先進国

Dear Client, In lieu of our regular report next week, we are sending you a Special Report from my colleague Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist. Chester will share his outlook on the Hong Kong Dollar. I hope you will find his report insightful. Please note that next week’s report will be published on Friday, August 21. Best regards, Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights President Trump's ban of China-based apps marks a new front in the Sino-US tech war. There is no change in our strategic views. The impact on both China’s aggregate economic growth outlook and the financial markets should be limited on a cyclical basis. Consider overweight Chinese offshore ex-TMT stocks and onshore semiconductor stocks within a global equity portfolio, against a backdrop of escalating hostilities in the tech sphere. Feature Chart 1Five Chinese Companies Are Mentioned In The New "Clean Network" Initiative Geopolitical risks again stirred up volatility last week in China’s equity markets. President Trump issued two executive orders to take effect in 45 days, banning US transactions with the Chinese-owned social media apps TikTok and WeChat. Shares in Tencent, the China-based Internet giant that owns WeChat, have plummeted by 11% in China’s offshore market following the ban announcement (Chart 1). The event underscores that technology is at the root of a power struggle between the US and China. The struggle will likely be exploited by Trump as the US presidential election nears and Trump’s polling numbers lag. However, we remain constructive on Chinese stocks over the next 6 to 12 months.  Although the latest development remains highly fluid, the tensions should not have a material impact on the cyclical outlook for China’s aggregate economy or financial markets. This will be the case as long as the situation does not degenerate into an outright tariff increase on Chinese export goods or other strategic actions with the potential to cause major economic damage.  Given rising downside risks to Chinese tech company stocks in the near term, we recommend investors hold a neutral position on Chinese tech giant company equities versus their global peers. Instead, investors should overweight Chinese “old economy” stocks as well as sectors that are greatly benefited from policy support. We initiate two trades today: long MSCI China ex-TMT versus MSCI Global ex-TMT;1 and long domestic semiconductor stocks versus global semiconductor benchmark. A New Front In Tech War It is likely that the US will implement the ordered bans in some way. Banning TikTok wasn’t a surprise because the US had amply signaled its displeasure with the app in preceding months. The social media company has rapidly gained US market share and hence access to American users’ data. Its parent company ByteDance is based in Beijing and therefore subject to China’s cybersecurity laws, a major source of bilateral tensions. The company originated in a Chinese acquisition of an American company, another irritant for the Trump administration. The US is now pressuring TikTok’s US operations to sell the app to an American-based company such as Microsoft. Regarding Trump’s executive order on WeChat and Tencent, it is not clear what “transactions” with Tencent will be disallowed from the US market.2 Additionally, US officials later appeared to backpedal and limit the scope of the executive order on Tencent to only the WeChat app. We have a few preliminary observations on the evolving situation: It is unknown how far the executive action will go regarding Tencent. The Internet titan gets less than 5% of its revenues from outside China, according to its 2019 financial statement.  However, Tencent has many prominent investments in the US gaming and music industries. The US Commerce Department has 45 days to interpret and enforce the directive. The vague language in the executive order provides the US with enough legal space to deprive Tencent of US technologies in those sectors, and would severely curtail Tencent’s online gaming business, which is its main engine of growth. The bans underscore the US administration’s intention to extend tech hostilities with China by denying Chinese tech companies the access to compete and expand globally. Last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a five-pronged “Clean Network” initiative that would scrub Chinese companies from US telecommunications networks entirely.3 China, for its part, has been progressively banning US social media giants since 2009. China has not announced any retaliatory actions since the executive orders were issued. Top Chinese policymakers seem to have shifted gears from a tit-for-tat retaliation to a carefully calibrated diplomatic reaction that does not ramp up tensions further. Moreover, there is a sizeable contingent of top Chinese policymakers pushing for reconciliation with the US. We think that China’s senior leaders prefer to dial down the current conflict and take a wait-and-see approach until after the US presidential election in November. Nevertheless, the next two to three months will be unpredictable as the election nears and Trump’s polling numbers lag behind his rival Joe Biden. Bottom Line: China’s leading Internet and tech companies are embroiled in a US-China feud. Pressures will likely intensify with other tech companies potentially also targeted. For now, stay neutral on leading Chinese tech company stocks within a global equity portfolio. Stick With The Knowns Chinese tech company stock prices will likely be extremely volatile in the short run. Nevertheless, we are staying the course with our constructive cyclical view on overall Chinese stocks and we do not recommend any one-way bets on the market during the next two to three months. China’s financial markets have been shaken by negative surprises relating to frictions with the US.  