セクター

In this Monday’s Weekly Report we initiated a new long/short trade idea that will generate alpha regardless of the pair trade war outcome: long industrials/short tech. If the U.S. and China manage to iron out their differences and strike a deal, industrials should benefit from a greater catch-up phase because they have been depressed over the past two years, while tech stocks are near relative all-time highs. In contrast, a “no deal” scenario, should also re-concentrate investors’ minds and lead to relative selling in tech stocks versus their already beaten-down deep cyclical peers: industrials. Three key macro forces will be driving the rebound in the price ratio. First, were the deal to get struck, growth expectations will pick up pushing rates higher, which are a boon for industrials and a bane for high P/E tech stocks (top panel). Second, we expect the ISM manufacturing survey to outshine the San Francisco Fed’s Tech Pulse Index (middle panel). Finally, relative capital expenditure outlays should also veer in favor of industrials as previously mothballed infrastructure projects will come out of hibernation (bottom panel). On the other hand, should a “no-deal” scenario occur, we doubt that these three macro forces that we identified would sink further (please see the next Insight). ​​​​​​​

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The trade-weighted U.S. dollar’s appreciation along with the still souring manufacturing data are weighing on SPX profit growth, at a time when heightened geopolitical uncertainty and a looming reversal in financial conditions has the potential to wreak havoc on stock prices. Stay cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon. Firming operating metrics, the resilient U.S. dollar, compelling valuations and depressed technicals, all signal that there is an exploitable tactical trading opportunity in a long S&P industrials/short S&P tech pair trade, irrespective of the trade war outcome. A tentative tick up in EM and China data along with improving relative operating metrics signal that the time is ripe to initiate a long machinery/short semis pair trade. Recent Changes Initiate a long S&P Industrials/short S&P Tech pair trade on a tactical three-to-six month time horizon, today. Initiate a long S&P Machinery/short S&P Semiconductors pair trade on a tactical three-to-six month time horizon, today. Feature The S&P 500 oscillated violently again last week, as the barrage of declining economic data, heightened trade war-related volatility and political upheaval dominated the news flow. While the Fed remains the backstop of last resort, we doubt additional interest rate cuts, which are already aggressively priced in the bond market, will boost lending and entice CEOs to invest in capital expenditure projects. Investors have to stay patient and disciplined, let this economic slowdown play out and allow for the natural healing of the economy. As a reminder, the ISM manufacturing index has been decelerating for twelve months and only been below the boom bust line for two. If history is an accurate guide, an additional three-to-six months of manufacturing pain are in store before a definitive bottom is in place (bottom panel, Chart 1). Such a macro backdrop, still warrants caution on the prospects of the broad equity market. Chart 1Allow Time For Economic Healing Beginning in August, a number of BCA publications became a tad more cautious on risk assets. Following our October editorial view meeting last week, this cautiousness was cemented with a tactical downgrade of global equities to neutral from previously overweight in the BCA House View matrix. While this marks a clear shift toward this publication’s less sanguine view of the U.S. equity market adopted during the summer, BCA's cyclical 12-month House View remains overweight global equities. Worryingly, the majority of the indicators we track continue to emit distress signals and warn that the SPX has further downside (Chart 2), especially absent profit growth. Importantly, we first correctly posited last May that the back half of the year global growth reacceleration was in jeopardy and would go on hiatus courtesy of rising policy uncertainty.1 Such a backdrop would boost the U.S. dollar and simultaneously take a bite out of SPX EPS.2 Chart 2Soft Data Red Flag Last week we highlighted that the U.S. dollar is the most important indicator to monitor given its global deflationary/reflationary properties. Were the greenback to maintain its year-to-date gains, it will continue to dent SPX profitability via P&L translation loss effects and likely sustain the profit recession into early 2020 (trade-weighted U.S. dollar shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 3). Chart 3Greenback Weighing On Profits U.S. Equity Strategy’s S&P 500 four-factor macro EPS growth model remains downbeat (middle panel, Chart 4). Were we to isolate the U.S. dollar as a single variable and re-run the regression it is clear that additional greenback appreciation will further weigh on SPX profit growth (bottom panel, Chart 4). Meanwhile, the easing in financial conditions and drubbing of the 10-year Treasury yield since the Christmas Eve lows is already reflected in the 23% jump in the forward PE multiple, which explains over 90% of the SPX’s rise since the Dec 24, 2018 trough (top & middle panels, Chart 5). In other words, for multiples to expand anew, financial conditions would have to further ease, which in our view is a tall order (bottom panel, Chart 5). Chart 4EPS Model Warrants Caution Chart 5Financial Conditions Are The Forward P/E This week we are initiating two related pair trades to exploit the mispricing of the trade war within the deep cyclical sector universe.  Thus, we would lean against the narrative that easy financial conditions are not fully reflected into stocks. In contrast, our worry is that junk spreads are on the verge of a breakout and such a backdrop would tighten financial conditions and aggravate an SPX drawdown (junk OAS shown inverted, Chart 6). Adding it all up, the trade-weighted U.S. dollar’s appreciation along with the still souring manufacturing data are weighing on SPX profit growth, at a time when heightened geopolitical uncertainty and a looming reversal in financial conditions has the potential to wreak havoc on stock prices. Stay cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon. This week we are initiating two related pair trades to exploit the mispricing of the trade war within the deep cyclical sector universe. Chart 6Watch Junk Spreads Initiate A Long Industrials/Short Tech Pair Trade… Ever since the Sino-American trade war started in March 2018, the market has punished industrials, but tech has escaped unscathed. While the global growth soft patch preceded the U.S./China trade spat, courtesy of the Fed’s tightening cycle and Chinese policymakers’ slamming on the brakes, the trade war has served as a catalyst to aggressively shed deep cyclical equities except for tech stocks (Chart 7). We think this misalignment presents a playable opportunity to generate alpha by going long industrials/short tech, irrespective of the trade war’s outcome. In other words, this market neutral trade will be in the black either because the trade spat gets resolved or because there will effectively be no “real” deal including intellectual property and the tech sector. If the two sides manage to iron out their differences and strike a deal, industrials stocks should benefit from a greater catch-up phase because they have been depressed over the past two years, while tech stocks are near relative all-time highs. In contrast, a “no deal” scenario, should also re-concentrate investors’ minds and lead to a relative selling in tech stocks versus their already beaten-down deep cyclical peers: industrials. Chart 7Bifurcated Deep Cyclicals Market Chart 8Lots Of Bad Trade War News Reflected In Prices Chart 8 shows the drubbing in relative share prices as three key macro drivers have felt the trade war’s wrath. In more detail, were a deal to get struck, growth expectations will reverse course and a bond market sell-off will almost immediately reflect such an improvement in the global macro backdrop. Rising interest rates on the back of a reflationary/inflationary impulse are a boon for industrials and a bane for high growth tech stocks (top panel, Chart 8). Similarly, the middle panel of Chart 8 highlights that the ISM manufacturing survey should climb above the boom/bust line and outshine the San Francisco Fed’s Tech Pulse Index (that comprises “coincident indicators of activity in the U.S. information technology sector”3) on news of a successful deal. Finally, relative capital expenditure outlays should also veer in favor of industrials as previously mothballed infrastructure projects will come out of hibernation (bottom panel, Chart 8). In contrast, tech capex has been resilient of late with analytics, security and cloud computing being the most defensive capex corner, leaving little room for additional relative capex gains. Taking the opposite side i.e. a “no deal”, we doubt the metrics we depict in Chart 8 would sink that much further. If anything we believe that there is an element of exhaustion and relative share prices would jump on news of a breakdown in trade talks as tech sector fire sales would trump the sell-off in already depressed industrials. Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar and relative share prices have been steeply diverging recently and this gap will likely narrow via a catch-up phase in the latter (top & middle panels, Chart 9). According to Factset’s latest data the S&P industrials sector garners 37% of its sales from abroad, whereas the S&P information technology sector’s foreign exposure stands at 57% of total revenues.4 Therefore, given this 20% delta, a rising greenback should be beneficial to the more domestically geared industrials stocks (bottom panel, Chart 9). On the operating front, industrials also have the upper hand. The relative wage bill is sinking like a stone (shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 10) at a time when relative selling price inflation is holding its own (top panel, Chart 10). The upshot is that a relative profit margin jump is in store in the coming months which should boost the relative share price ratio (bottom panel, Chart 10). Chart 9Unsustainable Divergence Chart 10Industrials Have The Upper Hand U.S. Equity Strategy’s proprietary relative Cyclical Macro Indicators and relative profit growth models capture all these drivers and both signal that an industrials versus tech earnings-led outperformance phase looms into year end (Chart 11). Chart 12 shows that the relative earnings breadth and relative net earnings revisions are both deep in negative territory. In terms of technicals, the relative percentage of groups trading with a positive 52-week rate of change has hit the lowest level in the past two decades (second panel, Chart 12) and our composite relative technical indicator is roughly one standard deviation below the historical mean (bottom panel, Chart 11). Chart 11Profit Models And...  Chart 12...Washed Out Breadth Say Buy Industrials At The Expense Of Tech Finally, relative valuations are also bombed out. Our relative valuation indicator has been in a six-year uninterrupted drop, falling from two standard deviations above the mean to one standard deviation below the mean (fourth panel, Chart 11). Such entrenched bearishness in relative value is unwarranted. Bottom Line:  Firming operating metrics, the resilient U.S. dollar, compelling valuations and depressed technicals, all signal that there is an exploitable tactical trading opportunity in a long S&P industrials/short S&P tech pair trade, irrespective of the trade war outcome. …And A Long Machinery/Short Semis Pair Trade A more speculative and higher octane vehicle to explore this trade war-related mispricing is via a long S&P machinery/short S&P semiconductors pair trade. Most of the drivers mentioned above also hold true in this subsector market-neutral trade. However, in this section we will drill deeper in the China/EM drivers. The Emerging Asia leading economic indicator (EALEI) has plummeted to levels last hit around the 1998 LTCM bailout (top panel, Chart 13). While more pain is likely in the coming months as global trade has ground to a halt, we doubt the carnage in the EALEI can continue indefinitely. In fact, a tentative trough in the Emerging Markets (EM) manufacturing PMI heralds a brighter outlook for relative share prices (bottom panel, Chart 13). Chart 13Same Trade War Theme, Different Vehicles To Play It Chart 14China...  Encouragingly, China’s fiscal and credit impulse also signals that a bottom in relative share prices is likely already in place. If this leading indicator proves accurate in the coming months, then relative share prices can spike 20% near the late-2018 highs (Chart 14).   Chinese money supply growth is showing some signs of life and capital committed to infrastructure spending is coming out of hibernation. Goldman Sachs’ China current activity indicator is on a similar upward trajectory, underscoring that the path of least resistance is higher for relative share prices (Chart 15). Chart 15...Holds The Key Chart 16Firming Final Demand... On the operating front, relative new orders and relative shipment growth have both ticked higher (top & middle panels, Chart 16). Importantly, our relative demand proxy suggests that the relative end-demand backdrop is also firming. Using Caterpillar’s global sales to dealers data compared with global chip sales reveals that a wide gap has formed between relative share prices and our relative demand gauge (bottom panel, Chart 16). If our thesis pans out in the upcoming three-to-six months then machinery will trounce semis. Finally, relative pricing power corroborates that machinery demand has the upper hand versus semiconductor final demand. The Commodity Research Bureau’s raw industrials index is climbing relative to Asian DRAM prices. The upshot is that the compellingly valued relative share price ratio will gain steam in the months ahead (Chart 17). In sum, a tentative up-tick in EM and China data along with improving relative operating metrics signal that the time is ripe to initiate a long machinery/short semis pair trade. Bottom Line: Initiate a long S&P machinery/short S&P semiconductors pair trade today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P machinery and S&P semis indexes are: BLBG – S5MACH – CAT, DE, ITW, IR, CMI, PCAR, PH, SWK, FTV, DOV, XYL, IEX, WAB, SNA, PNR, FLS, and BLBG – S5SECO – INTC, TXN, NVDA, AVGO, QCOM, MU, ADI, AMD, XLNX, QRVO, MCHP, MXIM, SWKS, respectively. Chart 17...Is A Boon To Relative Pricing Power Key Risk To Monitor One important risk to both of our newly recommended market-neutral trades is China. We recently touched base with our ex-Chief Geopolitical Strategist and currently Chief Strategist at the Clocktower Group, Marko Papic. He warned us that all bets would be off because: “I think we will look back at the recession of 2020 and it will be known as the “China recession”. Basically, China just decided to stop playing, pick up its toys, and go home”. If Marko’s wise words were to ring true, then such a Chinese policy shift will truly be a game changer with negative global economic growth implications. With regard to our pair trades, they would both be offside.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Consolidation” dated May 21, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “On Edge” dated May 13, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3      https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/indicators-data/tech-pulse/ 4      https://www.factset.com/hubfs/Resources%20Section/Research%20Desk/Earnings%20Insight/EarningsInsight_100419A.pdf Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives   (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)

Overweight Last week Costco reported its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings, which came in beating expectations. These results are good news for our S&P hypermarkets overweight call as Costco accounts for nearly 50% of the index. We first recommended investors increase their exposure to this plain vanilla consumer defensive industry just under 3 months ago, and this position is already up 8% relative to the SPX since inception. Macroeconomic data remains soft across the board heralding more gains for the S&P hypermarkets index (second panel). Meanwhile, industry specific data is encouraging, with Big Box retail sales slated to firm further (third & bottom panels). Specifically, hypermarkets’ pricing power is set to increase as the relative consumer confidence by income (defined as the ratio of Americans who make less than $35,000/annum to those who make above $35,000/annum) has climbed to fresh cyclical highs (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Consumer staples stocks in general and hypermarkets in particular continue to shine. Stay overweight the S&P hypermarkets index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HYPC - WMT, COST.    

Highlights The Chinese economy is still slowing, and there is not yet enough evidence from forward-looking economic data to suggest a turnaround is imminent. Deflation has returned to China’s industrial sector. Even though overall price deceleration has been relatively mild, it is further squeezing already deteriorating industrial profit growth. We do not expect deflation to spiral into a 2015/2016-style episode, which removes at least one risk to our growth outlook. At the same time, a mild deceleration in prices will not provide enough incentive for Chinese policymakers to hit the stimulus button.  The People’s Bank of China’s new interest rate-setting regime, the LPR, will not provide much in the way of stimulus over the next few months. But it has the potential to improve China’s monetary policy transmission mechanism over the coming year, increasing the odds that policymakers will succeed in stabilizing economic activity. Short-term downside risks to growth have not abated, and we remain tactically bearish on Chinese stocks. Cyclically, we continue to recommend an overweight stance, on the basis of an eventual reacceleration in economic activity. Feature Chart 1The Chinese Economy Is Still Slowing China’s economy is at a critical juncture: “Half-measured” stimulus so far has been able to keep the domestic economy in better shape than in the 2015-2016 down cycle, but overall economic activity has not bottomed (Chart 1). The Sino-America trade talk has resumed at the moment, but the two sides have yet to make any substantive progress towards a deal. In the meantime, the global economy has also reached a critical point where the degree of economic weakness has the potential to feed on itself, possibly triggering a recession.1  This underscores our tactically bearish stance towards Chinese stocks versus the global equity benchmark. Barring more forceful stimulus or resolution on the trade front, any external shock and/or internal policy missteps could easily tip the Chinese economy into a deeper growth slowdown. Hence, downside risks remain elevated for Chinese stocks over the next 3- to 6-months.    