increased. These two risks, in addition with slowing global growth, mean that the BoJ is unlikely to abandon YCC until well into 2020. As a result, investors should continue to overweight JGBs with maturities of less than 10-years hedged back into U.S. dollars in a global fixed income portfolio. USD/JPY should enjoy further upside on a 12-month basis. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "ECB: All About China", dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "The Bear And The Two Travelers", dated August 17, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Deciphering Global Trade Linkages", dated September 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 3 The shadow rate is a measure of the impact of the various unorthodox policy initiatives implemented by central banks in the wake of the great financial crisis. It tries to express the effect of those measures in terms of the implied levels of policy rates that would have needed to prevail for the economy to generate the same performance if asset purchases had not been implemented. 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Policy Divergences Are Still The Name Of The Game", dated September 14, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, titled "What Would It Take For The Bank Of Japan To Raise Its Yield Target", dated February 13, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

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