However, investors cheer on even the slightest easing of tensions between the two countries. Last Friday’s volatile trading was a good example: initial confusion over the ban’s scope in Trump’s order led to a more than 10% plunge in Tencent stock during morning trading in the Hong Kong market, but the losses were cut in half after the US indicated the ban only affected the WeChat app. Chart 2Chinese Tech Company Stocks Rallied Through Most Of The Trade War Economic policy support from the Chinese government and “national team” can also distort the short-term price trend in tech equities. These stocks have risen by more than 20% in both the onshore and offshore markets since the beginning of 2018, despite the deteriorating US-China relationship (Chart 2). While we are neutral on tech company stocks, we recommend overweight Chinese “old economy” stocks and remain constructive on domestic sectors that are beneficiaries of government policy support. We are initiating two trades: long MSCI China ex-TMT versus MSCI Global ex-TMT; and long domestic semiconductor stocks versus global semiconductor benchmark. The reflationary efforts since early this year facilitated a strong rebound in China’s industrial sector activities and profits (Chart 3). In turn, China’s ex-tech "old economy" stocks have outperformed relative to their global peers. Even though the handful of tech titans account for roughly 35% of the investable market capitalizations, MSCI China stock prices excluding tech titans have decisively broken out of their 200-day moving average, which suggests there is still sufficient support to our constructive view on the overall investable index (Chart 4). Chart 3Investors Have Been Focusing On China's Stimulus And Economic Recovery Chart 4Chinese "Old Economy" Stocks Have Prevailed Of Late Our cyclical overweight view on China’s domestic stocks also remains unchanged. The domestic market is much more sensitive to the trend in monetary conditions, credit growth and economic cycles than the investable market. As we pointed out in last week’s report,4 monetary conditions are accommodative and credit and economic growth remain in an uptrend. This underscores that China’s domestic stocks have more upside potential than investable stocks, even in an escalating geopolitical risk environment. Chart 5Chinese Semis Are On Fire Lastly, more pressure from the US and the West to curb the advancement of Chinese technology will only encourage the leadership to double down on supporting state-led technology programs. This argues for a more bullish view on Chinese tech companies that focus on the domestic market, at least on a cyclical basis (Chart 5). Last week the State Council updated its policy, supporting two strategically important sectors: integrated circuits and software. The central government has had policies in place to support these two sectors since 2000 and updates its support policies every decade or so. Last week's updated version will allow chip companies to enjoy even more tax exemptions and favorable financing than the first set of support policies. China has clearly stepped up its promotion of self-sufficiency and redoubled  its efforts to thwart any pressures meant to restrain its technological progress.  As pointed out by our Geopolitical Strategy team,5 the U.S. and its allies control 95% of the global semiconductor market (Chart 6). Nonetheless, China is the world’s largest importer, accounting for about one-third of global semiconductor sales, making it the largest consumer of semiconductors (Chart 7). Chart 6China’s Chip Makers Are Still Small Fry Chart 7China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand Chart 8Made In China 2025 Targets In brief, China relies a lot on imported semiconductors and is working to mitigate this dangerous vulnerability. The Made in China 2025 program estimates that China will produce 70% of its demand for integrated circuits by 2030 (Chart 8). Bottom Line: China’s domestic industrial sector will continue to recover in the next 6 to 12 months. The nation’s semiconductor industry will get a boost from recently shored-up government policy supports. Overweight these sectors in the face of expanding tensions from the US tech war against China.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1TMT stocks include information technology prior to December 2018, and include media & entertainment and internet & direct marketing retail sectors after December 2018. 2Please see the orders: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-addressing-threat-posed-tiktok/ and https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-addressing-threat-posed-wechat/ 3https://www.state.gov/announcing-the-expansion-of-the-clean-network-to-safeguard-americas-assets/ 4Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China Macro And Market Review," dated August 5, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda," dated December 12, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s picking Senator Kamala Harris of California as his running mate is not a surprise. It does not change the 2020 election equation – vice presidents rarely do and she does not hail from a swing state. Still, the pick prevents Biden from making an unforced error, such as former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who would have done more to motivate Republican opposition than Democratic support. Other candidates were also flawed either in experience or in the constituencies they could energize to turn out to vote. Harris will ensure that Biden’s bid to connect with African American voters and women remains intact. Biden won the Democratic primary due to a strong showing among