The “D” Word Returns, But Won’t Spur Aggressive Further Easing Chart 2Industrial Price Deflation Returns Economic data over the past two months have provided mixed signals. Readings from both China’s National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) PMI and from the Caixin PMI show an improvement in the manufacturing sector. However, industrial deflation has returned to China: Three years after the country declared victory against a prolonged industrial destocking cycle, producer price inflation (PPI) relapsed into negative territory in July and declined further in August (Chart 2).   While prices are typically lagging indicators and reflect lingering effects from past economic conditions, there is not enough evidence in forward-looking economic data right now to suggest a turnaround in the economy is imminent.2  A deflationary PPI is not a trivial source of concern for Chinese policymakers. Last time growth in China’s PPI turned negative, it took policymakers four and a half years and an annualized 28% of GDP worth of credit expansion to pull the industrial sector out of its deflationary cycle. Chart 3Deflation Threatens Recovery In Industrial Profit Growth For investors, deflation has pernicious effects on profits, and we have received several client inquiries concerning the topic since PPI growth turned negative. The historical relationship suggests profit growth for both the A-share and investable markets is highly linked to fluctuations in producer prices (Chart 3), and China’s industrial sector profit growth has already been rapidly deteriorating over the past 12 months. The good news is that we do not expect the current episode of PPI deflation to become as protracted as it did in 2012-2016, or as severe as in 2015-2016. Two reasons underpin our view: Since early-2018, monetary policy has been much easier than during past deflationary episodes. Monetary policy in the past year and half has been much more accommodative than in the three years leading to the deep industrial deflationary cycle in 2015, particularly on the exchange rate front. The RMB was soft-pegged to a rising U.S. dollar before it was decoupled by the PBoC in August 2015, and was appreciating against its trading partners throughout most of 2012-2015. Bank lending rates were also kept at historically high levels during this period (Chart 4). This time, even though money and credit growth has not returned to the same pace as in 2015-2016, current ultra-loose monetary conditions should spur enough credit growth to keep prices from deflating aggressively. Chart 4Monetary Conditions Easier Than Last Cycle Inventory levels are low, and capacity levels do not appear to be overly excessive. After years of industrial consolidation, China’s industrial capacity does not appear to be particularly excessive compared to the past cycle. This is distinctively different from the prolonged contraction in PPI between 2012 and 2016, when China’s industrial inventories were coming off a five-year-long destocking cycle, and capacity utilization fell markedly (Chart 5). This is not the case today. Moreover, even though final demand has been weak, production has retrenched even more, drawing down inventories to the point where the pace of inventory destocking may have reached a cyclical bottom (Chart 6). A re-stocking of industrial goods should boost producers’ pricing power. Chart 5Capacity Is Not Excessively Underutilized Chart 6Inventory Destocking May Be Bottoming Out But the bad news (for investors), is that contained, or mild producer price deflation will not be reason alone to spur aggressive further easing from policymakers. This means that the re-emergence of price deflation, even mild and short-lived, will weigh on earnings and investor sentiment. Bottom Line: This episode of producer price deflation is unlikely to become as pernicious as occurred in the past, but policymakers are thus unlikely to act aggressively to counter it. While this removes some of the downside risks for Chinese stocks, even mild deflation will weigh on earnings growth (and thus sentiment) which underscores our tactically bearish stance on Chinese stocks. Demystifying China’s New Loan Prime Rate: Not The Stimulus You Are Looking For On August 20th, the PBoC launched a new loan prime rate (LPR) system, a revamped reference regime for setting bank loan interest rates3 (Chart 7). In September, the new LPR rate for one-year bank loans was lowered by five basis points. Since then, the market has been fixated on predicting whether the PBoC will cut the Medium-Lending Facility (MLF) rate next, which would be perceived as a change in China’s monetary stance. Chart 7China's New LPR: A Shadow 'Tax Cut' PBoC will increase its control of the pricing of credit, while tight financial regulations will restrict the size and speed of credit growth. The new LPR reform, in our view, is designed to force state-owned (and better-capitalized) commercial banks to hand out a “tax cut” to struggling small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by lowering bank lending rates. At the same time, it allows the PBoC to take back control of the pricing of credit from commercial banks, “killing two birds with one stone.” There are three main market implications from this approach: The new LPR is likely to gradually narrow the gap between corporate bond yields (i.e. “market rates”) and bank lending rates; A cut in the MLF rate in the near term should be interpreted as a “reward” to commercial banks rather than a stimulus for the economy; Most importantly, the new LPR system does not mean rapid credit expansion is in the cards. Quite the opposite, in the near term, banks may tighten their lending. The wide spread between the 3-month interbank repo rate and average bank lending rate illustrates the reason why the PBoC has introduced the LPR.4 This gap is also evident when comparing the yield of AAA-rated corporate bonds and the average bank lending rate (Chart 8). These gaps exist because Chinese commercial banks have largely manipulated the 1-year bank lending rate set by the PBoC when lending to their “preferred customers,” usually state-owned enterprises and real estate developers, by offering significantly discounted loan rates. Banks then charge substantial “risk premiums” on loans to the private sector, mostly SMEs, to make up for the narrower profit margins on loans to SOEs (Chart 9). Chart 8An Impaired Monetary Policy Transmission Mechanism Chart 9Evidence Of Asymmetrical Lending Practices The new LPR system is designed to minimize this discrepancy, since the new LPRs are more market based and are quoted based on the price of loans banks charge their prime clients. By design, the new LPR system should force the average bank lending rate closer to the rate companies borrow in the bond market. This means bank lending rates will be guided lower, including lending rates for SMEs. However, the new system will be implemented in phases, and the PBoC is likely to gradually guide LPRs lower to allow banks to readjust their pricing models.  The LPR rate is essentially the MLF rate plus bank profit margins (the added basis points above the MLF rate). The market will guide the top line lending rate, while the PBoC will have control over the floor rate (MLF) through open market operations. The fact that the PBoC is keeping the MLF rate unchanged while allowing the LPR to drop (albeit slightly) sends an explicit message: The PBoC is forcing banks to lower lending rates first before boosting their now-narrowed profit margins by lowering the MLF rate. In contrast to expectations of market participants that the LPR system will ease credit conditions, banks may actually tighten their lending in the coming months. While the PBoC will increase its control of the pricing of bank loans by the rate reform plan, the strengthening in financial regulations that has occurred over the past year will restrict the size and speed of credit growth. This combination has created more room for monetary easing without unleashing “animal spirits.” Borrowing costs to risky institutions have been higher since the Baoshang Bank takeover and are likely to remain elevated even if interest rates are lower (Chart 10). More importantly, mortgage and real estate developer loans together account for nearly 30% of total bank credit. Unless policymakers ease the brakes on lending restrictions to the property sector, bank lending growth is unlikely to pick up meaningfully (Chart 11). In fact, the PBoC has explicitly excluded mortgage and property-related lending from benefitting from the LPR rate cut.5 Barring a significant worsening in economic data, we do not expect the PBoC to lower mortgage lending and real estate-related loan rates in the coming months. Chart 10Tightened Financial Regulations Will Keep Cost Of Risky Lending High Chart 11Mortgage Rate Unlikely To Return To Its 2016 Low Finally, in the next two- to three-quarter mandatory implementation period, banks will be readjusting their pricing and credit risk-assessing models. During the transition, we expect more cautious sentiment among both lenders and borrowers. Hence, in the short term, bank loan growth may actually moderate. Bottom Line: The new LPR system may lower China’s banking sector profits in the short term. But in the next 6- to 12-months, we expect the PBoC to compensate commercial banks by keeping ample liquidity in the interbank system and by eventually