Black voters, who will be motivated to vote by this year’s social unrest over poor race relations in the United States and pandemic-induced high unemployment. One of the best electoral college scenarios for Democrats is to recreate the Obama/Biden ticket of 2008-12 – a traditional Democrat along with a younger progressive who is also a minority (Chart 1). That’s what the Biden/Harris ticket recreates. Chart 1Biden/Harris A Solid Electoral College Strategy, But Not A Game Changer Still, Michelle Obama would have clinched the election for Biden – Kamala Harris does not. Thus Trump’s odds of winning remain at 35%. Our Quantitative Election Model shows upside risk, giving Trump a 42% chance (Chart 2). Chart 2Quant Model Shows Trump With 42% Chance Of Winning Trump’s comeback hinges on three factors: whether Republican Senators arrive at a new coronavirus fiscal package that boosts the economy and stock market; whether COVID-19 outbreak continues to subside; and whether this year’s increase in the murder rate in US cities improves suburban voters’ views of Trump’s fitness for re-election. Bottom Line: The ongoing stimulus hiccup remains the near-term risk to the rally. Republicans are likely to concede to a large fiscal package in the end but the timing is unclear and markets are getting jittery. The market would also normally fall by 10% or more by the time of the election in a presidential election year in which the ruling party is overthrown. Furthermore, Trump is at risk of becoming a “lame duck,” which would escalate geopolitical risks to the market (especially with Iran and China). Taken as a whole, we maintain a defensive tactical position until the stimulus goes through.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Nominal Yields: Nominal Treasury yields will move modestly higher during the next 6-12 months with the increase concentrated at the long-end of the curve. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark and enter duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. Inflation Compensation: Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for now, but we anticipate getting an opportunity to tactically reverse this position near the end of the year. Investors should also position in flatteners across the inflation compensation curve, as both a near-term and long-term trade. Real Yields: The outlook for the level of real yields is highly uncertain, particularly at the long-end of the curve. However, as long as the reflation trade continues, real yield curve steepeners should perform well whether real yields are rising or falling. US Economy: Another stimulus bill is required in order to extend the economic recovery and prolong the reflation trade in financial markets. The President’s executive orders are not sufficient. The pressure on Congress to reach a compromise deal is high, and we expect one to be announced in the coming days. Feature Chart 1Reflation Pushes Real Yields Lower Market movements during the past couple of months are consistent with an environment of economic reflation. Equities and commodity prices are up, the US dollar is down, spread product has outperformed Treasuries and TIPS breakeven inflation rates have widened. This “reflation trade” is the result of global economic recovery and highly accommodative Fed policy, the latter being particularly important. In fact, Fed policy has been so accommodative that bonds are the one asset class that has so far bucked the broader reflationary trend. Nominal Treasury yields dipped during the past few weeks, as rising inflation expectations were more than offset by plunging real yields (Chart 1). Our base case expectation is that, broadly speaking, the reflation trade will continue. Global economic growth will improve during the next 6-12 months and Fed policy will remain highly accommodative. In this week’s report we consider how to position for that outcome in US rates markets. In the process, we provide trade recommendations for the nominal, real and inflation compensation curves. We also consider the main risk to our reflationary view: The possibility that further US fiscal stimulus is too little or arrives too late. Positioning For Reflation Chart 2More Downside In Short-Maturity Real Yields Back in April, we explained how the Fed’s zero-lower-bound interest rate policy can lead to unusual movements in bond markets, particularly in how real bond yields respond to broader market trends.1  The importance of the zero lower bound is easily seen through the lens of the Fisher Equation – the equation that connects nominal yields, real yields and inflation expectations. Real Yield = Nominal Yield – Inflation Expectations If the Fed is expected to hold the nominal short rate steady for a long period of time, then nominal bond yields won’t move around very much in response to the economy. Necessarily, this means that increases in inflation expectations must be matched by falling real yields. Chart 1 shows how this has played out for 10-year yields, but the dynamic is even more pronounced at the short-end of the curve where the Fed has greater control over nominal rate expectations (Chart 2). With these relationships in mind, we consider the outlooks for the nominal, inflation compensation and real yield curves. Nominal Treasury Curve Chart 3Fed Guidance Has Crushed Nominal Rate Vol As is alluded to above, fed funds rate expectations drive nominal Treasury yields. Treasury yields rise when the market revises its rate expectations up and fall when the market revises its expectations down. But what happens when the Fed signals that the funds rate will stay pinned at its current level, even as inflationary pressures mount? What happens is that nominal bond yields become increasingly insensitive to fluctuations in economic data and rate volatility plunges (Chart 3). Not surprisingly, this decline in rate volatility has been more pronounced at the front-end of the curve than at the long-end (Chart 3, bottom panel). This is because the Fed’s rate guidance exerts more influence over short maturities. The market might be very confident that the fed funds rate will stay at its current level for the next year or two, but it will be less confident about rate expectations five or ten years down the road. The conclusion we draw is that the Fed’s dovish rate guidance will prevent a large increase in nominal bond yields, even as the reflation trade rolls on. But at some point, rising inflation expectations will cause the market to price-in policy firming at the long-end of the curve and long-maturity nominal Treasury yields will move somewhat higher. Historically, nominal bond yields usually move in the same direction as TIPS breakeven inflation rates (Chart 4). Chart 4Nominal Yields And Inflation Expectations Are Positively Correlated While this base case outlook calls for flat-to-slightly higher Treasury yields, we recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark on a 6-12 month investment horizon. The reason for this caution is that significant downside risks to our base case economic scenario remain (see section “Avoiding Deflation” below). Chart 5Bullets Trade Expensive When Rates Are Pinned At Zero Instead, we recommend positioning for the continuation of the reflation trade via duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. The nominal yield curve will respond to global economic recovery by steepening because the market will price-in eventual policy tightening at the long-end of the curve before it prices-in near-term policy tightening at the front-end of the curve. Specifically, we suggest buying the 5-year bullet and shorting a duration-neutral barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This trade is designed to profit from steepening of the 2/10 yield curve.2 The one problem with our proposed trade is that it is not cheap. The 5-year bullet yield is below the 2/10 barbell yield and the 5-year bullet trades as expensive on our yield curve model (Chart 5). However, we note that the 5-year looked much more expensive at the height of the last zero-lower-bound episode in 2012. In today’s similar environment, we anticipate a return to similar valuation levels. Bottom Line: Nominal Treasury yields will move modestly higher during the next 6-12 months with the increase concentrated at the long-end of the curve. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark and enter duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. Inflation Compensation Curve Chart 6Adaptive Expectations Model Almost by definition, the continuation of the reflation trade means that the cost of inflation compensation will rise (i.e. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher), and we remain positioned for that outcome. However, at least according to our Adaptive Expectations Model, the inflation component of bond yields could have a more difficult time rising going forward. Our model, which is based on several different measures of realized inflation, shows that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is more or less at its fair value (Chart 6). In other words, further upside from here is contingent upon rising inflation. Fortunately, rising inflation seems likely during the next few months. Month-over-month headline CPI bottomed in April (Chart 7), the oil price is trending up (Chart 7, panel 2) and core inflation has undershot relative to the trimmed mean (Chart 7, panel 3). All of this suggests that our model’s fair value will move higher during the next few months. Chart 7Inflation Has Bottomed But beyond the near-term snapback that we anticipate, a wide output gap in the United States will prevent inflation from entering a sustainable uptrend as we head into 2021. After all, our Pipeline Inflation Indicator remains deep in deflationary territory (Chart 7, bottom panel).  At some point near the end of this year, we anticipate getting an opportunity to move tactically underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, once breakevens start to look expensive on our model. Our Adaptive Expectations Model shows that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is more or less at its fair value. A higher conviction long-run trade relates to the slope of the inflation curve. At present, the 10-year CPI swap rate remains somewhat above the 2-year rate, but we eventually expect this slope to invert (Chart 8). With the Fed explicitly targeting a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target, it would make sense for the cost of short-maturity inflation protection to trade above the cost of long-maturity inflation protection. This would mark a significant break from historical trends, but this is also true of the Fed’s new policy approach. Chart 8Inflation Curve Will Invert Bottom Line: Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for now, but we anticipate getting an opportunity to tactically reverse this position near the end of the year. Investors should also position in flatteners across the inflation compensation curve, as both a near-term and long-term trade. Real Yield Curve Chart 9Buy Real Yield Curve Steepeners At the beginning of this report we noted that the combination of stable nominal rate expectations and rising inflation expectations has led to a steep decline in real Treasury yields. This decline has been more severe at the short-end of the curve, which has resulted in real yield curve steepening (Chart 9). At the long-end of the curve, the outlook for the level of real yields is highly uncertain, even under the assumption that the reflation