lowering the MLF rate. The new LPR system may slow bank credit growth in the next few months, but after its full implementation (by the second quarter of 2020), it will have the potential to make PBoC’s policy more effective. Investment Conclusions We expect two phases of Chinese equity relative performance over the coming year: one phase of flat-to-potentially seriously down performance to last from now until sometime in the first quarter of 2020 when the economy bottoms, and then a phase of outperformance. Our expectation that the economy will bottom in Q1 2020 rests on the existing reflationary response by Chinese policymakers and an improved monetary transmission mechanism. Chart 12We Expect The Chinese Economy To Bottom In Q1 2020 Our expectation that the economy will bottom in the first quarter of 2020 continues to rest on the existing reflationary response by Chinese policymakers (Chart 12), and the fact that China’s new LPR system has the potential to improve what is currently a seriously impaired monetary transmission mechanism beyond the next two or three quarters. But the existing response of policymakers has been considerably more measured when compared to past economic cycles, meaning that equity investors are unlikely to be as forward-looking as they otherwise might be. Weak producer price deflation will weigh on investor sentiment, and it is unlikely to be weak enough to spur aggressive further easing. The potential for further escalation of the U.S.-China trade war also compellingly argues against an overweight stance in the near-term, even if we expect economic growth to subsequently improve. Consequently, we remain tactically bearish and cyclically bullish towards Chinese stocks: medium-term investors who are already positioned in favor of China-related assets should stay long, whereas investors who have not yet moved to an overweight stance should wait for a better buying opportunity to emerge over the coming few months.   Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Outlook “Fourth Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: A “Show Me” Market”, dated October 4, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “China Macro And Market Review”, dated October 2, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3      Announcement of the People’s Bank of China on Improving Loan Prime Rate (LPR) Formation Mechanism, August 19, 2019, available at http://www.pbc.gov.cn/en/3688110/3688172/3877490/index.html 4      PBC Official Answers Press Questions on Improving Loan Prime Rate (LPR) Formation Mechanism, August 20, 2019, available at http://www.pbc.gov.cn/en/3688110/3688172/3877865/index.html 5      Announcement of the People’s Bank of China No.16, August 27, 2019, available at http://www.pbc.gov.cn/en/3688110/3688172/3881177/index.html Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Q3/2019 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark by -30bps during the third quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The biggest underperformance came from underweight positions in U.S. Treasuries (-28bps) and Italian government bonds (-18bps) as yields plunged, dwarfing gains from overweights in corporate bonds in the U.S. (+11bps) and euro area (+4bps). Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: We are maintaining our current positioning, staying below-benchmark on duration while overweighting U.S. and euro area corporates vs. government debt. In our base case scenario, global growth will begin to stabilize but the Fed will deliver one more “insurance” rate cut by year-end, leading to corporate bond outperformance. Feature Global bond markets have enjoyed a powerful bull run throughout 2019, as yields have plummeted alongside weakening global growth and growing political uncertainty. Those two forces came to a head in the third quarter of the year, with U.S.-China trade tensions ratcheting up another notch after the imposition of higher U.S. tariffs in early August and global manufacturing PMI data moving into contraction territory – especially in the U.S. The result was a significant fall in government bond yields as markets discounted both lower inflation expectations and more aggressive monetary easing from global central banks, led by the Fed and ECB. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield and 10-year German Bund yield plunged -40bps and -25bps, respectively, during the July-September period. Yet at the same time, global credit markets remained surprisingly stable, as the option-adjusted spread on the Bloomberg Barclays Global Corporates index was unchanged over the same three months. In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the eventful third quarter of 2019. We also present our updated scenario analysis, and total return projections, for the portfolio over the next six months. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q3/2019 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Good News On Credit Trumped By Bad News On Duration Chart of the WeekDuration Losses Dwarf Credit Gains In Q3/19 The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the third quarter was 2.0%, lagging the custom benchmark index by -30 bps (Chart of the Week).1 This brings the cumulative year-to-date total return of the portfolio to +7.8%, which has underperformed the benchmark by a disappointing –67bps. The Q3 drag on relative returns came entirely from the government bond side of the portfolio; specifically, the underweight allocation to U.S. Treasuries and Italian government bonds (Table 1). Those allocations reflected our views on overall portfolio duration (below benchmark) and a relative value consideration within European spread product (preferring corporates to Italy). Both those recommendations went against us as global bond yields dropped during Q3, with Italian yields collapsing (the benchmark 10-year yield was down –126bps) as investors chased any positive yield denominated in euros after the ECB signaled a new round of policy easing. The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the third quarter was 2.0%, lagging the custom benchmark index by -30 bps  Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2019 Overall Return Attribution Providing some partial offset to the U.S. and Italy allocations were gains from overweight positions in government bonds in the U.K., Australia and Japan. More importantly, our overweights in corporate debt in the U.S. and euro area made a strong positive contribution to the performance of the portfolio. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. The most significant movers were: Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2019 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2019 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Biggest outperformers Overweight U.S. high-yield Ba-rated (+4bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield B-rated (+3bps) Overweight U.S. investment grade industrials (+3bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (+2bps) Overweight euro area corporates, both investment grade (+2bps) and high-yield (+2bps) Biggest underperformers Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-15bps) Underweight Italy government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-10bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-5bps) Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-4bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity of 3-5 years (-4bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q3/2019. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q3/2019 (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral).2 Ideally, we would look to see more blue bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Bond Portfolio In Q3/2019 One thing that stands out from Chart 4 is that every fixed income sector generated a positive return, except for EM USD-denominated corporates. This is a fascinating outcome given the sharp falls in risk-free government bond yields which typically would correlate to a selloff in risk assets and widening of credit spreads. The soothing balm of looser global monetary policy seems to have offset the impact of elevated uncertainty on trade and future economic growth, allowing both bond yields and credit spreads to stay low. The soothing balm of looser global monetary policy seems to have offset the impact of elevated uncertainty on trade and future economic growth, allowing both bond yields and credit spreads to stay low.  We maintained an overweight stance on global spread product throughout Q3, as we felt that the monetary policy effect would continue to overwhelm uncertainty. We did, however, make some tactical adjustments to our duration stance after the U.S. raised tariffs on Chinese imports, upgrading to neutral on August 6th.3 We had felt that higher tariffs were a sign that a potential end to the U.S.-China trade conflict was now even less likely, which raised the odds of a potential risk-off financial market event that would temporarily push bond yields lower. We shifted back to a below-benchmark duration stance on September 17th, given signs of de-escalation in the trade dispute and, more importantly, some improvement evident in global leading economic indicators.4 Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index during the third quarter of the year, with the drag on performance from an underweight stance on U.S. Treasuries and Italian BTPs overwhelming the gains from corporate credit overweights in the U.S. and euro area. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven by two main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias and our overweight stance on global corporate debt versus government bonds. Chart 5Overall Portfolio Allocation: Overweight Credit In terms of the specific high-level weightings in the model portfolio, we currently have a moderate overweight, equal to eight percentage points, on spread product versus government debt (Chart 5). This reflects a more constructive view on future global growth. Early leading economic indicators are starting to bottom out and global central bankers are maintaining a dovish policy bias despite low unemployment rates – both factors that will continue to benefit growth-sensitive assets like corporate debt. Early leading economic indicators are starting to bottom out and global central bankers are maintaining a dovish policy bias despite low unemployment rates – both factors that will continue to benefit growth-sensitive assets like corporate debt. We are maintaining our below-benchmark duration tilt at 0.6 years short of the custom benchmark (Chart 6). We recognize, however, that the underperformance from duration in the model portfolio will not begin to be clawed back until there are signs of a bottoming in widely-followed cyclical economic indicators like the U.S. ISM index and the German ZEW. We think that will happen given the uptick in our global leading economic indicator (LEI), but that may take a few more months to develop based on the usual lead time from the LEI to the survey data like the ISM. The hook up in the global LEI does still gives us more confidence that the big decline in global bond yields seen this year is over, especially if a potential truce in the U.S.-China trade war is soon reached, as our political strategists believe to be increasingly likely. Chart 6Overall Portfolio Duration: Moderately Below Benchmark Turning to country allocation, we are sticking with overweights in countries where central banks are likely to be more dovish than the Fed over the next 6-12 months (Germany, France, the U.K., Japan, and Australia). We are staying underweight the U.S. where inflation expectations appear too low and Fed rate cut expectations look too extreme. The Italy underweight has become a trickier call. We have long viewed Italian debt as a growth-sensitive credit instrument rather than the yield-driven rates vehicle it became in Q3 as markets priced in fresh monetary easing measures from the ECB (including restarting government purchases). We will revisit our Italy views in an upcoming report but, until then, we will continue to view Italian BTPs within the context of our European spread product allocation. Thus, we are maintaining an overweight on euro area corporate debt (by 1% each in investment grade and high-yield) while having an equal-sized underweight (-2%) in Italian government bonds. Our combined positioning generates a portfolio that has “positive carry”, with a yield of 3.1% (hedged into U.S. dollars) that is +25bps over that of the custom benchmark index (Chart 7). That same portfolio, however, generates an estimated tracking error (excess volatility of the portfolio versus its benchmark) of 55bps - well below our self-imposed 100bps ceiling and still within the 40-60bps range we have targeted since the start of 2019 (Chart 8). Chart 7Portfolio Yield: Positive Carry From Credit Chart 8Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts In April 2018, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.5 For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To U.S. Treasuries This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis of projected returns for each asset class in the model bond portfolio by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. In Tables 3A & 3B, we present our three main scenarios for the next six months, defined by changes in the risk factors, and the expected performance of the model bond portfolio in each case. The scenarios, described below, all revolve around our expectation that the most important drivers of future market returns will continue to be the momentum of global growth and the path of U.S. monetary policy. The scenario inputs for the four main risk factors (the fed funds rate, the price of oil, the U.S. dollar and the VIX index) are shown visually in Chart 9. Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio For The Next Six Months Table 3BU.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis Chart 9Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Base Case (Global Growth Bottoms): The Fed delivers one more -25bp rate cut by the end of 2019, the U.S. dollar weakens by -3%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX hovers around 15, and there is a bear-steepening of the UST curve. This is a scenario where the U.S. economy ends up avoiding recession and grows at roughly a trend-like pace. The Fed, however, still delivers one more “insurance” rate cut to mitigate the risk of low inflation expectations becoming more entrenched. Global growth is expected to bottom out as heralded by the global leading indicators. A truce (but not a full deal) is expected on the U.S.-China trade front, helping to moderately soften the U.S. dollar through reduced risk aversion. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +91bps in this case. Global Growth Strongly Rebounds: The Fed stays on hold, the U.S. dollar weakens by -5%, oil prices rise by +20%, the VIX declines to 12, there is a modest bear-steepening of the UST curve. In this tail-risk scenario, global growth starts to reaccelerate in lagged response to the global monetary easing seen this year, combined with some fiscal stimulus in major countries (China, the U.S., perhaps even Germany). The U.S. dollar weakens as global capital flows shift to markets which are more sensitive to global growth. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +106bps in this case. U.S. Downturn Intensifies: The Fed cuts rates by -75bps, the U.S. dollar is flat, oil prices fall by -15%, the VIX rises to 30; there is a bull-steepening of the UST curve. Under this tail-risk scenario, the current slowing of U.S. growth momentum gains speed, pushing the economy towards recession. The Fed cuts rates aggressively in response, helping weaken the U.S. dollar, but not before global risk assets sell off sharply to discount a worldwide recession. The model portfolio will underperform the benchmark by -38bps in this scenario. In terms of our conviction level among the main drivers of the model portfolio returns – duration allocation (across yield curves and countries) and asset allocation (credit versus government bonds) – we are most confident that credit returns will exceed those of sovereign debt over the next six months. In terms of our conviction level among the main drivers of the model portfolio returns – duration allocation (across yield curves and countries) and asset allocation (credit versus government bonds) – we are most confident that credit returns will exceed those of sovereign debt over the next six months. The underweight duration position, however, will also eventually begin to pay off if the message from the budding improvement in global leading economic indicators turns out to be correct. A collapse of the U.S.-China trade negotiations is the biggest threat to our base case, which would make the “U.S. Downturn Intensifies” scenario a more likely outcome. Bottom Line: We are maintaining our current positioning, staying below-benchmark on duration while overweighting U.S. and euro area corporates governments. In our base case scenario, global growth will begin to stabilize but the Fed will deliver one more “insurance” rate cut by year-end, leading to spread product outperformance.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q3/2019 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade War Worries: Once More, With Feeling”, dated August 6, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The World Is Not Ending: Return To Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration”, dated September 17, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start”, dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chart 1Contagion? Until last week, global growth weakness had been wholly confined to the manufacturing sector. But the drop to 52.6 in September’s Non-Manufacturing PMI (from 56.4 in August) raises the specter of contagion from manufacturing into the broader U.S. economy. A further drop would be consistent with an economy headed toward recession, and run contrary to the 2015/16 roadmap that has been our base case (Chart 1). We think it is still premature to abandon the 2015/16 episode as an appropriate comparable for the current period. For one thing, the hard economic data paint a rosier picture than the PMI surveys. Industrial production and core durable goods new orders are up 2.5% and 2.3% (annualized), respectively, during the past 3 months. These data have helped drive the economic surprise index above zero, an event that usually coincides with rising yields (bottom panel). The divergence between soft and hard data makes it clear that trade uncertainties are so far having a greater impact on business sentiment than on actual production, but history tells us that these divergences don’t last long. Some positive news on the trade front will be required during the next few months to raise business sentiment and push bond yields higher. Stay tuned. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 42 basis points in September, before giving back 37 bps in the first week of October. We consider three main factors in our credit cycle analysis: (i) corporate balance sheet health, (ii) monetary conditions, and (iii) valuation. At present, the chief conundrum for investors is that while corporate balance sheet health is weak, the monetary environment is extraordinarily accommodative.1 On balance sheets, our top-down measure of gross leverage is elevated and rising (Chart 2). In contrast, interest coverage ratios remain solid, propped up by the Fed’s accommodative stance. With inflation expectations still very low, the Fed can maintain its “easy money” policy for some time yet. This will ensure that interest coverage stays solid and that bank lending standards continue to ease (bottom panel). This is an environment where corporate bond spreads should tighten. How low can spreads go? Our assessment of reasonable spread targets for the current environment suggests that Aaa, Aa and A-rated spreads are already fully valued, while Baa-rated spreads are 13 bps cheap (panels 2 & 3).2 We recommend focusing investment grade corporate bond exposure on the Baa credit tier, and subbing some Agency MBS into your portfolio in place of corporate bonds rated A or higher. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 66 basis points in September, before giving back 117 bps in the first week of October. The junk index’s option-adjusted spread (OAS) has been fairly stable for most of the year, but the sector has become increasingly attractive from a risk/reward perspective.3 This is because the index’s negatively convex nature has caused its average duration to fall alongside declining Treasury yields. Chart 3 shows that while the index OAS has been rangebound, the 12-month breakeven spread has widened considerably.4 In other words, while junk expected returns have been stable, those expected returns now come with considerably less risk. As a result, the junk index OAS looks increasingly attractive relative to our spread target.5 Specifically, we now view the junk index OAS as 171 bps cheap (panel 3). Falling index duration also explains the divergence between quality spreads and the index OAS. Many have observed that the spread differential between Caa and Ba-rated junk bonds has widened in recent months, while the overall index OAS has been stable (panel 4). However, the divergence evaporates when we look at 12-month breakeven spreads instead of OAS (bottom panel). MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in September, before giving back 25 bps in the first week of October. MBS have underperformed Treasuries by 31 bps, year-to-date. The conventional 30-year zero volatility spread held flat at 82 bps in September, as a 3 bps increase in expected prepayment losses (option cost) was offset by a 3 bps tightening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS). In last week’s report, we recommended favoring Agency MBS over Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate bonds.6 We have three main reasons for this recommendation. First, expected compensation is competitive. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS is now 57 bps. This is above the pre-crisis average (Chart 4), and only 4 bps below the spread offered by a Aa-rated corporate bond. Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate bond spreads also all look expensive relative to our targets. Second, risk-adjusted compensation heavily favors MBS. The 12-month breakeven spread for a conventional 30-year MBS is 21 bps. This compares to 6 bps, 8 bps and 12 bps for Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporates, respectively. Finally, the macro environment for MBS remains supportive. Mortgage lending standards have barely eased since the financial crisis (bottom panel), and most people have already had at least one opportunity to refinance their mortgage. This burnout will keep refi activity low, and MBS spreads tight (panel 2), going forward. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +163 bps. September returns were concentrated in the Foreign Agency sub-sector. These securities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 55 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +197 bps. Sovereign bonds underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 6 bps in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +436 bps. Local Authority and Domestic Agency debt underperformed by 1 bp and 2 bps on the month, respectively. Meanwhile, Supranationals bested the Treasury benchmark by a single basis point. Sovereign debt remains very expensive relative to equivalently-rated U.S. corporate credit (Chart 5). While the sector would benefit if the Fed’s dovish pivot eventually results in a weaker dollar, U.S. corporate bonds would also perform well in such an environment. Given the much more attractive starting point for U.S. corporate bond spreads, we find it difficult to recommend sovereign debt as an alternative. While sovereign debt in general looks expensive. USD-denominated Mexican sovereign bonds continue to look attractive relative to U.S. corporates (bottom panel). Investors should favor Mexican sovereigns within an otherwise underweight allocation to the sector as a whole. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -57 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We recommended upgrading municipal bonds from neutral to overweight in last week’s report.7  We based the decision on the increasing attractiveness of yield ratios, despite an underlying credit environment that remains supportive for munis. Municipal bond yields failed to keep pace with falling Treasury yields in recent months, and now look quite attractive as a result (Chart 6). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio rose 4% in September and is now back above 90%. This is well above the 81% average that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. In fact, Aaa M/T yield ratios for every maturity are now above average pre-crisis levels. Though yield ratios still look best at the long-end of the Aaa curve (panel 2), we now recommend owning munis in place of Treasuries across the entire maturity spectrum. Fundamentally, state & local government balance sheets remain solid. We showed in last week’s report that our Municipal Health Monitor is in “improving health” territory, and noted that state & local government interest coverage is positive (bottom panel). Both of those trends are consistent with muni ratings upgrades continuing to outnumber downgrades going forward. Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in September, and then bull-steepened sharply last week. All in all, the 2/10 Treasury slope is +12 bps, 12 bps steeper than it was at the end of August. The 5/30 slope is +67 bps, 10 bps steeper than at the end of August. Our fair value models (see Appendix B) continue to show that bullets are expensive relative to barbells across the entire Treasury curve. In particular, 5-year and 7-year maturities look very expensive compared to the short and long ends of the curve. Notice that the 2/5/10 butterfly spread, the spread between the 5-year bullet and a duration-matched 2/10 barbell, remains negative despite the recent 2/10 steepening (Chart 7). We have shown in prior research that the 5-year and 7-year maturities are the most highly correlated with our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter. Our discounter is currently at -74 bps, meaning that the market is priced for nearly three more Fed rate cuts during the next 12 months (top panel). We expect fewer cuts than that, and as such, think the Discounter is more likely to rise. 5-year and 7-year maturities would underperform the rest of the curve in that scenario. We also continue to hold our short position in the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. That contract is currently priced for 2 more rate cuts during the next 3 FOMC meetings. That outcome is possible, but our base case economic outlook is more consistent with 1 further cut, likely occurring this month. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 38 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -142 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 3 bps in September, and then another 2 bps last week. It currently sits at 1.51%, well below levels consistent with the Fed’s target. The divergence between the actual inflation data and inflation expectations is becoming increasingly stark. Trimmed mean PCE inflation has been fluctuating around the Fed’s target for most of the year (Chart 8). However, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain stubbornly low, nowhere near the 2.3% - 2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed’s target. As we have pointed out in prior research, it can take time for expectations to adapt to a changing macro environment.8 That being said, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 43 bps too low according to our Adaptive Expectations Model, a model whose primary input is 10-year trailing core inflation (panel 4). It is highly likely that the Fed will have to tolerate some overshoot of its 2% inflation target in order to re-anchor inflation expectations near desired levels. We anticipate that the committee will do so, and we maintain our view that long-dated TIPS breakevens will move above 2.3% before the end of the cycle. ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +72 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 2 bps on the month. It currently sits at 36 bps, very close to its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). ABS also appear unattractive on a risk/reward basis, as both Aaa-rated auto loans and credit cards have moved into the “Avoid” quadrant of our Excess Return Bond Map (Appendix C). The Map uses each bond sector’s spread, duration and volatility to calculate the likelihood of earning or losing 100 bps of excess return versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. At present, the Map shows that ABS offer poor expected return for their level of risk. In addition to poor valuation, the ABS sector’s credit fundamentals are shifting in a negative direction. Household interest payments continue to trend up, suggesting a higher delinquency rate in the future (panel 3). Meanwhile, senior loan officers continue to tighten lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising delinquencies (bottom panel). All in all, the combination of poor value and deteriorating credit quality leads us to recommend an underweight allocation to consumer ABS. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +227 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS held flat on the month, before widening 4 bps last week. It currently sits at 75 bps, below average pre-crisis levels but above levels seen in 2018 (Chart 10). The macro outlook for commercial real estate is somewhat unfavorable, with lenders tightening loan standards (panel 4) amidst falling demand (bottom panel). Commercial real estate prices have accelerated of late, but are still not keeping pace with CMBS spreads (panel 3). Despite the poor fundamental picture, our Excess Return Bond Map shows that CMBS offer a reasonably attractive risk/reward trade-off compared to other bond sectors (see Appendix C). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +90 bps. The index option-adjusted spread held flat on the month, before widening by 5 bps last week. It currently sits at 61 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. Appendix A - The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 74 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate fewer rate cuts over that time horizon, and therefore anticipate that below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will profit. We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B - Butterfly Strategy Valuation The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of +48 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 48 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of October 4, 2019) Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of October 4, 2019) Table 6 Appendix C - Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Map employs volatility-adjusted breakeven spread analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Map does not incorporate any macroeconomic view. The horizontal axis of the Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps of excess return. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of October 4, 2019) Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For more details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. It can be approximated by OAS divided by duration. 5 For more details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

ハイライト 市場予測 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「見せて」相場 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「見せて」相場 投資ストラテジー: 市場は「実績を見せて（show me）」の段階に入っています。株式が持続的に上昇するためには、より良好な経済指標と貿易交渉における実質的な進展が必要です。当社は両方の前提が実現すると考えています。それまでは、リスク資産が下押し圧力にさらされる可能性があります。 グローバル・アセット・アロケーション: 投資家は12か月の見通しでは株式を債券に対してオーバーウェイトすべきですが、短期的には下方リスクに対するヘッジとして通常より高めの現金ポジションを維持してください。 株式: グロースがボトムアウトした後は、新興市場（EM）および欧州株がアウトパフォームするでしょう。金融を含む景気循環性セクターは、成長サイクルが反転したときにディフェンシブをアウトパフォームし始めます。 債券: 中央銀行はハト派姿勢を維持するでしょうが、世界的な成長の強まりを背景にイールドはそれでも緩やかに上昇する見込みです。国債よりもハイイールドのコーポレート・クレジットを優先してください。 通貨: 逆景気循環的通貨である米ドルは今年後半にピークを迎えると見ています。 コモディティ: 原油および産業用金属の価格は上昇するでしょう。金価格は足踏み状態に入っていますが、インフレがついに顕在化する来年末または2021年に再び注目を集めるはずです。 特集 クライアントの皆様へ、 本レポートに代えて、私は10月7日月曜日の東部夏時間（EDT）午前10時にウェブキャストを開催し、年末以降に想定される主要な投資テーマと見解について説明しました。 敬具, ピーター・ベレジン、チーフ・グローバル・ストラテジスト   I. グローバル・マクロの見通し 世界経済の試練期 世界経済は重要な岐路に差し掛かっています。成長は2018年初めから減速しており、多くの者が「失速速度（stall speed）」とみなす水準に達しています。これは経済の弱さが自己強化的に作用し始め、景気後退を引き起こす可能性があるポイントです。 成長の減速はさらに悪化するのでしょうか。私たちの見立てではそうはならないと考えます。ここ4か月で世界の金融環境は大幅に緩和しており、その一因は多くの中央銀行によるハト派への転換です。金融環境の緩和は通常、世界成長にとって好材料です（図表1）。当社のグローバル先行指標は上向きになっており、主に新興市場のデータのわずかな改善によるものです（図表2）。 図表1金融環境の緩和は世界成長を押し上げる 金融環境の緩和は世界経済の成長を押し上げるだろう。 金融環境の緩和は世界経済の成長を押し上げるだろう。 図表2グローバル先行指標は底を抜けた グローバルLEIは安値から反発した グローバルLEIは安値から反発した     重要な問いは、製造業の弱さがより大きなサービス業セクターへ波及するかどうかです。これは起きつつあるという証拠があり、昨日の予想を下回るISM非製造業指数の発表が最新の例です。それでも、サービス業の活動の減速はこれまでのところ限定的です（図表3）。製造業比率の高いドイツでさえ、サービス業PMIは拡張域にあります。これは、製造業とサービス業の活動が足並みをそろえて崩落した2001/02年や2008/09年と大きく異なる点です。 図表3Aサービス業は製造業ほど軟化していない（I） サービス部門の軟化は製造業ほど顕著ではない（I） サービス部門の軟化は製造業ほど顕著ではない（I） 図表3Bサービス業は製造業ほど軟化していない（II） サービス業は製造業ほど弱まっていない（II） サービス業は製造業ほど弱まっていない（II） ドライブバイ的な減速 多くの投資家に製造業の減速の理由を尋ねれば、貿易戦争や中国のデレバレッジ政策を挙げるでしょう。これらは確かに妥当な理由ですが、あまり知られていないもう一つの犯人があります：自動車です。 WardsAutoによれば、世界の自動車販売は年央の上半期に5％超減少し、グレート・リセッション以来最大の落ち込みとなりました（図表4）。生産はさらに大きく落ち込みました。 図表4自動車セクターの弱さが製造業の下落を悪化させた 自動車セクターの弱さが製造業の低迷を一層悪化させた 自動車セクターの弱さが製造業の低迷を一層悪化させた 図表5米国の自動車需要は回復しつつある 米国の自動車需要は回復している 米国の自動車需要は回復している   世界の自動車セクターの弱さは複数の要因を反映しています。新たな厳格な排出基準、税制優遇の期限切れ、厳格化された自動車ローンの貸出基準の遅行効果、貿易緊張などが一因です。加えて、2015/16年のガソリン価格の下落は一部の自動車購入を前倒しさせた可能性があります。これにより、2015/16年の世界的な製造業の落ち込みが現在の落ち込みの種を蒔いた可能性があります。 自動車の生産が販売よりも速く落ちているという事実は、過剰在庫が解消されつつあることを意味するため、歓迎すべき点です。 米国の自動車ローン貸出基準は正常化し始めており、最新のシニアローンオフィサー調査では銀行が自動車ローンの需要増を報告しています（図表5）。 中国では、自動車販売は今年初めに最大14％の落ち込みを示した後に底を打ちました（図表6）。中国の自動車保有率は米国の5分の1、日本の4分の1、韓国の3分の1程度に過ぎません（図表7）。出発点が低いため、中国の自動車販売は中長期的な上昇トレンドを再開する可能性が高いです。 図表6中国の自動車セクターは底を探している 中国の自動車セクターが底を打ち始めている 中国の自動車セクターが底を打ち始めている 図表7中国：自動車の構造的見通しは明るい 中国：自動車の構造的見通しは明るい 中国：自動車の構造的見通しは明るい   貿易戦争：デタントに向かっているのか？ 図表8比較的規則的な3年周期の製造業サイクル かなり規則的な3年周期の製造業サイクル かなり規則的な3年周期の製造業サイクル 製造業サイクルは一般に約3年続きます──成長の減速が18か月、その後成長の上昇が18か月です（図表8）。世界の製造業PMIが2018年上半期にピークをつけたとするなら、現在の下落局面は終盤に差し掛かっているはずです。 もちろん、多くは政策の進展次第です。執筆時点で米中のハイレベルの交渉は再開しています。 これらの協議の結果を予測することは不可能ですが、双方とも対立激化を回避するインセンティブを持っているように見えます。トランプ大統領は経済運営に関しては有権者から他の事柄よりもかなり高い評価を受けており、対中貿易交渉の扱いも含めてそれは当てはまります（図表9）。長期化する貿易戦争は米国の成長と株式市場に悪影響を与え、いずれもトランプ氏の再選可能性を損なうことになります。 図表9トランプは経済運営ではまずまず高評価だが、それ以外は評価が低い 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『ショー・ミー』マーケット 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『ショー・ミー』マーケット 図表10誰が2020年の民主党指名を勝ち取るか？ 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「ショー・ミー」マーケット 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「ショー・ミー」マーケット 中国も成長を下支えしたいと考えています。中国指導部にとってトランプと対処するのは困難だったにせよ、彼が再選された後に貿易合意を取り付けるのはさらに難しくなるでしょう。特にトランプが中国が自身の再選を妨害しようとしたと考えればなおさらです。 たとえトランプが選挙に敗れたとしても、中国が貿易問題で交渉しやすい相手を得られるかは不透明です。賭け市場が現在ジョー・バイデンよりも民主党候補指名獲得の可能性が高いと見ているエリザベス・ウォーレン大統領と環境基準や人権について交渉したいでしょうか（図表10）？ 民主党によるトランプ大統領の弾劾の動きは、貿易解決をやや実現しやすくするでしょう。第一に、それはジョー・バイデン（および彼の息子）のウクライナでの疑わしい取引に注目を集め、中国が支持する米大統領候補に打撃を与えます。第二に、トランプを国内問題に集中させるために中国との争いを早く片付けたいという意向を強めさせる可能性があります。 中国はさらに刺激策を行うか？ 戦略的に見て、中国には経済を刺激して成長を支え、貿易交渉でより大きなレバレッジを得る強いインセンティブがあります。 中国のクレジット・インパルスは2018年後半に底打ちしました。このインパルスは中国の名目製造業生産やその他多くの活動指標に約9か月先行します（図表11）。 これまでのところ、中国の信用・財政緩和の規模は、2015/16年および2008/09年に経済へ投入された刺激策には及んでいません。これは部分的には当局が当時よりも今日の過度な債務水準をより懸念しているためですが、同時に経済の状況が当時より良好であることも理由です。 貿易戦争からのショックはグレート・リセッションほど深刻ではありません──中国の対米輸出は付加価値ベースでGDPのわずか2.7％に過ぎないことを思い出してください。2015/16年に中国が1兆ドル超の外貨準備を失ったのとは異なり、今回の資本流出は限定的にとどまっています（図表12）。 図表11中国の刺激策は世界成長を押し上げるはずだ 中国の景気刺激策は世界経済の成長を押し上げるはずだ 中国の景気刺激策は世界経済の成長を押し上げるはずだ 図表12中国：大きな資本流出はない 中国：大規模な資本流出は見られない 中国：大規模な資本流出は見られない 今週初めに発表された予想を上回る中国の購買担当者指数（PMI）データは一縷の望みを提供しています。それでも、8月の活動指標の失望的な数字を踏まえると、中国は今後数か月で刺激のペースを高める可能性が高いです。 当局はすでに預金準備率を引き下げています。今後数か月で政策金利をさらに引き下げると予想します。また、地方政府債の発行を前倒しすることでインフラ支出を押し上げるでしょう。ヨーロッパの成長は改善するはずだ 世界的な成長の回復は今年後半にヨーロッパを後押しするだろう。貿易依存度の高いドイツが最も恩恵を受けるだろう。 チャート13南欧全域でスプレッドは縮小した 南ヨーロッパ全域でスプレッドが縮小した 南ヨーロッパ全域でスプレッドが縮小した チャート14マネー成長の加速はユーロ圏の国内総生産成長に好材料となる マネー供給の加速はユーロ圏のGDP成長にとって好材料 マネー供給の加速はユーロ圏のGDP成長にとって好材料 ソブリン・スプレッドの低下も南欧を支えるはずだ（チャート13）。イタリアの対独国債の10年スプレッドは8月中旬以来ほぼ1ポイント縮小し、イタリアの10年利回りは0.83％まで低下した。ギリシャの10年債は現在米国債より利回りが低くなっている（ギリシャの製造業購買担当者景気指数は現在世界で最も強い）。 欧州中央銀行が再び市場で国債と社債を買い入れているため、借入金利は低い水準にとどまるはずだ。国内総生産の先行指標であるユーロ圏のマネー成長はすでに加速している（チャート14）。民間向け銀行貸出は引き続き加速するだろう。 適度な財政刺激も助けになるだろう。欧州委員会はユーロ圏の財政的な押し上げが2019年に国内総生産比0.5％増加すると見積もっている（チャート15）。保守的に公共支出乗数を1と仮定すると、これはユーロ圏の成長を0.5ポイント押し上げることになる。財政政策の変更と実体経済への影響の間にはタイムラグがあるため、国内総生産成長への恩恵の大部分は今年の残りと2020年に発生するだろう。 チャート15ユーロ圏の財政刺激策も成長を押し上げるだろう ユーロ圏の財政刺激策も成長を押し上げる ユーロ圏の財政刺激策も成長を押し上げる チャート17ブレグジットの不安：後悔の一例 ブレグジットの不安：ブレモースの事例 ブレグジットの不安：ブレモースの事例 チャート16英国：ブレグジットの不確実性が成長を圧迫している 英国：ブレグジットの不確実性が成長を押し下げている 英国：ブレグジットの不確実性が成長を押し下げている 英国では、ブレグジットの不確実性が引き続き成長を圧迫している。英国の企業投資は特に大きな打撃を受けている（チャート16）。ボリス・ジョンソン首相は10月末に合意の有無にかかわらず英国を欧州連合から離脱させると主張し続けている。我々は彼の虚勢をあまり重視しないつもりだ。最高裁判所はすでに議会を閉鎖しようとする彼の試みを否定している。国民はブレグジットの望ましさについて再考している（チャート17）。ブレグジットの筋書きの正確な展開について我々は確固たる見解を持っているわけではないが、合意なきブレグジットの確率は低いと考えている。これは英国の成長とポンドにとって好材料だ。 日本：オウンゴール 最近の日本のデータは芳しくない。8月の工作機械受注は前年同月比で37％減少した。輸出は8％超縮小し、輸入は12％の減少を記録した。9月の購買担当者景気指数の数値は製造業のさらに悪化を露呈させ、指数は8月の49.3から48.9に低下した。 加えて、鉱工業生産は8月に予想より大きく縮小し、前月比で1％減少、前年同月比では約5％の下落となった。米中貿易交渉をめぐる継続する不確実性や、日本自身と隣国韓国との緊張も日本経済に重荷となっている。 世界的な成長が回復すれば日本の産業活動は今年後半に改善するだろう。しかし、政府は10月1日の消費税引き上げによって成長見通しを助けてはいない。各種の相殺策が税率引き上げの完全な効果を鈍らせるとはいえ、それでも不要な財政引き締めに相当する。 名目国内総生産は1990年代初頭以来ほとんど増加していない。日本に必要なのは名目所得を押し上げる政策だ。そのようなリフレーション政策こそが、経済をデフレのスパイラルに戻すことなく債務対国内総生産比を安定させる唯一の方法かもしれない。1  米国：粘り強く対応 チャート18米国の製造業の割合は他のほとんどの先進国より小さい 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「見せて」マーケット 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「見せて」マーケット 米国経済は最近の世界的な景気減速の中でも比較的良好に推移してきたが、部分的には製造業が多くの他国よりも国内総生産に占める割合が小さいためだ（チャート18）。 アトランタ連銀のGDPNowモデルによれば、実質国内総生産は第3四半期にトレンドに近い1.8％のペースで増加する見込みだ（チャート19）。個人消費は第2四半期の4.6％の成長の後、2.5％増加する見込みだ。