trade continues. If 10-year nominal rate expectations hold steady, then continued reflation will lead to a further decline in the 10-year real yield. However, as discussed above, long-dated nominal rate expectations will eventually follow inflation expectations higher. If that adjustment to long-dated rate expectations outpaces the increase in expected inflation compensation, then the 10-year real yield will move up as well. The outlook for the short-end of the curve is more certain. Two-year nominal rate expectations are unlikely to budge anytime soon. This means that the continuation of the reflation trade will send the cost of 2-year inflation protection higher and the 2-year real yield lower. For this reason, we would rather take a position in real yield curve steepeners than an outright position on the level of real yields. In fact, as long as the reflation trade continues, the real yield curve should steepen whether the absolute level of real yields is rising or falling. It is only in a renewed deflation scare where we would expect the real yield curve to flatten, as occurred back in March. As long as the reflation trade continues, real yield curve steepeners should perform well whether real yields are rising or falling. Bottom Line: The outlook for the level of real yields is highly uncertain, particularly at the long-end of the curve. However, as long as the reflation trade continues, real yield curve steepeners should perform well whether real yields are rising or falling. Avoiding Deflation The first part of this report talked about how to position in rates markets assuming that the global economic recovery remains on track and that the so-called reflation trade continues. While this is our base case scenario, it is by no means a certainty. In fact, this view is contingent upon continued US fiscal stimulus that is sufficient to sustain household income and prevent a snowballing of foreclosures and bankruptcies. March’s CARES act did a more-than-admirable job supporting household income. In fact, disposable household income rose 7.2% in the four month period between March and June compared to the four months that preceded the COVID recession (Chart 10). This is a far greater increase than what was seen in the first four months of the 2008 recession (dashed line in Chart 10, panel 2), despite the fact that the hit to wage compensation has been worse (dashed line in Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 11A confirms that, without the CARES act, the hit to disposable income would have been substantial. Chart 10Income Well Supported... So Far Chart 11ADisposable Personal Income Growth And Its Drivers I The problem is that the main income supporting provisions of the CARES act have either been paid out or have expired. Chart 11B shows the impact on disposable income of the CARES act’s different provisions. The two most important were: The Economic Impact Payments: The one-time $1200 stimulus checks. The Pandemic Unemployment Compensation Payments: The extra $600 per week that was added to unemployment benefits. Chart 11BDisposable Personal Income Growth And Its Drivers II The Economic Impact Payments have all been delivered, and the Pandemic Unemployment Compensation Payments expired at the end of July. Based on the information that has been released about the ongoing negotiations over a follow-up stimulus bill, we expect that a compromise deal will be large enough to keep disposable income at or above pre-recession levels.3 However, a compromise is proving difficult. Congress’ foot dragging prompted President Trump to announce several executive orders of questionable legality in an attempt to deliver some stimulus. However, even if the executive orders are followed, the boost to household income will be meager without another bill. The President’s executive order to extend the extra unemployment benefits appropriates only $44 billion from the Disaster Relief Fund and asks states to contribute the rest. Many states will be unable to contribute anything, and an extra $44 billion amounts to only 8% of the income support provided by the CARES act. State & local government aid must be addressed in the new stimulus bill. The other urgent area that must be addressed in a follow-up stimulus bill is aid for state & local governments. State & local government spending fell 5.6% (annualized) in the second quarter, as governments have been forced to impose harsh austerity in the face of collapsing tax revenues (Chart 12). This is one area where the Democrats and Republicans are still far apart. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that states need $555 billion to close COVID-related budget shortfalls.4 The Democrats’ initial proposal contained $1.13 trillion for states, the Republicans’ initial offer left out state & local government aid altogether. Chart 12State & Local Governments Need A Bailout Bottom Line: Another stimulus bill is required in order to extend the economic recovery and prolong the reflation trade in financial markets. The President’s executive orders are not sufficient. The pressure on Congress to reach a compromise deal is high, and we expect one to be announced in the coming days. Based on the numbers that have been floated, that deal will contain sufficient income support to keep households afloat and the recovery on track. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 1Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 To understand why this trade profits in an environment of yield curve steepening please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 In their initial proposals, House Democrats offered $435 billion in Economic Impact Payments and $437 billion for expanded unemployment benefits. The Senate Republicans offered $300 billion for Economic Impact Payments and $110 billion for expanded unemployment benefits. For context, the CARES act authorized $293 billion for Economic Impact Payments and $268 billion for expanded unemployment benefits. For more details on the ongoing budget negotiations please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “A Tech Bubble Amid A Tech War”, dated July 31, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/states-continue-to-face-large-shortfalls-due-to-covid-19-effects   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Scarce Yield: The correlation of relative global government bond returns and yield levels is becoming more positive. The trend should continue if central bankers across the developed world stick to their promises to maintain very loose monetary policy settings for at least the next two years, forcing investors to chase scarce yields while worrying less about cyclical economic and inflation factors. Country Allocations: Maintain overweights to higher-yielding government bonds (Italy, the US, Canada) versus low-yielders (Germany, France, Japan) within USD-hedged fixed income portfolios. Upgrade higher-yielders Spain and Australia to overweight, at the expense of the low-yielding UK and Germany. Feature “What is the investment rationale for buying developed market government bonds now?” We begin this week with a question posed by a BCA client in a recent meeting. It was a perfectly logical inquiry given the current microscopic level of yields on offer almost everywhere. Why bother buying a 10-year US Treasury barely yielding more than 0.5%, or a 10-year Italian BTP yielding less than 1%, with both offering little compensation for future inflation or fiscal risks? Chart of the WeekYield Chasing Is Now The Only Winning Strategy Our answer to the question – “because the Fed and ECB will do whatever is needed to prevent nominal bond yields from rising over the foreseeable future” – did little to influence the client’s view on the attractiveness of those yields (but did make her more comfortable about the equity and corporate credit exposures in her portfolio). In the current environment, where all countries are experiencing the ultimate exogenous negative growth shock – a deadly and highly contagious pandemic - the usual analysis of the cyclical economic and inflation dynamics of any single country now offers far less payoff to government bond investing. It is hard to find a country not suffering from weak growth, very low inflation, high unemployment (some of which is likely to be permanent) and ongoing uncertainty related to the spread of COVID-19. It is also hard to find a country where interest rates have not been cut to 0% (or even lower) and central banks have not ramped up bond buying activity. Increasingly, the relative performance of government bonds between countries reflects simple yield differentials, rather than differing monetary policy outlooks. Higher-yielding markets are outperforming the lower-yielding markets – a trend that has persisted throughout 2020 and is likely to intensify in the coming months (Chart of the Week). Growth? Inflation? Who Cares? Give Me Yield! Developed market government bond yields have been ignoring the usual message sent by cyclical economic indicators. The latest round of global manufacturing PMI data showed continued solid rebounds from the COVID-19 collapse in the US, UK, most of the euro area and other major regions. Nominal 10-year government bond yields in those countries typically track the path of the PMIs, but yields are now as much as 180bps (for US Treasuries) below the levels seen the last time PMIs were so elevated (Chart 2). There is an easy way to explain this discrepancy between bond yields and economic activity. In years past, markets would price in higher inflation expectations, and a greater probability of a future monetary tightening, when growth was improving. Today, policymakers worldwide are bending over backwards to let investors know that no interest rate increases should be expected for at least the next two years – even if growth is improving and inflation were to accelerate. This is having the effect of both lowering real bond yields and increasing inflation expectations, with central bankers also expressing a greater tolerance for future inflation that will limit “pre-emptive” rate increases. Our Central Bank Monitors continue to signal a need for easier monetary policies, even with the rebound in manufacturing data and economic optimism surveys witnessed in the US and UK lifting the Monitors there from the lows (Chart 3). Real bond yields are mirroring the trend in the Central Bank Monitors, indicating that some of the decline in real yields seen in the US, Europe, Canada and Australia is likely related to markets pricing in a lower-for-longer period of monetary policy rates, as we discussed in last week’s report.1 Chart 2Bond Yields Ignoring Improving PMIs Chart 3Plunging Real Yields Reflect Pressure On CBs To Stay Dovish Chart 4A Low-Volatility Backdrop Encourages Yield Chasing Behavior With bond markets having little reason to expect a shift to more bond-unfriendly monetary policies, it is no surprise that higher yielding government bond markets are outperforming low-yielders at an accelerating rate. When there is little to be gained or lost from the duration exposure of government bonds, then the expected returns on government bonds will more closely track yield levels. Fixed income investors seeking the highest returns will be forced to chase the bonds with the highest yields. The current calm volatility backdrop is also fostering an environment of yield-chasing, carry-driven strategies. Measures of yield volatility like the MOVE index of US Treasury option prices and swaption volatilities in Europe have calmed dramatically from the spike seen during February and March (Chart 4). Liquidity in government bond markets has also improved, with bid/ask spreads on 30-year US Treasuries and UK Gilts now back to normal tight levels.2 In a world of low bond volatility and yield chasing behavior, markets with the highest yields should end up outperforming lower yielding markets. Chart 5"High" Yielders Are The Winners In A Low-Yield Environment In Chart 5, we show the 2020 year-to-date government bond returns, for the 7-10 year maturity bucket, for the countries we include in our model bond portfolio (the US, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK, Japan, Canada and Australia). The returns are shown both currency unhedged (in USD terms) and hedged into US dollars, with the yield levels from the start of 2020 shown at the top of each bar. The ranking of the returns does generally follow the ranking of yields at the start of the year – the US, Canada, Australia and Italy outperforming low-yielding Germany, France and Japan. What is more interesting is how that correlation between yield levels and performance has evolved over the course of 2020, and even dating back to 2019. If a dynamic of strict yield chasing behavior was gaining steam, then the performance rankings of government bonds should increasingly reflect the rankings of available yields. One way to measure such a dynamic is with a statistic called a Spearman’s rank correlation. Simply put, the Spearman’s rank shows the correlation between the rankings of two sets of variables within each set, rather than the correlation of the variables themselves. If the correlation between the rankings is increasing, this suggests that the relationship between the two variables is becoming more dependent on the levels of the variables relative to each other. We present the Spearman’s rank correlation between yield levels and subsequent bond returns for the nine countries in our model bond portfolio universe in Chart 6. Weekly correlations are calculated using the ranking of the 10-year government bond yields from those nine countries and the rankings of the subsequent weekly total returns (currency unhedged) for those same markets. We present a rolling 52-week correlation coefficient in the chart, which shows a steadily rising trend over the past year of relative bond market performance becoming more dependent on relative initial yield levels. Chart 6High' Yielders Are The Winners In A Low-Yield Environment While the Spearman’s rank correlation is still relatively low, around 0.2 on the latest data point of the 52-week moving average, that does represent the highest level seen over the past two decades. On the margin, the more recent observations are showing an even higher level of correlation – a trend that should continue given the current easy global monetary policy settings described above that should continue to promote yield-chasing behavior. Another way to measure how much more yield driven government bond markets have become is to look at the relative performance of investment strategies that focus on allocations informed by yield levels. A simple such strategy is presented in Chart 7, using a rule of going long the highest yielding 10-year bond in our list of nine countries at the start of each week and holding only that bond for the subsequent week. We show the return of that simple strategy relative to the return Bloomberg Barclays 7-10 year Global Treasury index in the top panel of the chart, all measured in US dollars on an unhedged basis. The simple strategy of picking the highest yielding bond has been delivering solid outperformance versus the benchmark over the past 2-3 years, with year-over-year relative returns of between 5-10%. The strategy performed very well during the last period similar to today in the post-crisis years of 2012-16, when global policy rates were near 0% and central banks were aggressively expanding their balance sheets through quantitative easing. The year-over-year returns of this simple strategy were always positive during the period (shaded in the chart), which included some major moves in the US dollar that influenced unhedged bond returns. A simple strategy of selecting only the highest yielding government bond has also delivered solid returns of late when focused on other bond maturities besides the 10-year point (Chart 8). The information ratios of these strategies, shown in the chart as the relative year-over-year return of each strategy versus the benchmark compared to the volatility of that relative performance, are all at similar levels in the 0.27-0.94 range. Chart 7Chase The Highest Yields During Global QE & Extended ZIRP Chart 8Yield Chasing Strategies Outperforming Across All Maturities The efficiency of these strategies will likely not return to the levels seen during that 2012-16 period of extended easy global monetary policy, given the much lower yield levels seen across all bonds including outright negative yields in places like Germany and Japan. However, in a more general sense, selecting higher yielding bonds over lower yielding ones should continue to deliver stronger returns than passive low-yielding benchmarks for as long as policymakers continue to err on the side of reflation (0% rates, more quantitative easing, even yield curve control to limit yields from rising) when setting monetary policy. Selecting higher yielding bonds over lower yielding ones should continue to deliver stronger returns than passive low-yielding benchmarks for as long as policymakers continue to err on the side of reflation. Bottom Line: The correlation of relative global government bond returns and yield levels is becoming more positive. The trend should continue if policymakers stick to their promises to