消費は賃金上昇に支えられて堅調であり、個人貯蓄率も高水準にとどまっているため、家計は何らかの不利なショックからの緩衝に備えられるはずだ（チャート20）。   チャート19米国の成長は鈍化したが、依然としてトレンドに近い 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『実績を示せ』市場 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『実績を示せ』市場 住宅投資はついに回復局面に入ったように見える。着工件数、建築許可、住宅販売はいずれも回復している。住宅ローン金利と住宅建設の密接な関係を考えれば、建設活動は今後数四半期で加速するはずだ（チャート21）。低い在庫と空室率、世帯形成の増加、そして手頃な価格はいずれも住宅市場にとって好材料だ（チャート22）。 チャート20資産との歴史的関係から判断すると貯蓄率は（大幅に）低下する余地がある 貯蓄率は、資産との歴史的関係から判断すると（かなり）低下する余地がある 貯蓄率は、資産との歴史的関係から判断すると（かなり）低下する余地がある チャート21米国の住宅は回復するだろう 米国の住宅市場は回復する 米国の住宅市場は回復する チャート22米国住宅：堅実な基盤の上にある 米国住宅：堅固な基盤の上にある 米国住宅：堅固な基盤の上にある チャート23米国の設備投資計画は高値から後退したが、景気後退水準にははるかに届いていない 米国の設備投資計画は高値圏から後退したが、景気後退水準にはほど遠い 米国の設備投資計画は高値圏から後退したが、景気後退水準にはほど遠い 住宅投資とは対照的に、企業の設備投資は製造業の不況、強いドル、貿易政策の不確実性に押され続けている。コア耐久財受注は8月に減少した。設備投資意向調査も弱含んでいるが、景気後退水準をはるかに上回っている（チャート23）。 ISM製造業指数は9月に2009年7月以来の低水準に達した。報告の内訳はヘッドラインほど悪くはなかった。ISMを2か月先行する受注対在庫の構成要素は再びプラス圏に戻った。弱いISMの数値は、4月以来最高値に上昇したより楽観的なマーキットの米国製造業購買担当者景気指数と対照をなしている。統計的には、マーキットのPMIはISMよりも米国の製造業生産、工場受注、雇用の公式指標をよりよく追跡する。 総合すれば、世界の製造業リセッションが終息し、強い消費支出と改善する住宅市場が国内需要を支えるにつれて、米国経済は今年後半にやや強い成長を示す可能性が高い。 II. 金融市場 グローバル・アセット・アロケーション 市場は「成果を見せてくれ」段階に入っている。株式が持続的に上昇するためには、より良い経済指標と貿易交渉の実質的な進展が必要だ。そのため、投資家は当面下方リスクに備えるために通常より大きめの現金ポジションを維持すべきだ。 チャート24成長が回復すれば株式は債券をアウトパフォームするだろう 成長が回復すれば株式は債券を上回る 成長が回復すれば株式は債券を上回る 幸いなことに、リスク資産価格の下落は一時的である可能性が高い。貿易緊張が和らぎ、我々が予想するように今年後半に世界成長が回復すれば、株式とスプレッド商品は12か月の期間で国債を大きくアウトパフォームするだろう（チャート24）。 確かに、この楽観的な12か月の推奨を覆す要因は数多くある：世界成長がさらに悪化する可能性；貿易戦争が激化する可能性；供給側のショックで石油価格が再び急騰する可能性；英国が「ハード・ブレグジット」でEUを離脱する可能性；そして最後に、エリザベス・ウォーレンあるいはその他の極左候補が次期米国大統領になる可能性などだ。 今日における投資家の主要な問いは、これらのリスクが金融市場に十分に織り込まれているかどうかだ。我々は織り込まれていると考えている。チャート25は、利益利回りと実質債券利回りの差として計算した我々の世界株式リスクプレミア（ERP）の推定値を示す。我々の計算は、株式は依然として債券に比べてかなり割安に見えることを示唆している。 チャート25A株式リスクプレミアは依然かなり高い（I） 株式リスクプレミアムは依然としてかなり高い（I） 株式リスクプレミアムは依然としてかなり高い（I） チャート25B株式リスクプレミアは依然かなり高い（II） エクイティ・リスクプレミアは依然としてかなり高い（II） エクイティ・リスクプレミアは依然としてかなり高い（II） ERPが高いのは今日の超低水準の債券利回りが非常に低い成長見通しを反映しているからに過ぎないと異議を唱える者もいる。その主張には一理あるが、人々が考えるほどではない。過去10年間で米国のトレンド国内総生産成長率は低下したが、債券利回りはさらに大きく低下した。議会予算局が推計する米国の潜在的な名目国内総生産成長率と10年物米国債利回りの差はほぼ2％で、1979年以来の最大となっている（チャート26）。 チャート26債券利回りはトレンドの名目国内総生産成長率よりも大きく低下した 債券利回りは名目GDPのトレンド成長率よりも大きく下落した 債券利回りは名目GDPのトレンド成長率よりも大きく下落した 世界レベルでは、トレンドの国内総生産成長率は1980年以降ほとんど変わっていない。これは主に、成長の速い新興市場が現在世界経済に占める割合を拡大しているためだ（チャート27）。大手多国籍企業にとっては、国内成長よりもグローバル成長の方が経済の勢いを測る上でより重要な指標である。将来の株式リターンの見通し 高いERPは単に株式が債券に対して相対的に魅力的であることを示しているに過ぎません。株式の今後のリターンを絶対的に評価するには、評価水準の絶対レベルを見るべきです。 チャート27世界の成長トレンドは成長の速い新興国（EM）によって安定を保っている チャート27 世界の成長トレンドは、成長の速い新興国（EM）のおかげで堅調に推移している。 世界の成長トレンドは、成長の速い新興国（EM）のおかげで堅調に推移している。 チャート28S&P 500：マージンの上昇はすべてITセクターで発生している S&P 500：マージンの増加はすべてITセクターで生じている S&P 500：マージンの増加はすべてITセクターで生じている 我々が最近のレポート「TINAに救いを求めるか？」で主張したように、2 アーンニングス・イールドは株式の期待実質トータル・リターンの代用指標として用いることができます。経験的には、このことは裏付けられているようです：1950年以降、米国株式のアーンニングス・イールドは平均で6.7％であり、実質トータル・リターンは7.2％でした。 現在、米国株のトレーリングおよびフォワードのPERはそれぞれ21.1と17.4にあります。将来のリターンの指標として両者の単純平均を用いると、米国株は長期的に実質トータル・リターンで5.2％をもたらすはずです。これは歴史的な平均を下回りますが、それでもかなりまずまずのリターンです。 この計算は、米国のアーンニングス・イールドが異常に高い利益率によって一時的に嵩上げされているため、見込み株式リターンを過大評価していると異議を唱える者もいるでしょう。しかしこの議論の問題点は、S&P 500のマージン上昇のほとんどがたった一つのセクター、すなわちテクノロジーで発生していることです。テックセクターを除けば、S&P 500のマージンは歴史的平均から大きくは離れていません（チャート28）。もし高いITマージンが、強力なネットワーク効果や独占的な価格設定力に恩恵を受ける「勝者総取り」型の企業の台頭のような、グローバル経済における構造的変化を反映しているならば、それらは当面の間高止まりする可能性があります。   地域別およびセクター別の株式配分 アーンニングス・イールドは米国外では概ね2ポイント高く、長期的には非米国株が米国株を上回ることが示唆されています。先進国市場では、ドイツ、スペイン、英国が特に割安に見えます。新興国（EM）では中国、韓国、ロシアが非常に魅力的な水準にあります（チャート29）。セクター水準では、景気循環株がディフェンシブ株よりも魅力的に見えます（チャート30）。 チャート29米国株は同業他国と比べて割高に見える 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『実証を求める』マーケット 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『実証を求める』マーケット チャート31経済成長は12か月の期間で株式を動かす 経済成長は12か月の見通しでエクイティを牽引する 経済成長は12か月の見通しでエクイティを牽引する チャート30景気循環株はディフェンシブ株よりも魅力的である 景気循環株はディフェンシブ株より魅力的 景気循環株はディフェンシブ株より魅力的 チャート32世界成長が改善すると新興国（EM）およびユーロ圏株式はたいていアウトパフォームする 世界経済の成長が改善すると、新興国株式（EM）およびユーロ圏株式は通常アウトパフォームする 世界経済の成長が改善すると、新興国株式（EM）およびユーロ圏株式は通常アウトパフォームする バリュエーションは主に長期リターンの指標として有用です。例えば12か月の期間では、景気、金利、為替に何が起こるかといった景気循環要因がより重要になります（チャート31）。 幸いなことに、我々の景気循環に関する見方は概ねバリュエーションの評価と合致しています。より強い世界成長、より弱いドル、そしてコモディティ価格の上昇は、ディフェンシブよりも景気循環株に恩恵をもたらすはずです。新興国（EM）および欧州の株式市場が米国株に比べてより景気循環色の強いセクター構成である程度において、前者は最終的にアウトパフォームすることになるでしょう（チャート32）。 我々は、世界成長が再加速し始めれば年末までに金融セクターをアップグレードするセクターリストに加えたいと考えています。債券利回りの低下は銀行利益を圧迫してきました（チャート33）。利ざや（ネット金利マージン）への逆風は利回りが上昇し始めると緩和されるはずです。現在フォワード予想利益の7.6倍、簿価の0.6倍で取引され、配当利回りが6.3％と高い欧州の銀行は特に好成績を収める可能性があります（チャート34）。 チャート33A金利上昇とイールドカーブの上方化は金融株に有利に働く（I） 債券利回りの上昇とイールドカーブのスティープ化は金融株に恩恵をもたらす（I） 債券利回りの上昇とイールドカーブのスティープ化は金融株に恩恵をもたらす（I） チャート33B金利上昇とイールドカーブの上方化は金融株に有利に働く（II） 債券利回りの上昇と利回り曲線のスティープ化は金融株に有利（II） 債券利回りの上昇と利回り曲線のスティープ化は金融株に有利（II） チャート35が示すように、金融株への投資はバリュー株への投資と似ています。過去12年間でグロースはバリューを圧倒しましたが、今後12～18か月ではバリューにとってひと息つける局面が訪れるでしょう。 チャート34欧州の銀行は魅力的である 欧州の銀行は魅力的だ 欧州の銀行は魅力的だ チャート35バリューは反転の兆しを見せているか？ バリューは転換点にあるか？ バリューは転換点にあるか？   フィクスト・インカム チャート36A成長加速で利回りは上昇するはずである（I） 成長が強まれば利回りは上昇するはず（I） 成長が強まれば利回りは上昇するはず（I） ハト派的な中央銀行と、当面は依然として抑制されたインフレが、今後12か月にわたり政府債利回りを抑制するのに寄与するでしょう。それでも、利回りはより強い世界成長を背景に現在の低水準から上昇するはずです（チャート36）。     チャート36B成長加速で利回りは上昇するはずである（II） 成長が強まれば利回りは上昇する (II) 成長が強まれば利回りは上昇する (II) 債券利回りは、中央銀行が予想より多くあるいは少なく政策金利を調整するかどうかによって上昇したり低下したりする傾向があります（チャート37）。投資家は現在、FRBが今後12か月でさらに80ベーシスポイントの利下げを行うと見込んでいます。我々はFRBが10月30日に25ベーシスポイントの利下げを行うと考えていますが、その後の追加利下げは見込んでいません。この緩和局面での累積75ベーシスポイントの利下げは、1990年代のミッドサイクルの景気減速期（1995/96年および1998年）で行われた緩和に相当します。総じて、米国の10年物金利は2020年中頃までに再び2％台前半に入る可能性が高いです。 チャート37Aより強い経済成長は政府債利回りに上方圧力をかける（I） より強い経済成長は国債利回りに上方圧力をかける（I） より強い経済成長は国債利回りに上方圧力をかける（I） チャート36Bより強い経済成長は政府債利回りに上方圧力をかける（II） より強い経済成長は国債利回りに上方圧力をかける（II） より強い経済成長は国債利回りに上方圧力をかける（II） チャート38米国の政府債利回りは海外の利回りよりも景気循環的である 米国国債の利回りは海外の国債利回りより景気と同方向に動きやすい 米国国債の利回りは海外の国債利回りより景気と同方向に動きやすい 米国株が海外の株に比べて低ベータである傾向があるのとは対照的に、米国債は高ベータを持っています。これは、世界の債券利回りが総じて上昇するときに米国の国債利回りが海外よりも大きく上昇し、世界の債券利回りが総じて低下するときに米国の国債利回りが海外よりも大きく低下することを意味します（チャート38）。  さらに、為替ヘッジコストを考慮に入れると、米国債は現在ほかの債券市場よりも利回りが低くなっています（表1）。今後12～18か月で米国利回りが海外よりも大きく上昇するようなことがあれば、米国債のリターンはさらに損なわれるでしょう。その結果、投資家はグローバルな政府債ポートフォリオの中で米国債のウエイトを低めにすべきです。 世界的な成長の強さはコーポレート・クレジット・スプレッドを抑えるはずです。米国の商業・企業向け貸出の貸し出し基準は緩和方向に戻っており、これは通常コーポレート・クレジットにとって強気材料です（チャート39）。我々の米国債券ストラテジストによれば、ハイイールド社債のスプレッド、そして程度は小さいもののBaa格付けの投資適格スプレッドは、経済ファンダメンタルズから見てまだ広めに残っているとされています（チャート40）。3 一方で、より高格付けの投資適格債は相対的な割安度が小さいです。 表1先進国における債券市場の比較 2019年第4四半期 ストラテジー見通し：証拠を求める市場 2019年第4四半期 ストラテジー見通し：証拠を求める市場 チャート39貸し出し基準の緩和はコーポレート・クレジットに良い影響を与える 貸出基準の緩和はコーポレート・クレジットにとって好材料だ 貸出基準の緩和はコーポレート・クレジットにとって好材料だ チャート40米国コーポレート：Baaとハイイールド債に注目 米国コーポレート債：Baaおよびハイイールド・クレジットに注目 米国コーポレート債：Baaおよびハイイールド・クレジットに注目     今後18か月を超えて見ると、インフレが実質的に上昇し始める確率は高いと考えられます。G7全体の失業率は数十年ぶりの低水準に低下しています（チャート41）。完全雇用に達した先進国の割合は新たなサイクル高水準に達しています（チャート42）。フィリップス曲線は死んだといわれることが多いにもかかわらず、賃金の伸びは労働市場の余裕度となお密接に相関しています（チャート43）。 チャート41失業率は低下トレンドを保っている 失業率は低下傾向が続く 失業率は低下傾向が続く チャート42先進国：完全雇用が新たなサイクル高に達している 先進国市場：完全雇用がサイクルの新高値に達している 先進国市場：完全雇用がサイクルの新高値に達している チャート43フィリップス曲線は健在である フィリップス曲線は健在だ フィリップス曲線は健在だ 賃金が上昇し続けると、物価も上昇し始め、賃金・物価のスパイラルを引き起こす可能性があります。その時点でFRBをはじめとする中央銀行は利上げを始めざるを得なくなります。一度金利が制約的な水準に入ると、株式は下落し、クレジット・スプレッドは拡大するでしょう。2022年には世界的な景気後退が生じる可能性があります。 通貨とコモディティ チャート 44ドルは逆循環通貨である ドルは景気循環に逆行する通貨だ ドルは景気循環に逆行する通貨だ 米ドルは逆循環通貨であり、世界的な景気循環とは逆の方向に動く傾向がある（チャート 44）。現時点では米ドルの方向性について強い短期見解は持っていないが、世界成長が反発し始めるにつれて年末までに米ドルは弱含み始めると予想している。 EUR/USDは2020年中頃までに約1.13に上昇する見込みだ。GBP/USDは1.29に上昇するだろう。USD/CNYは7に戻る。USD/JPYは横ばいとなる公算が大きく、これは円の防衛的性格と消費税引き上げによる日本の成長への下押しを反映している。 貿易加重ドルは2021年後半まで下落し続け、その後はより積極的な連邦準備制度（Fed）と世界成長の減速により米ドルは再び上昇するだろう。 ドルが弱含む期間中、コモディティ価格は上昇する（チャート 45）。 チャート 45ドル安はコモディティに恩恵をもたらす ドル安はコモディティの追い風 ドル安はコモディティの追い風 BCAのコモディティ・ストラテジストは、12カ月の視野で特に原油に強気である（チャート 46）。彼らは、世界成長の強化と生産抑制により石油在庫水準が低下すると予想しており、ブレント原油価格は年末までに1バレル当たり70ドルに上昇し、2020年は平均で1バレル当たり74ドルになると見ている。OPECの余剰生産能力（カルテルが生産可能な量と実際に生産している量の差）は現在歴史的平均を下回っている（チャート 47）。原油備蓄はOECD内でも低下傾向にある。サウジアラビアの備蓄も2015年のピーク以降40％超減少している（チャート 48）。 チャート 46供給不足は継続する 供給不足は続く 供給不足は続く チャート 47停止を相殺するための余剰能力の利用可能性は限定的 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「見せてみろ」市場 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：「見せてみろ」市場 チャート 48主要戦略石油備蓄 主要な戦略石油備蓄 主要な戦略石油備蓄 原油価格の上昇は、カナダドル、ノルウェー・クローネ、ロシアルーブル、コロンビア・ペソといった通貨に有利に働くはずだ。 最後に金について少し触れる。我々は8月29日に金のロングトレードを決済し、20週間で20.5％の利益を確定した。依然として、金はより高いインフレに対する優れた長期ヘッジと見ている。ただし短期的には、債券利回りの上昇が金の勢いをそぐ可能性があり、仮にドル安が金を部分的に支援するとしてもその効果は限定的である。インフレが上振れし始めた時点で、来年末か2021年に金のロングポジションを再度組む予定だ。   ピーター・ベレジン、 チーフ・グローバル・ストラテジスト グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー peterb@bcaresearch.com 脚注 1詳細はグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー ウィークリー・レポート、「高水準の債務はデフレ的か、それともインフレ的か？」2019年2月15日付をご覧ください。 2詳細はグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー スペシャル・レポート、「TINAは救いの手となるか？」2019年8月23日付をご覧ください。 3詳細は米国ボンド・ストラテジー ウィークリー・レポート、「社債投資家は連邦準備制度（Fed）に逆らうべきではない」2019年9月17日付をご覧ください。 ストラテジー & マーケット・トレンド MacroQuantモデルと現在の主観的スコア 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『見せてみろ』マーケット 2019年第4四半期のストラテジー見通し：『見せてみろ』マーケット タクティカル・トレード ストラテジック・レコメンデーション クローズド・トレード

オーバーウェイト (発足以来の相対リターンが27%に達した場合にサイクリカルなトレーリング・ストップを維持) 最新のISMサービス報告は、米国製造業セクターの先行性と極めて高い景気感応度を踏まえて当社が予想していた通り、姉妹版であるISM製造業調査に続いて下落しました。債券市場の反射的な反応は、FRBが事態を救い景気後退を回避してくれるという期待から、10月30日の会合での利下げはほぼ確実、さらに12月11日の会合で追加利下げがある確率を54%とするものでした。その結果、株式は反発し、金利変動に非常に敏感なグロース株（ソフトウェアを含む）が上昇を牽引しました。 当社は2017年後半のサイクリカルな立ち上がり以来、S&Pソフトウェア指数に対してオーバーウェイトを維持していますが、リスク管理の観点からは相対リターンが約27%の地点に近づいた場合には当社のトレーリング・ストップを順守します。 ご参考までに、最近この指数で相対的なタクティカル利得を10%計上し、ハイ・コンヴィクションのオーバーウェイト一覧から除外しました。 ソフトウェアのイエローフラッグ ソフトウェアのイエローフラッグ S&Pソフトウェア指数の長期的なドライバーは維持されているものの、最新のISMサービス調査の下落は、強力なソフトウェア需要でさえ小さな後退を被る可能性があるという警告弾でした（第2パネル）。さらに、IPO上場投資信託（ETF）の最近の損失は、急騰するグロース株が重力によって地に引き戻され得ることを警告しています（下段パネル）。特に今年はIPO供給が大幅に増加している点を踏まえると（第3パネル）、そのリスクは高まります。 結論：当面はS&Pソフトウェアに対してサイクリカルなオーバーウェイトの姿勢を維持しますが、トレーリング・ストップの27%の水準を順守して利益確定の引き金を引く準備をしておいてください。