maintain very loose monetary policy settings for at least the next two years, forcing investors to chase scarce yields regardless of cyclical economic and inflation trends. Investment Implications & Alterations To Our Model Bond Portfolio Chart 9Higher-Yielding Government Bonds Will Continue To Shine The intensified yield chasing behavior has obvious implications for fixed income investors. Within dedicated global government bond portfolios, exposures should be concentrated in higher yielding markets at the expense of the low yielders. Already, the relative returns year-to-date (on a USD-hedged and duration-matched basis versus the Global Treasury index) reflect that conclusion, with the US (+692bps versus the index), Canada (+458bps) and Italy (+87bps) outperforming and Germany (-111bps), France (-77bps) and Japan (-472bps) lagging (Chart 9). Our current investment recommendations, both on a medium-term strategic basis and within our more flexible model bond portfolio, are generally in line with those rankings. Our recommendations already include overweights in the US, Canada, Italy and the UK; with underweights in Germany, France and Japan. We are currently neutral Spain and Australia. The view on Spain was a relative value consideration, as we preferred an overweight on Italy as our recommended exposure within the European peripherals. For Australia, we closed our long-standing overweight stance there back in May, primarily due to signs that the Australian economy was showing signs of recovery after what was a very modest initial wave of COVID-19 cases.3 Now, we see good reasons to upgrade Spain and Australia to overweight to gain even more exposure to high-yielding government bonds in a yield-scarce, yield-chasing world. Our recommendations already include overweights in the US, Canada, Italy and the UK; with underweights in Germany, France and Japan. In Chart 10, we present a scatter chart showing 10-year government bond yields, hedged into US dollars, plotted versus the latest trailing 1-year beta of yield changes to those of the 7-10 maturity bucket for the Global Treasury index. This is a simple way to present a reward versus risk relationship, using the yield beta as the measure of risk. The chart shows that Spain and Australia offer relatively attractive yields compared to other markets with similar yield betas. This offers a way to boost the expected yield from our recommended portfolio without raising the yield beta of the portfolio. Chart 10Upgrade Spain & Australia, Downgrade The UK In Global Bond Portfolios Specifically, we see two allocation changes that can be made to our model bond portfolio to reflect this view on relative yields: Upgrade Spain to overweight, while reducing the weight on UK Gilts to neutral Upgrade Australia to overweight, funded by reducing the German underweight allocation even further. We see good reasons to upgrade Spain and Australia to overweight to gain even more exposure to high-yielding government bonds in a yield-scarce, yield-chasing world. The USD-hedged yield pickup on both of those switches is substantial, as can be seen in Table 1 where we present unhedged and USD-hedged yields for 2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 30-year government bonds across all developed markets. Switching from the UK to Spain generates a modest yield pick-up on an unhedged basis at the 10-year and 30-year maturity points. The pickup is far more attractive across all maturity points on a USD-hedged basis, ranging from +22bps for 2-year maturities to +101bps for 30-year bonds. Table 1Developed Market Bond Yields, Both Unhedged & Hedged Into USD In fact, UK Gilt yields across the entire maturity spectrum are now some of the lowest on offer within the developed market space, both on an unhedged and USD hedged basis. This alone is enough reason to downgrade Gilt exposure, especially with the Bank of England continuing to shoot down the notion of a move to negative UK policy rates that could also drive longer-dated Gilt yields into negative territory. As for Australia, the recent severe COVID-19 outbreak in Melbourne, the country’s second largest city, has raised fears that a new and more extended period of lockdowns may be necessary Down Under. This goes against our original thesis for downgrading Australian bond exposure a few months ago, thus a return to overweight as a yield pickup also makes sense on a fundamental basis – particularly with the RBA already using extreme measures like yield curve control to anchor the level of 3-year Australian bond yields from the short end of the curve. The yield pick-up from our recommended switch from Germany to Australia is significant from the 2-year to 30-year maturity points, ranging between 94bps to 182bps on an unhedged basis and 20bps to 109bps on a USD-hedged basis. The changes to our recommended country allocations in our model bond portfolio can be found on pages 12-13. Bottom Line: Maintain overweights to higher-yielding government bonds (Italy, the US, Canada) versus low-yielders (Germany, France, Japan) within USD-hedged fixed income portfolios. Upgrade higher-yielders Spain and Australia to overweight, at the expense of the low-yielding UK and Germany.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Are Bond Markets Throwing In The Towel On Long-Term Growth?", dated August 4, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The bid-ask spreads shown are taken from the Bank of England’s latest Financial Stability Review, available here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/financial-stability-report/2020/august-2020.pdf 3 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Australia: All Good Streaks Must Come To An End", dated May 13, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns