防御/リスク

  Feature Everyone’s asset-allocation plans for the year have been disrupted by the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Our view is that, while the virus is serious and will hurt the Chinese and global economy in the short term, it does not change the 12-month structural outlook for financial markets. Once the epidemic is under control (which it is not yet), there will be an excellent buying opportunity for risk assets and for the most affected asset classes. Many commentators have pointed to the lessons from SARS in 2003. Markets bottomed around the time that new cases of the disease peaked (Chart 1). But there are risks with such a simplistic comparison. The US invasion of Iraq happened at the same time – between 19 March and 1 May 2003 – with arguably a bigger impact on global markets. The Chinese economy was much less significant: China represented only 4% of global nominal GDP in 2003 (versus 17% now), 7% of global car sales (35% now), and 10-20% of commodity demand (50-60%). And it is still unclear how similar 2019-nCoV is to SARS: it appears to be spreading more rapidly (Chart 2) but (so far, at least) is less deadly, with a mortality rate of about 2%, compared to 10% for SARS. Recommended Allocation Chart 1The Lesson From Sars Chart 2But Is Novel Coronavirus Different?     Nonetheless, the basic theory that markets should bottom around the time that new cases and deaths peak is likely to prove correct. With the number of deaths still growing, however, that is not yet the case. Our advice to investors would be not to sell at this point. The hedges we have in our portfolio (overweight cash and gold) should help to cushion any further downside. But, within a few weeks, assets such as EM equities, airline stocks, commodities, or the Australian dollar should look very attractive again (Chart 3). For the next few months, economic data, particularly from China, will be hard to interpret. In 2003, Chinese GDP was reduced by 1.1% because of SARS, according to estimates by the Brookings Institute.1 The global economy is likely to be more heavily impacted this time, given today’s closely integrated supply chains. On the other hand, most academic research shows that consumption and production lost during an epidemic are later made up. Additionally, the Chinese government is likely to respond with easier fiscal and monetary policy. Once the air clears, we think our thesis that the manufacturing cycle bottomed in late 2019 will remain intact. The data over the past few weeks supports this. In Asia, in particular, PMIs for the major emerging economies are back above 50 (Chart 4). Europe’s rebound has lagged a little but, in the key German economy, indicators of business and investor sentiment have bottomed. Demand in the auto sector, crucial for Europe and Japan, is clearly starting to recover. Data in Europe and EM have generally surprised to the upside recently (Chart 5). Chart 3Some Assets May Soon Look Attractive   Chart 4Asian And European Data Picking Up Chart 5Positive Surprises The theory that markets should bottom around the time that new cases and deaths peak is likely to prove correct. To a degree, the new virus gave investors an excuse to take profits in some over-bought markets. The US equity market, in particular, looked expensive at the start of the year, with a forward PE of 19x. But we would dismiss the common view that investors had become too optimistic. The bull-bear ratio is not elevated (Chart 6), with only 37% of US individual investors at the start of January believing that the stock market would go up over the next six months, not particularly high by historical standards – it has fallen now to 32%. Last year, investors took money out of equity funds, despite strong returns from stocks. In the past – for example 2012 and 2016 – when this happened, it was followed by further gains for equities, as investors belatedly bought into the rally (Chart 7).   Chart 6Retail Investors Aren't So Bullish... Chart 7...Indeed, They Have Been Selling Stocks     On a 12-month investment horizon, therefore, we remain overweight risk assets such as equities and credit, albeit with some hedges. The upside to global growth remains underestimated: the economists’ consensus is for only 1.8% GDP growth in the US and 1.0% in the euro area this year. A combination of accelerating global growth and central banks that will stay dovish should allow equities to outperform bonds over the next 12 months (Chart 8). Chart 8If PMIs Pick Up, Equities Will Outperform   Chart 9First Signs Of US Equity Underperformance? Equities:  In December, we moved underweight US equities and recommended shifting into more cyclical markets: overweight the euro zone, and neutral on EM, the UK, and Australia. Before the outbreak of 2019-nCoV, this had worked in EM, but less well in Europe (Chart 9). Once the effects of the virus have cleared, we still believe this allocation will outperform as the global manufacturing cycle picks up. But we have a couple of concerns. (1) The recent US/China trade deal will require China to increase imports from the US by a highly unrealistic 83% year-on-year in 2020 (Chart 10). Our China strategists don’t expect this target to be fully met, but think any increase will come from substitution.2 This would hurt exporters in Europe and Asia. (2) The outperformance of euro area equities is very much determined by how banks fare. The headwinds against them continue: the ECB recently decreed that six major banks fall below required capital ratios; loan growth to corporates in the euro area has fallen to 3.2% year-on-year. Much, though, depends on the yield curve (Chart 11). If it steepens, as a result of stronger growth this year, as we expect, bank stocks should outperform, especially since they remain very cheap (the average price/book ratio of euro area banks is currently only 0.65).   Chart 10China’s Import Targets Are Unrealistic Chart 11Bank Performance Depends On The Yield Curve Once the air clears, we think our thesis that the manufacturing cycle bottomed in late 2019 will remain intact. Fixed Income: Government bond yields have fallen in recent weeks as investors sought cover, with the US Treasury 10-year yield dropping to 1.55%. While it may test last September’s low of 1.46%, we do not see much further room for global yields to fall. They tend to be highly correlated with manufacturing PMIs, which we expect to rise over the next 12 months (Chart 12). Also, we see the Fed staying on hold this year, not cutting rates twice, as the market is now pricing in. This mildly hawkish surprise should push up rates (Chart 13). We continue to prefer credit over government bonds. Our global fixed-income strategists consider that, from a valuation standpoint, US high yield, and UK investment grade and high yield are the most attractive (Chart 14).3 Chart 12Rates Move In Line With PMIs Chart 13What If The Fed Doesn't Cut Rates? Chart 14US Junk Looks Most Attractive Currencies:  Defensive currencies such as the yen, Swiss franc, and US dollar have benefitted from the recent risk-off move. We see this as temporary. Once investors refocus on growth, the US dollar should start to depreciate again (the DXY index did fall by 3% between September and early January). The dollar is a counter-cyclical currency. It is 15% overvalued relative to PPP (Chart 15). It is also very momentum-driven – and, since December, momentum has pointed to depreciation and continues to do so (Chart 16).  Chart 15Dollar Is 15% Overvalued... Chart 16...And Momentum Has Moved Against USD Commodities: Industrial metals prices had started to pick up over the past few months, reflecting the stabilization of Chinese growth (Chart 17). How they fare from now will depend on: (1) how sharply Chinese growth slows as a result of 2019nCoV, and (2) how much stimulus the Chinese government rolls out to offset this. Given the degree of decline in some commodity prices (zinc down by 16% since mid-January, and copper by 9%, for example), there should be an attractive buying opportunity in these assets over coming weeks. Gold has proved to be a handy hedge against geopolitical risks (Iran) and unexpected tail risks (the coronavirus), rising by 4% year-to-date. We continue to believe it has a useful place in investors’ portfolios as a diversifier and hedge, particularly in a world of very low interest rates where cash is unattractive (Chart 18). The oil price has been hit by the disruption to air travel in January, but supply remains tight (and OPEC is likely to cut supply further in response to the demand shock).4 As long as economic growth picks up later this year, we see the crude oil price recovering over the coming months. Chart 17Metals Reflect Chinese Growth Chart 18Gold Attractive With Bond Yields So Low Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Globalization and Disease: The Case Of SARS, Jong-Wha Lee and Warwick J. McKibbin, Brookings Discussion Paper No. 156, available at https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20040203-1.pdf 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Managing Expectations,” dated 22 January 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report “How To Find Value In Corporate Bonds,” dated 21 January 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock,” dated 30 January 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation  

Highlights Portfolio Strategy China’s monetary easing, the resilient US dollar, weak operating industry metrics and a looming margin squeeze all signal that an underweight stance is still warranted in the S&P chemicals index.    Lofty valuations, overbought technicals, declining capex and weak operating metrics, are all warning that an earnings-led underperformance period is in store for the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. Recent Changes Trim the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index to underweight, today. Table 1 Feature The S&P 500 fell for a second straight week and has now given back almost all of the year-to-date gains. While the coronavirus has served as an excuse to sell as we warned last week,1 we are nowhere near in unwinding the extreme overbought conditions in the broad equity market. We are no epidemiology experts, however, what concerns us most is when the news will eventually hit that coronavirus deaths are sprucing up outside of China’s borders. This will likely catalyze more equity selling and a capitulation point will subsequently ensue. Importantly, beneath the surface macro divergences remain wide. The yield curve peaked at the turn of the year. Similarly, the real 10-year Treasury yield crested around the same time and so did the hyper growth sensitive AUD/CHF cross rate all predating the coronavirus epidemic news (Chart 1). Our sense is that the bond market in particular is likely reflecting Bernie Sander’s rise in the polls along with persistently soft economic data.   Other indicators we track confirm that the handoff from liquidity-to-growth we have all been waiting for remains on hold. The oil-to-gold and copper-to-gold ratios have no pulse, warning that growth remains elusive (third & bottom panels, Chart 2). Chart 1Souring Macro Predates Coronavirus Chart 2Watch Gold Closely Moreover, in our January 13 report we highlighted that gold was sniffing out two or three fed cuts in 2020, leading the fed funds futures market, as it did in the spring of 2019.2 Since our last update, the fed funds discounter in the coming 12 months has sunk from negative 20bps to negative 42bps (year-on-year change in the fed funds rate shown inverted, second panel, Chart 2). It is disconcerting that despite the sloshing liquidity and de-escalation in the US/China trade war, CEOs remain on the sidelines. The Q4 GDP release showed that non-residential investment is now contracting on a year-over-year (yoy) basis (bottom panel, Chart 3) and has been subtracting from real output growth for three consecutive quarters. Hard data continues to warn that the manufacturing recession is not over as the 15% yoy contraction in non-defense durable goods orders revealed last week (third panel, Chart 3). Equity market internals also warn that the SPX is skating on thin ice. Worrisomely, the Philly semiconductors index (SOX) peaked versus the NASDAQ 100 last year and has been losing steam of late. The equally- versus market cap-weighted S&P 500 and NASDAQ 100 ratios remain near multi-year lows, and small caps are still stalling versus large caps (Chart 4). The implication is that, at least, an indigestion period looms for the broad equity market. Chart 3Ongoing Manufacturing Recession Chart 4Weak Market Internals Netting it all out, there are high odds that the coronavirus epidemic may serve as a catalyst and short-circuit the already frail handoff from liquidity-to-growth, warning that equity market caution is warranted at this juncture. This week we are trimming a key tech subgroup to underweight, and updating a heavyweight basic materials sub-index. To Infinity And Beyond? While we have been neutral the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index and thus participating in the monster rally over the past year, the time is ripe to downgrade exposure to below benchmark. Undoubtedly, relative share prices are extremely extended. The second panel of Chart 5 shows that the relative share price ratio is at the highest level as a percentage of its 200-day moving average since the late-1990s. Shown as a z-score, this technical indicator is stretched to the tune of two standard deviations above the historical mean (third panel, Chart 5). The last three times technical conditions were so overbought, it marked a multi-year peak in relative performance (top panel, Chart 5). Importantly, the forward multiple explains all of the return in this tech sub-group’s stellar relative performance since the 2018 Christmas Eve lows (Chart 6). In fact, stagnant-to-lower relative profit growth subtracted from relative returns over the same time period (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Up, Up And Away? Moreover, the parabolic move in the forward P/E ratio that climbed from a 25% discount to the SPX to a 15% premium (i.e. a 53% multiple jump), was because the 10-year US Treasury yield plunged by 175 basis points from peak to trough (10-year US Treasury yield shown inverted, Chart 7). Chart 6EPS Have To Do The Heavy Lifting Chart 7Multiple Expansion Phase Has Run Its Course Such enormous easing in financial conditions is unlikely to repeat in the coming twelve months in order to push the forward multiple even higher and sustain the “goldilocks” conditions for the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. In contrast, BCA’s higher interest rate view is a harbinger of a multiple contraction phase and compels us to trim exposure on this high-flying tech sub group to underweight. Another market narrative substantiating the multiple expansion phase is that heavyweight AAPL is now a services oriented company and rightly so commands a sky-high multiple similar to the cloud and software stocks. While there is some truth to the push into services, the iphone and other hardware still dominates AAPL’s sales and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future especially on the eve of a 5G smartphone rollout. Turning over to the macro backdrop, this still mostly manufacturing-based industry moves with the ebbs and flows of the ISM manufacturing survey. Overall business investment is contracting and so is industry capex. Worrisomely, most of the ISM manufacturing subcomponents remain below the boom/bust line warning that investment will remain soft in the coming months, despite the Sino-American trade détente (middle panel, Chart 8). CEO confidence in capital spending remains downbeat and corroborates that at least a wait and see attitude toward greenfield expansion plans is a high probability outcome (bottom panel, Chart 8). Moreover, global export expectations continue to plumb cyclical lows. Similarly, the Emerging Asian (a key tech manufacturing hub) leading economic indicator broke below the GFC lows warning that industry exports are at risk of a further collapse (second & third panels, Chart 9). Chart 8Something’s Gotta Give Chart 9Weak Operating Metrics Chart 10Soft Pricing Power… Chart 11…Will Continue To Weigh On Margins Beyond soft exports, industry new orders are also contracting (bottom panel, Chart 9). This deficient demand backdrop will continue to weigh on industry sales, owing to the recent drubbing in pricing power (third panel, Chart 10).\ Deflating selling prices are also negative for profit margins. The wide gap between industry and SPX margins is clearly unsustainable (Chart 11). Already there is tentative evidence that S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals margins have peaked and will remain under downward pressure, especially given our expectation of underwhelming profit growth in the coming months. In sum, lofty valuations, overbought technicals, declining capex and weak operating metrics are all warning that an earnings-led underperformance period is in store for the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. Nevertheless, there is one risk that is worth monitoring: the US consumer. A tight labor market should continue to bid up the price of labor and sustains wage gains which means more money in consumers’ wallets. As a result, brisk consumer outlays on computers & peripherals could reverse the ongoing industry sales deceleration (bottom panel, Chart 12). In sum, lofty valuations, overbought technicals, declining capex and weak operating metrics are all warning that an earnings-led underperformance period is in store for the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5CMPE – AAPL, HPQ, WDC, HPE, STX, NTAP, XRX. Chart 12Risk To Bearish View Hazardous Chemicals The S&P chemicals bear market has entered its third year and we remain underweight this capital intensive basic materials subgroup. Relative share prices have broken below the GFC lows and it would not surprise us if they would retest the 2006 lows (Chart 13). Now that the chemicals M&A activity dust has settled for good, China dominates the direction of chemical equities. Chinese authorities are still easing monetary policy and are injecting liquidity in the banking system by slashing the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). The recent coronavirus epidemic almost guarantees further easing via the RRR channel. Such a monetary setting should eventually stabilize the economy. However, until a turnaround is evident, US chemical stocks will continue to follow down the path of the Chinese RRR (top panel, Chart 13). The Australian currency, which is hyper-sensitive to China’s growth, corroborates that Chinese economic activity remains soft (second panel, Chart 13). Broad-based US dollar strength also confirms that global growth has yet to stage a durable comeback. The implication is that US chemical exports will continue to lose market share, weighing on industry profits (third panel, Chart 13). Chart 13China Leads The Way In fact, sell-side analysts are expecting a relative profit growth acceleration phase, but a decline in relative revenue prospects. This suggests that already uncharacteristically high chemical profit margins will continue to outpace the broad market (bottom panel, Chart 13). Our indicators suggest that it pays to lean against such relative EPS and profit margin euphoria. Importantly, our chemicals profit margin proxy is sinking, warning that a profit margin squeeze looms. Not only are selling prices deflating, but also the industry’s wage bill is gaining steam (bottom panel, Chart 14). Adding it up, China’s monetary easing, the resilient US dollar, weak operating industry metrics and a looming margin squeeze all signal that an underweight stance is still warranted in the S&P chemicals index. Moreover, chemical railcar loads are contracting at a time when the ISM manufacturing survey remains squarely below the boom/bust line (middle panel, Chart 14). This deficient chemical demand backdrop is deflationary (second panel, Chart 15) and will eat into industry profit margins. Chart 14Downbeat Demand Backdrop Chart 15Deflation Getting Entrenched On the operating front, our chemicals industry productivity proxy (industrial production/employment) is also in negative territory, underscoring that profits will likely surprise to the downside (third panel, Chart 15). Chemical industrial production is contracting at an accelerating pace and industry shipments are in retreat, warnings that the risk is high of an inventory liquidation phase (bottom panel, Chart 15). While we remain bearish on chemical stocks on a cyclical horizon, there are two key risks we are closely monitoring that would push our view offside. The global reflation handoff to actual growth is the key risk. If the global economy enters a V-shaped recovery, global bond yields will immediately reflect such a growth backdrop and push interest rates higher. This would put downward pressure on the greenback and significantly reflate chemical earnings (middle panel, Chart 16). Finally, chemical stocks are cheap and trade at a steep discount to the broad market. When our relative valuation indicator has plunged to such depressed levels in the past fifteen years, bottom-fishing buyers have come back in the market and added chemical stock exposure to their portfolios (bottom panel, Chart 16). Adding it up, China’s monetary easing, the resilient US dollar, weak operating industry metrics and a looming margin squeeze all signal that an underweight stance is still warranted in the S&P chemicals index. Bottom Line: Stay underweight the S&P chemicals index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5CHEM – LIN, APD, ECL, SHW, DD, DOW, PPG, CTVA, LYB, IFF, CE, FMC, EMN, CF, ALB, MOS. Chart 16Two Risks To Monitor     Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Music Stops...” dated January 27, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Three EPS Scenarios” dated January 13, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   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%)

Highlights Collective market signals suggest a low but non-negligible probability of a dollar spike due to the coronavirus. Stay long the yen as a portfolio hedge. Short CHF/JPY bets also make sense.  Our limit sell on the gold/silver ratio was triggered at 90. Place a stop at 95, with an initial target of 80. Feature Chart I-1Watching Market Signals Investors can generally be classified in two camps. There are those who are predisposed to being risk averse. As such, capital preservation trumps the desire for outsized returns. For such investors, defensive equities such as staples and utility stocks, fixed-income assets, or even gold tend to be the favored vehicles over time. At the opposite end of the spectrum are the investors who desire hopping on and riding the next growth unicorn. Their favored investment universe can include technology and biotech concerns, but can also span industries such as automotive and food. The key, however, is that their inherent disposition is to multiply returns rather than preserve capital. There is a crucial difference between this bias and a risk-on/risk-off environment. For example, in a risk-on environment, the more prudent investor might choose high-yielding government bonds, while the high flyer will be in the S&P 500 or private equity. In the currency world, the “preservationist” might choose the euro as an anti-dollar play despite negative yields, while the “high flyer” would rather be in the New Zealand dollar or the Norwegian krone. The oscillation between these two bipolar universes can be measured in various ways, but one that has been prescient in gauging the direction for currency markets is the ratio between the S&P 500 index and gold prices. In general, whenever the S&P 500 has been outperforming gold, the dollar has tended to soar, and vice versa (Chart I-1). As a closed economy, US markets are generally more defensive. So even in a risk-off environment, this ratio can capture the preference for capital preservation versus growth. The collective signals from financial markets suggest there is a low probability of a dollar spike. The SPX/Gold ratio hit a peak of 2.5 in the last quarter of 2018 and has since been exhibiting a bearish pattern of lower highs, with the latest rise peaking a nudge below 2.2. Our belief is that it is less a story of greed versus fear, and more an indication of a powerful underlying preference for investors being revealed in asset prices. Gauging FX Market Signals The coronavirus outbreak has been dominating market headlines in recent weeks. We are not infectious disease specialists, so cannot provide any insight on the potential impact on growth and/or the probability for the virus to become much more widespread. However, the collective signals from financial markets suggest there is a low probability of a dollar spike. The rise in the dollar has been relatively on par with the SARS experience of 2002 (Chart I-2A and Chart I-2B). Back then, the Chinese economy had a much smaller effect on global growth, and so far, the number of reported cases is outpacing the SARS experience. So, it is possible that given the dollar bull market of the last decade or so, there is a dearth of new buyers in the greenback. Chart I-2ARun Of The Mill Virus ? (1) Chart I-2BRun Of The Mill Virus ? (2) The most recent fall in the S&P 500 index versus gold is definitely a sign of risk aversion, but the much broader peak almost two years ago might be signaling an outright shift in the investment universe. In other words, capital preservation might now be best sought outside US bourses. If this is the case, cheap and unloved value stocks will provide better shelter compared to the growth champions of the last decade. It is interesting that emerging market cyclical stocks (where the epicenter of the crisis is) have not underperformed defensives in a meaningful way during the latest riot (Chart I-3). The typical narrative is that the dollar is now a high-yielding currency within the G10. That means it has now become the object of carry trades. Should the investment universe be shifting to one of prudence, it is plausible though not probable that the greenback will provide both functions. Chart I-3Mixed Message From Cyclicals Versus Defensives Chart I-4Correlation Break Down Or Unsustainable Gap? The absolute collapse in the gold-to-bond ratio further confirms that after almost a decade of underperformance, hard money might be coming back into favor versus yield plays (Chart I-4). Gold was a monetary aggregate for centuries, and continues to stand as a viable threat to dollar liabilities. This is not only visible in the rampant accumulation of gold by foreign central banks, notably Russia and China, but also by the breakout in gold in almost every currency, including safe-havens like the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen (Chart I-5). The absolute collapse in the gold-to-bond ratio further confirms that after almost a decade of underperformance, hard money might be coming back into favor. Data from the US Treasury confirms that foreign entities have been fleeing US bond markets at among the fastest pace in recent years. On a rolling 12-month total basis, the US saw an exodus of about US$250 billion in Treasurys from foreigners, one of the largest on record (Chart I-6). Foreign private investors are still net buyers of US Treasurys, but the downtrend in purchases in recent years is evident. In addition, this helps explain why gold has also outperformed Treasurys over this period. Chart I-5Soft Versus Hard ##br##Money Chart I-6Official Data Shows Less Preference For Treasurys The US dollar’s reserve status remains intact for now. But subtle shifts in this exorbitant privilege are worth monitoring. If balance-of-payment dynamics continue to head in the wrong direction, as  they are now, this will favor hard money and non-US assets, while accelerating divestment out of US Treasurys. This is irrespective of whether we enter a risk-on versus risk-off environment. A good proxy for whether the US government was prudent or profligate over the past four decades can be measured by the gap between unemployment relative to NAIRU (the so-called unemployment gap) and the corresponding budget deficit. In simple terms, full employment should be accompanied by balanced budgets, while governments can step in during recessions to put a floor under aggregate demand. Not surprisingly, using this simple rule, sound fiscal policies in the US were usually accompanied by a strong dollar, and vice versa. Chart I-7The Risk To Long Dollar Positions Over the next five years, the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the US budget deficit will swell to 4.6% of GDP. Assuming the current account deficit remains stable, this will pin the twin deficits at 7.2% of GDP. This assumes no recession, which would have the potential to boost the deficit even further. In the last forty years, there has not been any prolonged period where twin deficits in the US have been expanding while the dollar has been in a bull market (Chart I-7).  In a nutshell, even though the coronavirus is dominating headlines, the lack of a more pronounced greenback strength can be pinpointed to a rising number of negative market signals. Our bias is that when this eventually rolls over and global growth picks up in earnest, dollar bulls may be forced to capitulate. Bottom Line: We are not downplaying the potential impact of the coronavirus, but are skeptical of its ability to catapult the dollar higher. We are short the DXY index, with a target of 90 and a stop at 100. Stick with it. Bullish Both Gold And Silver, But Go Short The GSR If we are right, then both gold and silver will tend to rise in an environment where the dollar is falling. That said, the gold/silver ratio (GSR) hit a three-decade high of 93.3 last summer, opening up an arbitrage opportunity. The history of these reversals is that they tend to be powerful, quick, and extremely volatile (Chart I-8). This not only paves the way for an excellent entry point to short gold versus silver, but provides important information on the battleground between easing financial conditions and a pick-up in economic (or manufacturing) activity. The ratio of the velocity of money between the US and China has tended to track both the gold/silver ratio and the dollar closely.  Just like gold, silver benefits from low interest rates, plentiful liquidity, and the incentive for fiat money debasement. However, the gold/silver ratio is sitting near two standard deviations above its mean. Meanwhile, over the past century, the peak in GSR has been around 100. The gold/silver ratio tends to rally ahead of an economic slowdown, but then peaks when growth is still weak but liquidity conditions are plentiful enough to affect the outlook for future growth. This appears to be the case today. The simple reason is that silver has more industrial uses than gold (Chart I-9). Chart I-8GSR At A Speculative Extreme Chart I-9No Recession = Buy Silver The ratio of the velocity of money between the US and China has tended to track both the gold/silver ratio and the dollar closely (Chart I-10). A falling ratio signifies that the number of times money is changing hands in China is outpacing that number in the US. This also tends to coincide with a preference for US versus non-US assets, since animal spirits (as measured by money velocity) tend to be pronounced in places where returns on capital are higher.  Silver is a more volatile metal than gold. Part of the reason is that the silver market is thinner, with future open interest that is about one-third that of gold. As such, silver tends to rise faster than gold during precious metal bull markets (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Falling GSR = Rising Manufacturing Activity Chart I-11Silver Is More Volatile Than Gold This brings us to the sweet spot for silver. Even if global growth remains tepid over the next few months, due to a rise in infections from the coronavirus, a lot of the bad news is already reflected in a high GSR. This means the potential for upside will have to be nothing short of a deep recession. Relative speculative positioning favors gold, which is positive from a contrarian standpoint. Ditto for relative sentiment. More often than not, a positive signal from both these indicators has been a good timing tool for a selloff in the GSR. If global growth bottoms, then the rise in silver prices could be explosive. Silver fabrication demand benefits from new industries such as solar and a flourishing “cloud” industry that are capturing the new manufacturing landscape. Meanwhile, we are also entering a window where any pickup in demand could lead to a sizeable increase in the physical silver deficit. Bottom Line: A falling GSR provides important information about the battleground between easing financial conditions and a pickup in economic activity. We remain bullish on both gold and silver, but a trading opportunity has opened up for a short GSR position. Housekeeping Chart I-12AUD Will Follow Asian Currencies Our limit buy on the Australian dollar was triggered at 68 cents. We discussed the Aussie at length in our report dated  January 17.1 Place an initial target at 0.75 cents and a tight stop at 0.66. The near-term risk to this trade is any escalation in virus infections that will collectively send Asian currencies into a tailspin (Chart I-12).     Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "On AUD And CNY," dated January 17, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar   Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the US have been positive: The Markit manufacturing PMI fell to 51.7 while the services component increased to 53.2 in January. The Dallas Fed manufacturing index improved from -3.2 to -0.2 in January. Moreover, the Richmond Fed manufacturing index soared to 20 in January. Durable goods orders increased by 2.4% month-on-month in December. The trade deficit widened further to $68.3 billion from $63 billion in December. Annualized GDP growth was unchanged at 2.1% year-on-year in Q4. Initial jobless claims fell to 216K from 223K for the week ended January 24th. The DXY index appreciated by 0.1% this week. While the coronavirus spurred worries about a further slowdown in the global economy, the impact on the US remains to be seen. On Wednesday, the Fed committee voted unanimously to keep interest rates on hold at 1.75% and concluded that the current rate is appropriate to support sustained expansion of the US economy. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been mostly positive: The Markit manufacturing PMI jumped to 47.8 in January while the services PMI fell slightly to 52.2. The German IFO current assessment index increased to 99.1 from 98.8 in January, while expectations component fell to 92.9. The economic sentiment indicator increased to 102.8 from 101.3 in January. The unemployment rate fell further to 7.4% in December from 7.5% the prior month. The euro has been flat against the US dollar this week. Though the German IFO expectations component disappointed, the overall assessment has shown tentative signs of recovery. More importantly, changes in the manufacturing PMI indices, especially in Germany, are staging the V-shaped recovery we have been expecting. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been positive: Consumer confidence was unchanged at 39.1 in January. Services PPI increased by 2.1% year-on-year in December. Headline inflation increased to 0.8% year-on-year from 0.5% in December. Both manufacturing and services PMIs increased to 49.3 and 52.1, respectively in January. The Japanese yen appreciated by 0.6% against the US dollar this week. The flare up in risk aversion was a very potent catalyst, given the yen had become unloved and under owned. Persistent global risks, including Mid East tensions, and more recently, the spread of coronavirus, all warrant holding the Japanese yen as a portfolio hedge. Our last weekly report discussed why we prefer the Japanese yen to the Swiss franc as portfolio insurance. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Signposts For A Reversal In The Dollar Bull Market - November 1, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the UK have been solid: Both Markit manufacturing and services PMIs soared to 49.8 and 52.9 respectively in January. Nationwide housing prices increased by 1.9% year-on-year in January, compared with 1.4% the previous month. The saucer-shaped bottom in home prices is becoming more and more evident. The British pound has been flat against the US dollar this week. On Thursday, the BoE decided to leave interest rates unchanged at 0.75%. The fact that there were only two dissenters, in line with the previous month, suggests that rising bets for a rate cut were misplaced. The UK is due to leave the EU as of January 31st and enter a transition period that is supposed to last until December 31st 2020. The immediate aftermath of the exit will be business as usual. Trading strategy on the pound should be a buy on dips. We will continue to explore opportunities in GBP in upcoming reports. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been mixed: The NAB business conditions index fell to 3 from 4 in December. Moreover, the business confidence index decreased to -2 from 0. Headline inflation increased to 1.8% year-on-year from 1.7% in the fourth quarter. Import prices increased by 0.7% quarter-on-quarter, while export prices plunged by 5.2% quarter-on-quarter in Q4. The Australian dollar fell by 2.1% against the US dollar this week, triggering our limit buy position at AUD/USD 0.68. Despite temporary challenges from the bushfires and the coronavirus, we continue to hold our base case view that global growth is likely to rebound in the next 12-to-18 months, which is bullish for the Aussie dollar. Report Links: On AUD And CNY - January 17, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been positive: Headline inflation increased to 1.9% year-on-year in Q4, compared with 1.5% the previous quarter. It also beat expectations of 1.8%. The trade balance shifted to a surplus of NZ$547 million in December. Goods exports rose by 4.8% year-on-year to NZ$5.5 billion, while imports fell by 5.4% year-on-year to NZ$5 billion. Shortly after the rise along with inflation data, the New Zealand dollar fell by more than 2% this week, amid growing risk aversion. New Zealand, as a chief exporter of agricultural products, bore a good brunt of speculative selling. Assuming infections peak in the coming weeks, we remain positive on the kiwi as the Chinese government is likely to inject more stimulus into the economy. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been mostly positive: Retail sales increased by 0.9% month-on-month in November. The Bloomberg Nanos confidence index rose to 56.5 from 56.1 for the week ended January 24th. The Canadian dollar fell by 0.6% against the US dollar this week. As a petrocurrency, the risk of much reduced travel hit the loonie. We have written at length in various reports about the loonie, but the bottom line is that Canada benefits less than other petrocurrencies in oil bull markets. Ergo, the underperformance of short CAD/NOK and long AUD/CAD positions this week is expected. In other news, Trump has signed the new USMCA bill into law this week, leaving Canada the only member of the trilateral deal that has yet to ratify the agreement. Report Links: The Loonie: Upside Versus The Dollar, But Downside At The Crosses Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been mixed: The trade surplus narrowed for a fourth consecutive month in December, falling to CHF 2 billion. Real exports decreased by 3.4% month-on-month while real imports grew by 0.2% month-on-month. The ZEW expectations index fell to 8.3 from 12.5 in January. The KOF leading indicator jumped to 100.1 from 96.2 in January. The Swiss franc has been more or less flat against the US dollar this week. The fall in exports of chemical and pharmaceutical production was the main driver behind the decrease in the Swiss trade balance in December. The SNB is walking a fine line. The improvement in the KOF leading indicator, along with rising inflation and PMI data is definitely a source of comfort, but the surge in EUR/CHF will hurt competitiveness and warrant stealth intervention. Buy EUR/CHF at 1.06. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Notes On The SNB - October 4, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been negative: Retail sales fell by 2% month-on-month in December. The Norwegian krone fell by 1.9% against the US dollar this week. The WTI crude oil price plunged by 20% since the peak earlier this month, due to a combination of falling global travel demand, eased Iran tensions and a bearish EIA inventory report. That being said, our Commodity & Energy strategists continue to be bullish energy prices and expect the WTI crude oil price to reach $63/bbl in 2020, based on recovering global demand and supply constraints. This should eventually lift the Norwegian krone. OPEC is scheduled to meet early March, and plunging prices could be a catalyst for the cartel to cut production. Report Links: On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been mixed: Producer prices increased by 1.3% year-on-year in December. The trade surplus shrank to SEK 0.3 billion from SEK 2.7 billion in December. Retail sales grew by 3.4% year-on-year in December. Consumer confidence marginally fell to 92.6 from 94.7 in January, while business confidence jumped to 97.4 in January, the highest in seven months. The Swedish krona fell by 1.3% against the US dollar this week. Recent Swedish data has been disappointing given the steep decline during the trade war, but we are beginning to see second-derivative improvements. The trade surplus is rising on a year-on-year basis. Particularly noteworthy was the improvement in business confidence, which has historically led the Swedbank PMI index tick for tick. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

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

Highlights Duration: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. TIPS: We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. High-Yield: Investors should add (or increase) exposure to the high-yield energy sector, within an overweight allocation to junk bonds. Junk energy spreads are attractive, and exposure to the sector will mitigate the impact of a potential oil supply shock. Feature Only a month ago, investors were becoming more optimistic about a global growth rebound and the US/China phase 1 trade deal was pushing political risk into the background. Both of those factors caused the 10-year Treasury yield to rise throughout December, hitting an intra-day Christmas Eve peak of 1.95% (Chart 1). But since then, softer global PMI data and the US/Iranian military conflict brought global growth concerns and political risk back to the fore, breaking the uptrend in yields. Chart 1Bond Bear On Pause Global growth and political uncertainty are two of the five macro factors that we identify as important for US bond yields.1 And despite the recent setback, we think both factors will push yields higher in the coming months. Global Growth We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index are the three global growth indicators that correlate most strongly with US bond yields. One reason for the recent pullback in yields is the disappointing December data from the Global and US Manufacturing PMIs. The ISM Manufacturing PMI moved deeper into recessionary territory. The Global Manufacturing PMI had been in a clear uptrend since mid-2019, but fell back to 50.1 in December, from 50.3 the month before (Chart 2). The US and Chinese PMIs also declined in December, though they remain well above the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 2, panels 3 & 4). The Eurozone and Japanese PMIs, meanwhile, are still in the doldrums (Chart 2, panels 2 & 5). More worrying than the small tick down in Global PMI is the US ISM Manufacturing PMI moving deeper into recessionary territory, from 48.1 to 47.2. However, we have good reason to think that stronger data are just around the corner (Chart 3). Chart 2Global PMI Ticks Down Chart 3ISM Manufacturing Index Will Rebound First, the difference between the new orders and inventories components of the ISM index often leads the overall index at turning points, 2016 being a prime example (Chart 3, top panel). Much like in 2016, a gap is opening up between new orders-less-inventories and the overall ISM. Second, the non-manufacturing ISM index remains strong despite the weakness in manufacturing (Chart 3, panel 2). With no contagion to the service sector of the economy, we’d expect manufacturing to pick back up. Third, the ISM Manufacturing index has diverged sharply from the Markit Manufacturing PMI, with the Markit index printing well above the ISM (Chart 3, panel 3).2 The ISM index has been more volatile than the Markit index in recent years, and should trend toward the Markit index over time. Fourth, regional Fed manufacturing surveys have generally been stronger than the ISM during the past few months. A simple regression model of the ISM index based on data from regional Fed surveys suggests that the ISM index should be at 49.7 today, instead of 47.2 (Chart 3, bottom panel). Finally, unlike the PMI surveys, the CRB Raw Industrials index has increased quite sharply in recent weeks (Chart 4). We should note that it is not the CRB index itself but rather the ratio between the CRB index and gold that tracks bond yields most closely, and this ratio has actually declined lately due to the strength in gold. Nonetheless, a sustained turnaround in the CRB index would mark a big change from 2019 and would send a strong bond-bearish signal. Chart 4CRB Sends A Bond-Bearish Signal Political Uncertainty The second factor that sent bond yields lower during the past few weeks was the military conflict between the US and Iran. Tensions appear to have de-escalated for now, and we would expect any flight-to-quality flows to unwind during the next few weeks.3 But while we see policy uncertainty easing in the near-term, sending bond yields higher, we reiterate our view that US political uncertainty is the number one risk factor that could derail the 2020 bear market in bonds.4 Specifically, we see two looming US political risks. The first relates to President Trump’s re-election odds. For now, Trump’s approval rating is in line with past incumbent presidents that have won re-election (Chart 5). But if his approval doesn’t keep pace in the coming months, he will try to do something to change his fortunes. That could mean re-igniting the trade war with China, or once again ramping up tensions with Iran. A Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren victory would send a flight-to-quality into bonds. The second risk is that one of the progressive candidates – Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren – secures the Democratic nomination for president. Right now, both trail Joe Biden in the polls and betting markets (Chart 6), but things could change rapidly as the primary results come in during the next few months. The stock market would certainly sell off if an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders presidency seems likely, sending a flight to quality into bonds.5 Chart 5Trump’s Approval Rating Must Rise Chart 6Democratic Nomination Betting Odds Bottom Line: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. Playing An Oil Supply Shock In US Bond Markets US/Iranian military tensions are easing for now, but could flare again in the future. For that reason, it’s worth considering how US bond markets would respond in the event of a conflict between the US and Iran that removed a significant amount of the world’s oil supply from the market, causing the oil price to spike. The first implication is that US bond yields would fall. Even though it’s tempting to say that the inflationary impact of higher oil prices would push yields up, this effect would not dominate the flight-to-quality into US bonds that would result from the increase in political uncertainty. Case in point, Chart 1 shows that, while the inflation component of yields was stable as tensions flared during the past few weeks, it didn’t come close to offsetting the drop in the 10-year real yield. Beyond the impact on Treasury yields, there are two other segments of the US bond market that would be materially impacted by an oil supply shock: the TIPS breakeven inflation curve and corporate bond spreads. Buy TIPS Breakeven Curve Flatteners Table 1CPI Swap Curve Sensitivity To Oil When considering the impact of an oil supply shock on TIPS breakeven inflation rates, we first look at how the cost of inflation protection is influenced by changes in the oil price. Table 1 shows the sensitivity of weekly changes in different CPI swap rates to a $1 increase in the price of Brent crude oil. We use CPI swap rates instead of TIPS breakeven inflation rates because data are available for a wider maturity spectrum. Our analysis applies equally to the TIPS breakeven inflation curve. Two conclusions are apparent from Table 1. First, the entire CPI swap curve is positively correlated with the oil price, a higher oil price moves CPI swap rates higher and vice-versa. Second, the sensitivity of CPI swap rates to the oil price is greater at the short-end of the curve than at the long-end. This is fairly intuitive given that higher oil prices are inflationary in the short-term but could be deflationary in the long-run if they hamper economic growth. Chart 7Coefficients Stable Over Time Chart 7 shows that our two main conclusions are not dependent on the chosen time horizon. The 2-year CPI swap rate is positively correlated with the oil price for our entire sample period, as is the 10-year rate except for a brief window in 2014. The 2-year rate’s sensitivity is also consistently higher than the 10-year’s. Based on this analysis, we can suggest two good ways to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock that sends prices higher: Buy inflation protection, either in the CPI swaps market or by going long TIPS versus duration-equivalent nominal Treasuries. Buy CPI swap curve (or TIPS breakeven inflation curve) flatteners.6 But we can introduce one more wrinkle to our analysis. Oil prices can rise because of stronger demand or because a shock suddenly removes supply from the market. It’s possible that the cost of inflation protection behaves differently in each case. Fortunately, the New York Fed has made an attempt to distinguish between those two scenarios. In its weekly Oil Price Dynamics Report, the Fed decomposes Brent oil price changes into demand-driven changes and supply-driven changes.7 It does this by looking at how other financial assets respond to oil price changes each week. Chart 8 shows the cumulative change in the Brent oil price since 2010, along with the New York Fed’s supply and demand factors. According to the Fed, demand has pressured the oil price higher since 2010, but this has been more than offset by greater supply. Chart 8Supply & Demand Oil Price Decomposition Using the New York Fed’s supply and demand series, we look at how CPI swap rates respond to higher oil prices in three different scenarios. First, we identify 252 weeks when demand and supply both contributed to higher oil prices. Second, we identify 95 weeks when higher oil prices were driven solely by demand. Finally, and most pertinently, we identify 92 weeks when higher oil prices were driven only by supply (Table 2). Table 2Weekly Change In CPI Swap Rate When Brent Oil Price Increases Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios are consistent with our results from Table 1. CPI swap rates across the entire curve move higher more than half the time, with greater increases at the short-end of the curve. However, the scenario we are most interested in is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario. Presumably, a military conflict with Iran that took oil supply off the market would lead to less supply and also a decrease in global demand. Results for this scenario are more mixed. The 1-year CPI swap rate still rises 60% of the time, but rates further out the curve are somewhat more likely to fall. With this in mind, CPI swap curve or TIPS breakeven curve flatteners look like the best way to hedge against an oil supply shock, better than an outright long position in inflation protection. This is good news, since we have previously argued that owning TIPS breakeven curve flatteners is a good idea even without an oil supply shock.8 Corporate bond excess returns respond positively to changes in the oil price. We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. Buy Energy Junk Bonds Table 3Corporate Bond Sensitivity To Oil Corporate bonds are the second segment of the US fixed income market that could be materially impacted by an oil supply shock, particularly bonds in the energy sector. To assess the potential value of corporate bonds as a hedge, we repeat the above analysis but use weekly corporate bond excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries instead of CPI swap rates. Table 3 shows that investment grade and high-yield corporate bond returns both respond positively to changes in the oil price. Further, we see that energy bonds are more sensitive to the oil price, outperforming the overall index when the oil price rises, and vice-versa. Chart 9 shows that, while oil price sensitivities vary considerably over time, they are almost always positive. Also, energy sector sensitivity has been consistently above that of the benchmark index since 2014. Chart 9Betas Mostly Positive Going one step further, we once again use the New York Fed’s supply and demand decomposition to identify weeks when supply and/or demand was responsible for higher oil prices. Because we have more historical data for corporate bonds than for CPI swaps, this time we identify 340 weeks when both supply and demand drove the oil price higher, 123 weeks when only demand drove it higher and 142 weeks when only supply was responsible for the higher oil price (Table 4). Table 4Weekly Corporate Bond Excess Returns (BPs) When Brent Oil Price Increases Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios show that higher oil prices boost excess returns to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds more than half the time. Energy bonds also tend to outperform their respective benchmark indexes in the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ scenario, but perform roughly in-line with the benchmark in the ‘Demand Driven’ scenario. But once again, it is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario that we are most interested in. Here, we see that an oil supply disruption that leads to higher oil prices also leads to lower corporate bond excess returns. This is true for both the investment grade and high-yield indexes and for energy bonds in both rating categories. However, we also note that high-yield energy debt significantly outperforms the overall junk index during these “risk off” periods. In contrast, investment grade energy debt is not a clear outperformer. Chart 10HY Energy Spreads Are Very Attractive These results line up with our intuition. When oil prices are driven higher by demand it could simply be a sign of strong economic growth and not any specific trend related to the energy sector. As such, we’d expect all corporate bonds to perform well in those scenarios, but wouldn’t necessarily expect energy debt to outperform. However, supply disruptions in the Middle East directly benefit US shale oil players, whose debt is principally found in the high-yield energy sector. The investment grade energy sector is less exposed to the US shale space, and its documented outperformance in the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario is weaker as a result. We already recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield bonds and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. Within that overweight allocation to high-yield bonds, we recommend shifting some exposure toward the energy sector for two reasons. First, high-yield energy was severely beaten-down last year and is ripe for a rebound if global economic growth recovers, as we expect (Chart 10). Second, our analysis suggests that an allocation to energy will help mitigate losses in the event of a renewed flaring of US/Iranian tensions that removes oil supply from the market. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors initiate TIPS breakeven curve flatteners (or CPI swap curve flatteners) and add exposure to the high-yield energy sector. Both positions look attractive on their own terms, but will also help hedge the risk of an oil supply disruption if US/Iranian tensions flare back up in the months ahead.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The others are: the output gap, the US dollar and sentiment. For more details please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The Markit index is used in the construction of the Global PMI shown in Chart 2, 3 For more details on the politics behind the US/Iran conflict please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “A Reprieve Amid The Bull Market In Iran Tensions”, dated January 8, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Elizabeth Warren And The Markets”, dated September 13, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 In the TIPS market, an example of a breakeven curve flattener would be to buy 2-year TIPS and short the 2-year nominal Treasury note, while also buying the 10-year nominal Treasury note and shorting the 10-year TIPS. 7 https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/oil_price_dynamics_report 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

As 2019 draws to a close, we thank you for your ongoing readership and support. We wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season and all the best for a healthy and prosperous 2020. Highlights We explore the principal risks to our optimistic 2020 outlook. Trade and the 2020 US Presidential election remain potential landmines. A stronger dollar would tighten global financial conditions and be deflationary. Credit market tremors would end buybacks. Stronger-than-expected inflation would force a cycle-ending Federal Reserve tightening. Weaker-than-expected inflation would first allow for larger bubbles to form at the expense of a more painful recession and deeper a bear market down the road. Hedging against those risks warrants overweighting cash, TIPs and gold. Feature Chart I-1Timing is Ripe For A Recovery As always, this year’s visit from Ms. and Mr. X was thought-provoking and generated diverse investment ideas.1 While we did not share Mr. X’s fears, his caution may be justified because an aging business cycle, elevated equity multiples and extremely expensive government bonds do not mesh with pro-risk portfolio positioning. With this in mind, we will explore the greatest risks to our positive market outlook, which include politics, the US dollar, problems in the credit market, a quicker resumption of inflation and lower inflation. The Central Scenario To understand how these five risks affect our central thesis, let’s review the key views and themes that underpin our bullish outlook. BCA expects global economic activity to recover in 2020. First, the global inventory contraction is advanced, which increases the chance that the manufacturing cycle will track its usual pattern of an 18-month decline followed by an 18-month acceleration (Chart I-1). Secondly, Chinese policymakers are putting a floor under domestic economic activity and the stabilization in credit growth and the climbing fiscal impulse already augur well for global growth (Chart I-2). Thirdly, global liquidity is in a major upswing, thanks to easing by central banks around the world (Chart I-3). Finally, the trade détente between the US and China agreed last week reduces the odds of a destructive trade war. Chart I-2China's Policy Turnaround Chart I-3Easing Abound!   US monetary policy will remain accommodative next year. US inflation will remain subdued in the first half of 2020 in response to both the global growth slowdown underway since mid-2018 and the lagged effect of a stronger dollar. Moreover, Fed policy will remain sensitive to inflation expectations. According to BCA’s US Bond Strategy’s model, it could take an extended overshoot in realized inflation before inflation expectations move back to the 2.3% to 2.5% range consistent with achieving a 2% inflation target (Chart I-4). Thus, the Fed will remain on pause for all of 2020. BCA’s positive outlook depends on both China and the US respecting their trade truce. In this context, the dollar will depreciate. The USD is a countercyclical currency and typically suffers when global economic activity rebounds, especially if inflation remains tame (Chart I-5). This behavior is due to the low share of the US economy dedicated to manufacturing and exports, which makes the US less sensitive to global trade and industrial activity. Moreover, when the world economy strengthens, safe-haven flows that boost the dollar in times of duress reverse, which accentuates the selling pressure on the USD. Chart I-4Realized Inflation Will Guide Expectations Chart I-5The Dollar Won't Respond Well To Stronger Global Growth   Global bond prices will be another victim of an improving economic outlook. Global safe-haven securities are extremely expensive and investors are too bullish toward this asset class (Chart I-6). This puts government bonds at risk in the face of positive economic surprises. However, the upside in Treasury yields will be capped between 2.25 and 2.5% because the Fed will be cautious about lifting rates. This move will likely be led by inflation expectations. As a result, we favor TIPs over nominal Treasurys. Chart I-6Safe-Haven Yields Have Upside Chart I-7Investors Aren't Feeling Exuberant About Earnings Growth   Equities will outperform bonds. The S&P 500 is trading at 18-times forward earnings and 2.3-times sales. However, those elevated multiples are due to depressed risk-free rates. Long-term growth expectations embedded in stock prices are only 1%, toward the bottom of this series’ historical distribution (Chart I-7). Therefore, investors are not particularly optimistic on the long-term prospects of per-share earnings. This lack of euphoria implies that stocks are not as expensive as bonds, and that if yields climb because of improving global economic activity, then equities will outperform bonds. Moreover, with a backdrop of easy money and no recession forecast until 2022, the timing still favors positive returns for equities in the coming 12 to 18 months (Table I-1).   Table I-1The End Game Can Be Rewarding Finally, we favor European equities over US stocks. This regional slant is as much a reflection of the better value offered by European stocks as it is of their sector composition. European stocks are trading at a forward PE of 14, implying an equity risk premium of 846 basis points versus 546 basis points in the US. Moreover, our preference for industrials, energy and financials favors European equities (Table I-2). Additionally, European banks are our favorite equity bet worldwide because they trade at a price-to-book ratio of only 0.6 and the drivers of their return on tangible equity are perking up (Chart I-8). Table I-2Europe: Overweight In The Right Sectors Chart I-8Brightening Prospects For Euro Area Banks     Risk 1: Politics BCA’s positive outlook depends on both China and the US respecting their trade truce. However, the two countries are long-term rivals and the rising geopolitical power of China relative to the US will cause tensions to escalate in the coming decades (Chart I-9). This also suggests that China and the US are highly unlikely to ever have an agreement that fully covers intellectual property transfers. Chart I-9China/US Tensions Are Structural The US could still renege on the “Phase One” deal. President Trump faces an election in 2020 and the majority of Democratic hopefuls are also hawkish on China. If Trump’s low approval rating does not improve soon (Chart I-10), he could become a more war-like president, in the hope that electors will rally around the flag. A renewed trade war would hurt business sentiment and undermine consumer spending (Chart I-11). A bellicose approach to international relations, especially on trade, would spark another spike in global policy uncertainty that will hurt global capex intentions. Meanwhile, companies could cut employment, which would weigh on household incomes. A rising unemployment rate could also hurt household confidence, reinforcing the slowdown in consumer spending. This would guarantee an earlier recession. Stocks would decline along with global government bond yields. Chart I-10President Trump Can Still Make It Chart I-11Households On The Edge   The US election creates an additional political risk. Democratic candidates are touting higher corporate taxes, a wealth tax, a greater regulatory burden, antitrust actions, and so on. These policies are worrisome to corporate leaders and business owners. For the time being, our Geopolitical Strategy team favors a Trump victory in 2020 (Chart I-12).2 However, if his odds deteriorate significantly, then business executives would likely curtail capex and hiring. This could also result in a US recession that would invalidate our central scenario for 2020. Chart I-12Our Model Still Favors President Trump Risk 2: A Strong Dollar A strong US dollar would hurt growth. A continued dollar rally would counteract a large proportion of the easing in liquidity conditions created by accommodative central banks around the world. The dollar affects the global cost of capital. Both advanced economies and emerging markets have USD-denominated foreign currency debt totaling around $6 trillion each. A strong USD raises the cost of servicing this large debt load, which could force borrowers to curtail their spending. A continued dollar rally would counteract a large proportion of the easing in liquidity conditions created by accommodative central banks around the world. Despite our conviction that the US dollar will depreciate in 2020, the following factors may invalidate our thesis: The USD still possesses the highest carry in the G10. When the dollar is supported by some of the highest interest rates in the G10, it often continues to rally (Chart I-13). Chart I-13The Dollar Offers An Elevated Carry The global growth rebound may be led by the US. If the US leads the rest of the world higher, then rates of return in the US would climb quicker than in the rest of the world. The resulting capital inflows would bid up the dollar. The shortage of USDs in offshore markets may flare up again. The September seize-up in the repo market was a reminder that because of the Basel III rules, global banks have a strong appetite for high-quality collateral and reserves. This generates substantial demand for the USD, which could put upward pressure on its exchange rate. The US dollar is a momentum currency. Among the G10 currencies, the USD responds most strongly to the momentum factor (Chart I-14).3 The dollar’s strength in the past 18 months could initiate another wave of appreciation. The dollar may not be as expensive as suggested by purchasing power parity (PPP) models. According to PPP estimates, the trade-weighted dollar is 24.2% overvalued. However, according to behavioral effective exchange rate models (BEER), the dollar may be trading closer to its fair value (Chart I-15). Chart I-14The Dollar Is A Momentum Currency Chart I-15Is The Dollar Expensive?   Why are the five items listed above risks for the dollar, but not our central scenario? Regarding the dollar’s carry, in 1985, 1999, and 2006, the US still offered some of the highest short-term interest rates among advanced economies, nevertheless the dollar began to depreciate. In those three instances, an acceleration in foreign economic activity relative to the US was the key culprit behind the USD’s weakness. In 2020, we expect foreign economies to lead the US higher. Since mid-2018, the manufacturing sector has been at the center of the global slowdown. But now, inventory and monetary dynamics point towards a re-acceleration in manufacturing activity. The US was the last nation to be hit by the growth slowdown; it will also be the last to reap a dividend from the recovery. The marginal buyers of US equities have been US firms. On the danger created by the dollar and the collateral shortage, the Fed is tackling the lack of excess reserves head-on by injecting $60 billion per month of reserves via its asset purchases. Moreover, the US fiscal deficit, which is tabulated to reach $1.1 trillion in 2020, will add a similar amount of dollars to the pool of high-quality collateral around the world, especially as the US current account deficit is widening anew. On the momentum tendency of the USD, the dollar’s momentum seems to be petering off. A move in the Dollar Index below 96 would indicate a major change in the trend for the DXY. Finally, estimates of a currency’s fair value based on BEER fluctuate much more than those based on PPP. If the global growth pick-up allows foreign neutral rates to increase relative to the US over the coming 12 to 24 months, then the dollar’s BEER equilibrium will likely converge toward PPP, putting downward pressure on the USD. Risk 3: Credit Market Tremors A credit market selloff is not our base case, but it would be damaging to risk assets. A deterioration in credit quality would be the main culprit behind a widening in credit spreads. Our Corporate Health Monitor already shows that the credit quality of US firms is worsening (Chart I-16). Moreover, the return on capital of the US corporate sector is rapidly deteriorating. Accentuating these risks, US profit margins have begun to decline because a tight labor market is exerting an upward pull on real unit labor costs (Chart I-17). Furthermore, the near-total disappearance of covenants in new corporate bond issuance increases the risks to lenders and will likely depress recovery rates when a default wave emerges. Chart I-16Deteriorating Fundamentals For US Corporates Chart I-17A Tight Labor Market Is Biting Into Margins     Widening credit spreads would signal a darkening economic outlook. Historically, wider spreads have been an excellent leading indicator of recessions (Chart I-18). Wider spreads have a reflexive relationship with the economy: they reflect anticipation of rising defaults by investors, but they also represent a price-based measure of lenders’ willingness to extend credit. Therefore, wider spreads force open the underlying cracks in the economy by depriving funds to weak borrowers. The resulting deterioration in capex and hiring would prompt a decline in consumer confidence and spending, ultimately leading to a recession. Chart I-18Widening Spreads Foreshadow Recessions Chart I-19Who Is Buying Stocks? Businesses! US equities may prove to be even more sensitive to the health of the credit market than in previous cycles. The marginal buyers of US equities have been US firms, which have engaged in equity retirements totaling $16.5 trillion since 2010. Since that date, pension plans, foreigners and households have sold a total of $7.7 trillion in US equities (Chart I-19). Both internally generated cash flows and borrowings have allowed for a decline in the equity portion of funding among US firms. Therefore, a weak credit market would hurt equities because a recession would depress firms’ free cash flows and hamper the capacity of firms to buy back their shares. Finally, the tendency of US firms to borrow to buy back their shares means that newly issued debt has not been matched by as much asset growth as in previous cycles. Therefore, borrowing is not backed by the same degree of collateral as in past cycles. If the credit market seizes up, then default and recovery rates will suffer even more than suggested by our corporate health monitor. The VIX will blow up and equities could suffer. Higher US inflation is potentially the most important downside risk for next year. While a widening in credit spreads would have a profound impact on stocks, it is unlikely to materialize when the Fed conducts a very accommodative monetary policy and global growth recovers. Risk 4: Higher Inflation Chart I-20The US Labor Market Is Tight Higher US inflation is potentially the most important downside risk for next year as it would catalyze the aforementioned dangers. Inflation could surprise to the upside because the labor market is tight. At 3.5%, the unemployment rate is well below equilibrium estimates that range between 4.1% and 4.6%. Small firms are increasingly citing their inability to find qualified labor as the biggest constraint to expand production. In the Conference Board Consumer Confidence survey, the number of households reporting that jobs are easily procured is near a record high relative to those preoccupied by poor job prospects. Finally, the voluntary quit rate is at 2.3%, a near record high (Chart I-20). Core PCE remains at only 1.6% year-on-year, but investors should recall the experience of the late 1960s. Through the 1960s, the labor market was tight, yet core inflation remained between 1% and 2%. However, in 1966, inflation suddenly accelerated to 4% before peaking near 7% in 1970. Some inflation dynamics warrant close monitoring. The three-month annualized rate of service inflation excluding rent of shelter has already surged to 4.5% and the same metric for medical care inflation stands at 5.9%. A continued tightening in the labor market could solidify a broadening of these trends because a rising employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers points toward stronger salaries and ultimately higher domestic demand (Chart I-21). A very weak dollar would also allow this scenario to develop. Chart I-21Household Income Growth Will Accelerate A sudden flare in inflation would prompt an abrupt tightening in liquidity conditions that would be lethal for the economy. An out of the blue surge in CPI would likely cause a swift reassessment of inflation expectations by households and investors. Under these circumstances, the Fed could tighten monetary policy much faster than we currently envision. If interest rate markets are forced to price in a prompt removal of monetary accommodation, Treasury yields could easily spike above 3.5% by year end, which would hurt both the economy and the expensive equity market. If realized inflation turns out weaker than we expect in 2020, then central banks will maintain accommodative policies beyond next year. For now, this scenario remains a tail risk because the recent economic slowdown will probably continue to act as a dampener on US inflation in the first half of the year. Additionally, we do not expect the USD to collapse by 40% and fan inflation and inflation expectations, as occurred from 1985 to 1987. Instead, inflation expectations are much better anchored than they were in either the 1960s or 1980s, decreasing the risk that the Fed will suddenly have to tighten policy. Risk 5: Weaker-Than-Expected Inflation Chart I-22An Aggressive BoJ Did Not Achieve Inflation The last risk is paradoxical, but it is the one with the highest probability. It is paradoxical because it involves greater upside for stocks next year than we currently anticipate, but at the expense of a much deeper bear market in the future. The labor market may be tight, but Japan’s experience cautions us against extrapolating that inflation is necessarily around the corner. In Japan, the unemployment rate has been below 3.5% since 2014 and minimal domestically generated inflation has emerged. Inflation excluding food and energy remains at a paltry 0.7% year-on-year, even as the Bank of Japan has kept the policy rate at -0.1% and expanded its balance sheet from 20% of GDP in 2008 to 102% today (Chart I-22). If realized inflation turns out weaker than we expect in 2020, then central banks will maintain accommodative policies beyond next year. Central banks are currently toying with their inflation targets, discussing allowing inflation overshoots and displaying deep paranoia in the face of deflation. By weighing on inflation expectations, low realized inflation would nail policy rates around the world at currently depressed levels or even lower. Chart I-23Bubbles Destroy Long-Term Return On Capital In this context, bond yields would have even more limited upside than we envision and risk assets could experience higher multiples than today. In other words, we would have a perfect scenario for another stock market bubble. Vulnerability would escalate as valuations balloon and the perceived risk of monetary tightening dissipates from both investors’ and economic agents’ minds. Elevated asset valuations portend lower long-term expected returns (Chart I-23) and a larger share of the capital stock would become misallocated. Ultimately, the stimulative impact of such a bubble would create its own inflationary pressures. Consumers and companies would accumulate more debt and cyclical spending would rise (Chart I-24). In the end, the Fed would raise rates more aggressively, but the economy would be more vulnerable to those higher rates. Chart I-24Higher Cyclical Spending Creates Vulnerabilities Therefore, we would see a larger recession and, because assets are more expensive, a greater decline in prices. This would be extremely destabilizing for the global economy, potentially much more so than if a recession were to emerge today. Moreover, since the resulting slump would be yet another balance-sheet recession, it would likely entail a lack of capacity by central banks to reflate their economies. Conclusion The scenarios above are all risks to our benign view for 2020. The first four represent downside threats for assets next year, but the last one (weaker-than-expected inflation) entails upside potential to our forecast next year with significantly more painful results down the line. These risks are important to consider when protecting our portfolio, which has a pro-cyclical bias. It is overweight stocks, underweight bonds, and favors cyclical equities as well as foreign bourses at the expense of the US. BCA’s Global Asset Allocation service recently published an article on safe havens, which studied the profile of risk assets under various circumstances.4 Treasurys normally are the best safe haven, however, at current levels of yields, this benefit will be small compared with previous cycles. Instead, we favor an overweight position in cash, TIPs and gold. The best defense against short-term gyrations is to think about long-term strategic asset allocation. In this regard, this month’s Special Report – co-authored with BCA’s Equity, Geopolitical and Foreign Exchange Strategists, and Marko Papic, Chief Strategist at Clocktower Group – discusses our top sector calls for the upcoming decade. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 20, 2019 Next Report: January 30, 2020   II. Top US Sector Investment Ideas For The Next Decade Every decade a dominant theme captures investors’ imaginations and morphs into a bubble. Massive speculation typically propels the relevant asset class into the stratosphere as investors extrapolate the good times far into the future and go on a buying frenzy. Chart II-1 shows previous manic markets starting with the Nifty Fifty, gold bullion, the Nikkei 225, the NASDAQ 100, crude oil and most recently the FAANGs. Chart II-1Manias: An Historical Roadmap What will be the dominant themes of the next decade? How should investors capitalize on some of these big trends? The purpose of this Special Report is to identify and provoke a healthy debate on the prevailing investment themes for the 2020s and to speculate on what the key US sector beneficiaries and likely losers may be. Theme #1: De-Globalization Picks Up Steam The first investment theme for the upcoming decade is the “apex of globalization” or “de-globalization”. We have written about this theme extensively at BCA Research and it is the mega-theme of our sister Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. Odds are high that countries will continue looking inward as the US adopts a more aggressive trade policy, China’s trend growth slows, and US-China strategic tensions intensify. The small cap preference is a secular view with a time horizon that spans the next decade. Chart II-2 shows that we are at the conclusion of a period of tranquility. Pax Americana underpinned globalization as much as Pax Britannica before it. The US is in a relative decline after decades of geopolitical stability allowed countries like China to rise to “great power” status and rivals like Russia to recover from the chaos of the 1990s. Chart II-2De-globalization Has Commenced De-globalization has become the consensus since the election of Donald Trump. But Trump is not the prophet of de-globalization; he is its acolyte. Globalization is ending because of structural factors, not cyclical ones. Three factors stand at the center of this assessment, outlined in our 2014 Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here”: multipolarity, populism and protectionism. Events have since confirmed this view. One final long-term playable investment idea from the apex of globalization is a structural bull market in defense stocks. The three pillars of globalization are the free movement of goods, capital, and people across national borders. We expect to see marginally less of each in the future. Investment Implication #1: Profit Margin Peak The most profound and provocative investment implication from de-globalization is that SPX profit margins have peaked and will likely come under intense pressure, especially for US conglomerates that – on a relative basis to international peers – most enthusiastically embraced globalization. Chart II-3 shows reconstructed S&P 500 profits and sales data back to the late-1920s. Historically, corporate profit margins and globalization (depicted as global trade as a percentage of GDP) have been positively correlated. Chart II-3Profit Margin Trouble As countries are more outward looking, trade flourishes and openness to trade allows the free flow of capital to take advantage of profit-maximizing projects. Following the Great Recession and similar to the Great Depression, trade has suffered and trade barriers have risen. The Sino-American trade war has accelerated the inward movement of countries, including Korea and Japan, and has had negative knock-on effects on trade as evidenced by the now two-year old global growth deceleration. China’s response to President Trump’s election was to redouble its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency, which meant a crackdown on corporate debt and a fiscal boost to household consumption. Trump’s tariffs then damaged sentiment and trade between the two countries. Any deal reached prior to the 2020 US election will remain in doubt among global investors. The longer the trade war remains unresolved, the deeper the cracks will be in the foundations of the global trading system. We are especially worried for the S&P interactive media & services index that includes GOOGL and FB. Such a backdrop is negative for profit margins, as inward looking countries prevent capital from being allocated most efficiently. Moreover, the uprooting of supply chains due to the trade war hurts margins and the redeployment of equipment in different jurisdictions will do the same at a time when final demand is suffering a setback. In addition, rising profit margins are synonymous with wealth accruing to the top 1% of US families and vice versa. This relationship dates back to the late-1920s, as far back as our dataset goes. Using Piketty and Saez data, which exclude capital gains, it is clear that profit margin expansion exacerbates income inequality (top panel, Chart II-4). Chart II-4Heightened Risk Of Wealth Re-distribution Expanding margins lead to higher profits. Because families at the top of the income distribution are often business owners, income disparities are the widest when margins are in overshoot territory. Eventually this income chasm comes to a head and generates political discontent. Populism has emerged on both the right and left wings of the US political spectrum – and since the rise of Trump, even Republicans complain about inequality and the excesses of “corporate welfare” and laissez-faire capitalism. Because inequality is extreme – relative to America’s developed peers – and political forces are mobilizing against it, the probability of wealth re-distribution is rising in the coming decades (middle panel, Chart II-4). Labor’s share of national income has nowhere to go but higher in coming years and that is negative for profit margins, ceteris paribus (bottom panel, Chart II-4). Buy or add software stock exposure on any weakness with a 10-year investment time horizon. Drilling beneath the surface, the three secular US equity sector/factor implications of the apex of globalization paradigm shift are: prefer small caps over large caps prefer value over growth overweight the pure-play BCA Defense Index Investment Implication #2: Small Is Beautiful Chart II-5It's A Small World After All While a small cap bias is contrary to the cyclical US Equity Strategy view of preferring large caps to small caps, the issue is timing: the small cap preference is a secular view with a time horizon that spans the next decade. The small versus large cap share price ratio’s ebbs and flows persist over long cycles. Small caps outshined large caps uninterruptedly from 1999 to 2010. Since then large caps have had the upper hand (Chart II-5). Were the apex of globalization theme to gain traction in the 2020s, small caps should reclaim the lead from large caps, especially in the wake of the next US recession. Similar to the death of the global banking model, companies with global footprints will suffer the most, especially compared with domestically focused outfits. One way to explore this theme is via domestic versus global sector preference. But a more investable way to position for this sea change, is to buy small caps (or microcaps) at the expense of large caps (or mega caps). Small caps are traditionally domestically geared compared with large caps that have significantly more foreign sales exposure. The closest ETF ticker symbols resembling this trade is long IWM:US/short SPY:US. Investment Implication #3: Buy Value At The Expense Of Growth Similar to the size bias, the style bias also moves in secular ways. Value outperformed growth from the dot com bust until the GFC. Since then growth has crushed value, even temporarily breaking below the year 2000 relative trough. This breakneck pace of appreciation for growth stocks is clearly unsustainable and offers long-term oriented investors a compelling entry point near two standard deviations below the historical mean (Chart II-6). Chart II-6Value Has The Upper Hand Versus Growth Financials populate value indexes, a similarity with small cap outfits. Traditionally, financials are a domestically focused sector with export exposure registering at half of the S&P’s average 40% level of internationally sourced revenues. On the flip side, tech stocks sit atop the growth table and they garner 60% of their revenue from abroad. This value over growth style preference will pay handsome dividends if the de-globalization theme becomes more mainstream as countries become more hawkish on trade and the Sino-American war continues to erect barriers to trade that took decades to lift. We have created a basket of ten stocks that we think will be driven over the long term by the demographic rise of the Millennial. The caveat? President Trump's recent short-term deal with China could set back the de-globalization theme. But our geopolitical strategists do not anticipate it to be a durable deal, and they also expect the trade war to resume in some way, shape or form in 2021-22, regardless of the outcome of the US election. The closest ETF ticker symbols resembling this trade is long IVE:US/short IVW:US. Investment Implication #4: Defense Fortress Chart II-7Stick With Pure-play Defense Stocks One final long-term playable investment idea from the apex of globalization is a structural bull market in defense stocks (Chart II-7). The US Equity Sector service's October 2016 “Brothers In Arms” Special Report drew parallels with the late nineteenth century period of European rearmament, and the American and Soviet arms race of the 1960s.5 These movements were greatly beneficial to the aerospace and defense industry. Currently, the move by several countries to adopt more independent foreign policies, i.e. to move away from collaboration and cooperation toward isolationism and self-sufficiency, entails an accompanying arms race. Table II-1 China’s challenge to the regional political status quo motivates a boost to defense spending globally. In fact, SIPRI data on global military spending by 2030 (Table II-1) increases our conviction that this trade will succeed on a five-to-ten year horizon. Beyond the global arms race, two additional forces are at work underpinning pure-play defense contractors. A global space race with China, India and the US wanting to have manned missions to the moon, and the rise of global cybersecurity breaches. Defense companies are levered to both of these secular forces and should be prime sales and profit beneficiaries of rising space budgets and increasing cybersecurity combat budgets. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the pure-play BCA defense index are: LMT, RTN, NOC, GD, HII, AJRD, BWXT, CW, MRCY. Theme #2: Tech Sector Regulation, US Enacts Privacy Laws The second long-term geopolitical theme that we are exploring is the regulatory or “stroke of pen” risk that is rising on FAANG stocks – Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. These companies were this decade’s undisputed stock market winners. The US anti-trust regulatory framework was designed to curb broad anti-competitive actions of trusts. As Lina Khan discusses in her seminal article, these actions “include not only cost but also product quality, variety, and innovation.” However, through subsequent regulatory evolution, the Chicago School has focused the US anti-trust process on consumer welfare and prices. If President Reagan and the courts could change how anti-trust laws were administered in the 1980s, so too can future administrations and courts. Today the US Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is looking into regulatory tightening, while the judicial system will take longer to change its approach. Moreover, the impetus for tougher anti-trust policy is here. It comes from a long period of slow growth, income inequality, and economic volatility – such as in the 1870s-80s. This was certainly the case for Standard Oil in 1911, which became a nation-wide boogeyman despite most of its transgressions occurring in the farm belt states. Today, income inequality is a prominent political theme and source of consumer discontent. A narrative is emerging – which will be super-charged during the next recession – that growth has been unequally distributed between the old economy and the twenty-first century technology leaders. While there are a few ESG related ETFs, we would rather explore this theme’s investment implications of sectors to avoid in the coming decade. With regard to privacy, the news is equally grim for large tech outfits. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force on May 2018, imposes compliance burdens on any company handling user data. In the US, California has signed its own version of the law – the Consumer Privacy Act – which will go into effect in January 2020. These laws give consumers the right to know what information companies are collecting about them and who that data is shared with. They also allow consumers to ask technology companies to delete their data or not to sell it. While tech companies are likely to fight the new California law, and the US court system is a source of uncertainty, we believe the writing is on the wall. The EU is by some measures the largest consumer market on the planet. California is certainly the largest US market. It is unlikely that the momentum behind consumer protection will change, especially with the EU and California taking the lead. The odds of a federal privacy law, following in the footsteps of the Consumer Privacy Act, are also rising. Investment Implication #5: Shun Interactive Media & Services Stocks These risks introduce a severe overhang for FAANG stocks. We are especially worried for the S&P interactive media & services index that includes GOOGL and FB. Chart II-8Regulation Will Squeeze Tech Margins Tack on the threat of federal regulation and this represents another major headwind for profits and margins that are extremely elevated for these near monopolies. Given that advertising revenue is crucial to the business model of social media companies (GOOGL and FB included), a significant uptick in privacy regulation will likely hurt their bottom line. With regard to profit margins, tech stocks in general command a profit margin twice as high as the SPX. Specifically, FB and GOOGL enjoy margins that are 500 basis points higher than the broad tech sector (Chart II-8)! This is unsustainable and they will likely serve as easy prey for policymakers. Our view does not necessarily call for breaking up these monopolies. The US will have to weigh the economic consequences of anti-trust policy in a context of multipolarity in which China’s national tech champions are emerging to compete with American companies for global market share. Nevertheless, increased regulation is inevitable and some forced sales of crown jewel assets may take place. Moreover, the threat of a breakup will lurk in the background, creating uncertainty until key legislative and judicial battles have already been fought. That will take years. Finally, we doubt the tech sector will be left alone to “self-regulate” its incumbents and negotiate a price on consumers’ privacy. More likely, a new privacy law will loom, serving as a negative catalyst for profit growth. Uncertainty will weigh on the S&P interactive media & services relative performance. The ticker symbols to short/underweight the S&P interactive media & services index are an equally weighted basket of GOOGL and FB (they command a 98% market cap weight in the index). Theme #3: SaaS, Artificial Intelligence, Augmented Reality And Autonomous Driving Are Not Fads The third big theme that will even outlive the upcoming decade is the proliferation of software as a service (SaaS). The move to cloud computing and SaaS, the wider adoption of artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomous driving and augmented reality are not fads, but enjoy a secular growth profile. In the grander scheme of things today’s world is surrounded by software. Millions of lines of code go even into gasoline powered automobiles, let alone electric vehicles. Autonomous driving is synonymous with software, the Internet of Things (IoT) needs software, the space race depends on software, modern manufacturing and software are closely intertwined, phone calls for quite some time have been a software solution, and the list goes on and on. This tidal effect is hard to reverse and is already embedded in workflows across industries. Opportunities to penetrate health care and financial services more deeply remain unexplored and it is difficult to envision another competing industry unseating “king software”. These secular trends are not only productivity enhancing, but will also most likely prove recession-proof. When growth is scarce investors flock to any source of growth they can come by and we are foreseeing that when the next recession arrives, investors will likely seek shelter in pure play SaaS firms. Investment Implication #6: Software Is Eating The World Chart II-9Software Is Eating The World Buying software stocks for the long haul seems like a bulletproof investment idea. But the recent stellar performance of software stocks has moved valuations to overshoot territory. Our recommended strategy is to buy or add software stock exposure on any weakness with a 10-year investment time horizon. All of these secular trends have pushed capital outlays on software into a structural uptrend. Software related capex is not only garnering a larger slice of the tech spending budgets but also of the overall capex pie. If it were not for software capex, the contraction in non-residential investment in recent quarters would have been more severe (Chart II-9). Private sector software capex is near all-time highs as a share of total outlays. Government investment in software is also reaccelerating at the fastest pace since the tech bubble. When productivity gains are anemic, both the business and government sectors resort to software upgrades in order to boost productivity. Cyber security is another more recent source of software related demand as governments around the globe are taking such risks extremely seriously (bottom panel, Chart II-9). Given this upbeat demand backdrop and ongoing equity retirement, software stocks are primed to grow into their pricey valuations. Finally, this long-term trade will also serve as a hedge to the short/underweight position we recommend in the S&P interactive media & services index. The closest ETF ticker symbol resembling the S&P software index is IGV:US. Theme #4: Millennials Already Are The Largest Cohort And Will Dominate Spending The fourth long-term theme we anticipate to gain traction in the 2020s is the demographic rise of the Millennial generation. Much has been made of preparing for the arrival of the Millennial generation, accompanied by well-worn stereotypes of general "failure to launch" as they reach adulthood. However, "arrival" is a misnomer as this age cohort is already the largest and "failure" is simply untrue. According to the US Census Bureau, Millennials are the US’s largest living generation. Millennials (or Echo Boomers) defined as people aged 18 to 37 (born 1982 to 2000), now number more than 80mn and represent more than one quarter of the US’s population. Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964) number about 75mn. Stealthily becoming the largest age group in the US over the last few years, Millennials per-year-birth-rate peaked at 4.3mn in 1990. Surprisingly, the pace matched that of the post-war Baby Boom peak-per-year-birth-rate in 1957 - the per-year average over the period was higher for the Baby Boomers (Chart II-10). Chart II-10Millennials Are The Largest Cohort This gap is now set to grow rapidly as the death rate of Baby Boomers accelerates. What is more, the largest one-year age cohort is only 25 years old, thus, Millennials will be the dominant generation for many years. It is unclear how these “kids” will impact the market as they become the most important consumers, borrowers and investors, but make no mistake: this is a seismic shift in economic power and it is here to stay. The Echo Boom is a big, generational demographic wave. A difficult and painful delay has not tempered its looming importance. Finally, this wave of echo-boomers is educated, relatively unburdened by debt (please see BOX in the June 11, 2018 Special Report on demystifying the student debt load as it pertains to Millennials), and as they inevitably “grow up”, form new households and have kids. They will borrow, spend, earn, but not necessarily save and invest to the same extent as the Boomers. And this will be an important long-term theme going forward. Near term, we might already be seeing signs of their arrival and firms have begun to pivot accordingly. Investment Implication #7: Buy The BCA Millennials Equity Basket Millennials will boost consumption spending in a number of different ways. The relatively unburdened Millennial cohort will be entering prime home acquisition age soon and this should underpin the long-term prospects of the US housing market and related industries. Furthermore, Millennials consume differently from their parents; social media, online shopping and smart phones are not the consumption categories of the Baby Boomers. With this in mind, we have created a basket of ten stocks that we think will be driven over the long term by the demographic rise of the Millennial. We note that these stocks are heavily weighted to the technology and consumer discretionary sectors, which is logical as Millennial consumption habits tend to be discretionary focused and technology-based. Beginning with consumer discretionary, we are highlighting AMZN, NFLX and SPOT as core holdings in our Millennials basket. AMZN’s heft dwarfs consumer discretionary indexes but it could fall in several categories; the acquisition of Whole Foods makes it a Millennials-focused consumer staples retailer and its cloud computing web services segment is a tech leader. NFLX and SPOT represent the means by which Millennials consume media, by streaming movies and music over the internet. The idea of owning physical media is rapidly becoming an anachronism. The home ownership theme noted in this report leads us to add HD and LEN to the basket. Millennials are “doers” and are set to be the dominant DIYers in the next few years, making HD a logical choice. LEN, as the nation’s largest home builder, should benefit from the Millennials coming of age into home buyers. We are also adding TSLA to our basket as a lone clean tech-oriented equity. TSLA capitalizes on the increasing shift to clean energy of Millennials (the key reason why no traditional energy companies have a spot in our basket). Chart II-11Buy BCA's Millennial Equity Basket The technology stocks in our Millennials basket are AAPL, UBER (which replaces FB as of today) and MSFT, together representing more than 9% of the total value of the S&P 500. AAPL’s inclusion in the list is predictable as the leading domestic purveyor of devices on which Millennials consume media content. FB is a predictable holding, with more than half of all Americans being monthly active users, dominated by the Millennial cohort. It has served our basket well since inception, but today we are compelled to remove it and replace it with UBER. UBER is a Millennial favorite and the epitome of the sharing economy. In reality UBER is a logistics company and while it is losing money, it is eerily reminiscent of AMZN in its early days. Maybe UBER will dominate all means of transportation and its ease of use will propel it to a mega cap in the coming decade. Our inclusion of MSFT is based on its leadership in cloud computing, a rapidly growing industry. We expect the connectivity and mobile computing demands of Millennials will accelerate. The last stock we are adding to our basket is also the only financial services equity. Though avid consumers, Millennials have shown an aversion to cash, preferring card payment systems, including both debit and credit-based. Accordingly, we are adding the leader in both of these, V, to our Millennials basket (Chart II-11). Investors seeking long-term exposure to stocks lifted by the supremacy of the Millennial generation should own our Millennial basket (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). We would not hesitate to add other sharing economy stocks, including Airbnb, to this basket should they become investable in the near future. Theme #5: ESG Becomes Mainstream Investors are increasingly looking at allocating assets based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations, and this mini-theme has the potential to become a big trend in the 2020s. There are a number of factors that underpin ESG investing. First, Millennials are climate conscious and given that they already are the largest cohort in the US they will not only dominate spending, but also influence election results. Moreover, via social media Millennials can sway public opinion and participate in the ESG conversation. Second, ECB President Christine Lagarde recent speech to the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament is a must read.6 If the ECB were to explicitly focus on climate change policy as part of its monetary policy operations then this is a game changer. Green investment financing including “green bonds” could become mainstream. Keep in mind that as reported in the FT, “the European Parliament has declared a climate emergency; the new European Commission (EC) has taken office on a promise of an imminent “green new deal”, and Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has vowed to accelerate emissions cuts.” Last week, the EC released “The European Green Deal” with a pretty aggressive time table. The EC president said “The green deal is Europe’s man on the moon moment” and presented 50 policies slated to get rolled by 2022 to meet revamped climate goals. The implication is that once ESG takes center stage at a number of these institutions, it will be easier to become mainstream and propagate the world over. Third, large institutional investors are starting to adopt an ESG mindset, especially pension plans. These investors with trillions of dollars at their disposal can not only disfavor fossil fuel investment, but also undertake investments in “green projects” via private and public equity markets. Banks are also moving in the “greening of finance” direction and given that they are the pipelines of the global plumbing system, swift adoption will go a long way in taking ESG mainstream. Finally, the electric vehicle (EV) proliferation is another key driver on how the ESG theme will play out in the 2020s. As a reminder, in the US 50% of all energy consumption is gasoline related linked to automobiles. While battery technology still has limitations, EV is no longer a fad as the German and Japanese automakers are starting to make inroads on TSLA. These car manufacturers do not want to be left out, especially if this shift toward EV becomes mainstream in the 2020s. The Chinese are not far behind on the EV manufacturing front, however government policy can really become a game changer. If a number of countries and/or California mandate a large share of all new vehicles sold be EV, then the investment implications will be massive. Investment Implication #8: Avoid Fossil Fuels, Gambling, Alcohol And Tobacco… While there are a few ESG related ETFs, we would rather explore this theme’s investment implications of sectors to avoid in the coming decade. We are believers that ESG criteria will continue to gain in importance in institutional investment management decisions. Accordingly, we would tend to avoid ‘sin stocks’, including gambling, tobacco and alcohol; demand for their services is unlikely to decline but investment weightings should mean that share prices will underperform. Further, we think a clean energy shift will mean energy stocks will likely continue to be long-term underperformers (Chart II-12). Final Thoughts On The US Dollar In this report, we tried to focus on the upcoming decade’s big themes that we expect to play out, and centered our recommendations on US equities/sectors. We do not want to neglect some macroeconomic variables that tend to mean revert over time. Specifically, the US dollar, interest rates and most importantly US indebtedness, will also be key drivers of investment theses in the 2020s. Currently, debt is rising faster than nominal GDP growth with the government and non-financial business debt-to-GDP profiles on an unsustainable path (second panel, Chart II-13). Chart II-12Areas To Avoid As ESG Becomes Mainstream Chart II-13Unsustainable Debt Profiles   Granted, the saving grace has been generationally low interest rates as the debt service ratios have fallen (top panel, Chart II-13). However, if the four decade bull market in Treasurys is over, or may end definitively with the next US recession sometime in the early 2020s, then rising interest rates are the only mechanism to concentrate CEOs’ and politicians’ minds. On the dollar front, Chart II-14 highlights the ebbs and flows of the trade-weighted US dollar since it floated in the early-1970s. The DXY index has moved in six-to-ten year bull and bear markets. The most recent trough was during the depths of the Great Recession, while the (tentative?) peak was in late-2016. If history repeats, eventually the dollar will mean revert lower in the 2020s, especially given the fiscal profligacy of the current administration that may continue into 2024, assuming President Trump gets re-elected next November. Chart II-14Greenback's Historical Ebbs And Flows The US dollar remains the reserve currency of the world today, but that exorbitant privilege is clearly fraying on the edges as the balance-of-payments dynamics are heading in the wrong direction. Over the next five years, the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the US budget deficit will swell to 4.8% of GDP. Assuming the current account deficit widens a bit then stabilizes (usually happens when global growth improves), this will pin the twin deficits at 8% of GDP. This assumes no recession, which would have the potential to swell the deficit even further. The US saw its twin deficits swell to almost 13% of GDP following the financial crisis, but the difference then was that in the wake of the commodity boom the dollar was cheap (and commodity currencies overvalued). The subsequent shale revolution also greatly cushioned the US trade deficit. Shale productivity remains robust and US output will continue to rise, but the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked. Chart II-15Twin Deficits Will Weigh On The US Dollar For one reason or another, foreign central banks are diversifying out of dollars. If due to the changing landscape in trade, this is set to continue. If it is an excuse to shy away from the rapidly rising US twin deficits, this will continue as well. In a nutshell, there has been hardly a time in recent history when the twin deficits in the US were rising and the dollar was in a secular uptrend (Chart II-15). Another dollar-negative force is its expensiveness. By rising 35% since its trough, the USD has sapped the competitiveness of the US manufacturing sector, which is accentuating the American trade deficit outside of the commodity sector. If the ESG trend ends up hurting oil prices, the US current account will follow the widening deficit in manufactured products. Moreover, the US is lagging Europe on the green revolution. Either the US will have to import green technologies, or the US government will have to provide more subsidies to the private sector. Either way, both of these dynamics will hurt the US current account deficit further. Historically, the currency market is the main vehicle to correct such imbalances. The apex of globalization will also hurt the greenback. In a world where all the markets are integrated, borrowers in EM nations often use the reserve currency to issue liabilities at a lower cost. This boosts the demand by EM central banks for US dollar reserves to protect domestic banking systems funded in USD. Moreover, some countries like China implement pegs (both official and unofficial) to the US dollar in order to maintain their competitiveness and export their production surpluses to the US. To do so they buy US assets. If the global economy becomes more fragmented and the Sino-US relationship continues to deteriorate structurally as we expect, then these sources of demand for the dollar will recede. Overlay the widening US current account deficit, and you have the perfect recipe for a depreciating trade-weighted US dollar. Finally, the US is likely to experience more inflation than the rest of the world following the next recession. The US economy has a smaller capital stock as a share of GDP than Europe or Japan, and American demographics are much more robust. This means that the neutral rate of interest is higher in the US than in other advanced economies. As a result, the Fed will have an easier time generating inflation by cutting real rates than both the ECB and the BoJ. Higher inflation will ultimately erode the purchasing power of the dollar and prove to be a structurally negative force for the USD.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist Marko Papic Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   III. Indicators And Reference Charts With a breakthrough in trade talks and Fed officials changing their language to suggest that policy will remain accommodative until inflation meaningfully overshoots 2%, the S&P 500 decisively broke out. Because it eases global financial conditions and boosts the profit outlook, the recent breakdown in the dollar should fuel the equity rally. Tactically, the S&P 500 may have overshot the mark, but on a cyclical basis, stronger growth and an easy Fed will propel US and global stocks higher. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remains cautious towards equities. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. However, our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the US and Japan continues to improve. In Europe, this indicator has finally hooked up. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. This broad-based improvement therefore bodes well for equities. Moreover, the pickup in Europe suggests that European stocks are increasingly ripe to outperform their US counterparts. Global yields have turned higher but they remain at exceptionally stimulating levels. Moreover, money and liquidity growth remains very strong as global central banks have adopted strongly dovish slants. Additionally, a Fed that will allow inflation to overshoot before tightening policy is adding to this supportive monetary backdrop. As a result, our Monetary Indicator remains at extremely elevated levels. Furthermore, our Composite Technical Indicator is still flashing a buy signal. Finally, our BCA Composite Valuation index is suggesting that stocks are expensive, but not so much as to cancel out the supportive monetary and technical backdrop. As a result, our Speculation Indicator remains in the neutral zone. 10-year Treasurys yields are becoming slightly less expensive, however, they are no bargain. Moreover, our Composite Technical Indicator is quickly moving away from overbought territory but has yet to flash oversold conditions, indicating that yields are roughly half way through their move. The strengthening of the Commodity Index Advance/Decline line and higher natural resource prices further confirm the upside for yields. Therefore, the current setup argues for a below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. Small signs that global growth is bottoming, such as the stabilization in the global PMIs, the pick-up in the German ZEW and IFO surveys, or the acceleration in Singapore’s container throughput growth, point to a worsening outlook for the counter-cyclical US dollar. Moreover, the dollar trades at a large premium of 24% relative to its purchasing-power parity equilibrium. Additionally, our Composite Technical Indicator is quickly deteriorating after having formed a negative divergence with the Greenback’s level. Since the dollar is a momentum currency, this represents a dark omen for the USD. In fact, we continue to believe that a breakdown in the dollar will be the clearest signal that global growth is rebounding for good. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart II-16US Dollar And PPP Chart II-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart II-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart II-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart II-20Euro Technicals Chart II-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart II-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart II-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart II-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "OUTLOOK 2020: Heading Into The End Game," dated November 22, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "US Election 2020: Civil War Lite," dated November 22, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report "Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets," dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report "Safe Haven Review: A Guide To Portfolio Protection In The 2020s," dated October 29, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 6 https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/09/04/sp090419-Opening-Statement-by-Christine-Lagarde-to-ECON-Committee-of-European-Parliament

特別レポート

Highlights Investors’ perception of “fallen angels” – bonds downgraded from investment grade to high yield – is mostly negative, especially since many believe we are near the end of the economic and credit cycle. In this report, we show that fallen angels can provide investors with an opportunity to invest in relatively high-quality bonds at attractive valuations – bonds which on average outperform other corporate bonds. We find that a good entry-point into fallen angels is usually a week after the bonds are downgraded, after which selling pressures begin to fade. However, investors need to be aware that fallen angels are accompanied by some, less obvious, risks, particularly longer duration and sector skewness. Introduction Chart 1Baa-Rated Bonds Are Now 50% Of The IG Universe Elevated levels of US corporate debt, as well as declining credit quality in the investment-grade space, have raised investor worries that a large portion of bonds will be downgraded in the next recession and default cycle. The lowest tranche of investment-grade debt, Baa-rated, now constitutes over 50% of the investment-grade index (Chart 1). However, investors tend to dismiss the opportunities that this tranche of debt can provide when downgraded from investment grade to high yield – known as “fallen angels”. The change in the ownership structure of corporate bonds has contributed to the performance of fallen angels. Increasing demand for corporate-bond funds – both mutual funds and ETFs – has displaced direct ownership of corporate bonds by households and financial institutions over the past few years (Chart 2, panels 1 & 2). Chart 2Corporate Bond Ownership Active fund managers, constrained by their rules to hold only bonds with a certain (usually non-speculative grade) rating, are often forced to sell their holdings ahead of a potential downgrade. In addition, passive funds exacerbate the selling pressure, since they are forced to sell a bond in the event of a downgrade. Insurance companies and pensions funds, the biggest holders of corporate bonds, have increased their allocation to corporate bonds in the search for income in an environment of low yields. Estimates suggest that life insurance companies’ holdings of Baa-rated bonds comprise 34% of their total portfolios.1 However, high-yield bonds represented less than 5% as of the end of 2016.2 There is no regulation prohibiting them from owning sub-investment-grade bonds, but they face higher capital costs when they do. This could also fuel fire sales during the next downgrade cycle. Fallen angels therefore often enter the high-yield index at a much cheaper valuation than bonds that were originally issued as high yield. In fact, during the past two downgrade cycles, in 2007-2008 and 2015-2016, the average spread of fallen angels over an adjusted high-yield index (weighted so that it has the same credit rating as fallen angels) widened by 560 and 130 basis points, respectively (Chart 3). While this seems negative at a first glance, it also leaves more room for spread compression, once market conditions improve, for investors who correctly time their entry into this market. As the bottom panel of Chart 3 shows, investors almost always receive a higher yield for holding fallen angels compared to a similarly rated high-yield basket. Chart 3Fallen Angels Have Mostly Traded At A Discount... Chart 4...Despite Their Better Performance In this Special Report, we explain what fallen angels are, analyze their historical risk-return characteristics, and compare them to other major asset classes, particularly high-yield corporate bonds in general. We show that, once downgraded, fallen angels – due to oversold pressures – tend to outperform other asset classes as well as similarly-credit-rated high-yield bonds (Chart 4). We also assess their performance during periods of financial-market stress. Finally, we discuss the risks associated with owning fallen angels, and highlight the vehicles investors can use to access this asset class. What Are Fallen Angels? Fallen angels refer to bonds that have been downgraded from investment grade to junk (or speculative grade). Whereas different commercial indices can have slightly different classifications for the term (discussed below in the Historical Risk And Return section), the generic definition includes bonds previously classified as investment grade but later downgraded to high yield. These transitions can occur from and to any credit rating within both universes. However, the majority of downgrades occur between the lowest tranche of investment-grade bonds, rated Baa, and the highest tranche of high-yield bonds rated Ba (Chart 5). Generally, fallen angels have provided inves­tors with an opportunity to buy higher qual­ity, cheaper, and better performing corpo­rate bonds than those originally issued as high yield. Generally, fallen angels have provided investors with an opportunity to buy higher quality, cheaper, and better performing corporate bonds than those originally issued as high yield. So how do fallen angels differ? Higher quality: Over 73% of bonds within the fallen angels ETF fall into the Ba bucket – the highest tranche in the speculative space — versus 45% within the broader high-yield ETF (Chart 6). Chart 5The Downgrade Transition Chart 6Fallen Angels Have Better Credit Quality Than High Yield Cheaper: In anticipation of a downgrade, selling pressure from fund managers intensifies, causing prices of “potential” fallen angels to drop prior to their downgrade date. However, our US Bond Strategists report academic findings that show forced fire sales of fallen angels are usually short-lived.3 They conclude that, once Baa-rated securities are downgraded, there is no mechanism to force downward pressure on the price to continue. Chart 7Selling Pressures Intensify Even After The Bonds Are Downgraded Academic research corroborates this view: fallen angels exhibit ‘V-shaped’ price action,4 where their prices start falling ahead of a potential downgrade. This is the result of the reaction of active fund managers as discussed earlier. This trend persists for a short while even after the bonds are downgraded, as passive funds – index mutual funds and ETFs – offload the bonds. Selling pressures come to a halt shortly after the downgrade date (on average around seven trading days). This represents an entry-point for investors to add fallen angels to their portfolios. These conclusions are also supported by the price trajectory of a sample5 of fallen angels we tested (Chart 7). Note, however, that the trajectory shown in our results suggests that the attractiveness of fallen angels disappears quite quickly, since prices plateau about three to four months after the downgrade. Chart 8Fallen Angels Peform Better Than Similar High- Yield Bonds Better performance: The fallen angels index has outperformed a similarly credit-rated duration-matched high-yield basket in eight out of the 15 years since the index’s inception. In particular, fallen angels have tended to outperform in years when the Federal Reserve was on hold or cutting interest rates, due to their longer average duration of 5.5 years versus 2.9 years for high-yield bonds – as discussed below in the Risks section (Chart 8). Generally, fallen angels are concentrated in sectors that were subject to a recent shock. This was the case in the Telecommunications sector in 2001, the Financials sector in 2007-2008, and the Energy sector in 2014-2015. How Many Fallen Angels Will There Be In The Next Downturn? Over the past three decades, US Baa-rated debt – the lowest tranche in investment grade – has doubled from only 20% of total corporate debt to 40%. This coincided with an increase in nonfinancial corporate debt from 55% of GDP in the mid-1990s to nearly 75% by the end of 2018. Low interest rates over the past 10 years incentivized firms to take advantage of cheaper financing for capital expenditure, equity buybacks, M&A, and more (Chart 9). To a degree, this corporate behavior was rational since businesses understood that their optimal capital structure in a world of low interest rates required them to take on more debt. Simply put, firms found that targeting a Baa rating was more desirable. While rising leverage and weaker corporate health are concerns, we do not see these as imminent risks until the next recession and downgrade cycle hit – which we do not see happening in the next 12 months. For now, there is no worrying trend in downgrades. In fact, there are more “rising stars” – corporate bonds previously classified as high yield that have been upgraded to investment grade – than fallen angels (Chart 10). Nevertheless, it is important for investors to gauge the extent of potential downgrades during the next recession. Chart 9Debt Issuance: A Smart Corporate Decision Chart 10Rising Stars Versus Fallen Angels Several research papers use historical probabilities and downgrade rates to estimate a range for potential fallen angels. Given that investment-grade bonds currently amount to $5.3 trillion, and that the average peak in the one-year rate of investment-grade bond downgrades over the past four decades was 7.1%, that would imply the amount of new fallen angels in the next recession to be $376 billion. That is three times bigger than the current value of fallen angels, and represents nearly 30% of the entire junk-bond universe.6  Historical Risk And Return Chart 11Fallen Angels Provide Alpha To assess the performance of fallen angels versus other high-yield bonds, we adjust the indices to which we compare the fallen angels index in two ways. First, we remove the fallen angels from the overall high-yield index. However, that on its own would fail to consider the different credit qualities of the two indices – shown in Chart 6. It would also make it difficult to account for differences in duration. We therefore create a high-yield duration-matched basket with similar credit ratings to the fallen angels index in order to account for this. Fallen angels significantly outperformed both indices (Chart 11). In doing so, we were also able to distinguish between the extra performance due to duration– the gap between the jade and indigo lines – and the alpha created by fallen angels – the gap between the dark green and the jade lines. For the purpose of this report, we use the Bloomberg Barclays US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Bond Index, which is designed to track USD-denominated fallen angels. The index, based on the market value of the underlying bonds, includes securities that have a current high-yield rating, while having been assigned an investment-grade index rating at some point since issuance. The index relies on the average of three credit-rating agencies, Fitch, Moody’s, and S&P, to qualify bonds for inclusion. It is worth noting that there are other indices that track fallen angels, with different methodologies. For example, the FTSE Time-Weighted US Fallen Angel Index implements a time-weighted metric, assigning a larger weight to recently downgraded securities. It also adds a maximum inclusion period of 60 months. Since the index’s inception, fallen angels have outperformed other fixed-income assets on both an absolute and risk-adjusted return basis (Table 1). In absolute terms, fallen angels had the highest return of all the assets we compared them with. However, that came with an annualized volatility of 1.5 percentage points higher than the similarly rated high-yield basket – albeit not when compared to its duration-matched counterpart. Another explanation is that the extra volatility is a function of the swift fall and recovery in prices, as well as on going turbulence in the impacted sectors. Table 1Historical Risk-Return Characteristics Financial Market Stress Having established that fallen angels on average outperform other types of bonds, we now address the question: how do they perform during recessions and other periods of financial market stress? Given the index’s relatively short history, the only recession we are able to cover is the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2007-2009. Nevertheless, we also look at other market crises dating back to 2005. During the GFC, fallen angels fell, similarly to their high-yield peers. However, coming out of the recession, fallen angels’ performance diverged from similarly rated high-yield bonds as well as from Treasurys and investment-grade bonds. Fallen angels have outperformed other similarly rated high-yield bonds after every market stress period over the past 14 years, except the Q4 2018 equity selloff caused by trade tensions (Chart 12). Fallen angels – even when credit and dura­tion are accounted for – have outperformed following periods of broad credit distress. They also seem to outperform during peri­ods of sector-specific distress. Fallen angels – even when credit and duration are accounted for – have outperformed following periods of broad credit distress. They also seem to outperform following periods of sector-specific distress. Chart 12Fallen Angels Outperform In Periods Of Credit- And Sector-Specific Distress Chart 13The Energy Sector: A Perfect Example This was evident in 2015-2017, when Brent crude oil fell from $120 to nearly $40, causing spreads of energy-rated junk bonds to widen dramatically. There was also a rise in corporate downgrades, particularly within the Energy sector. However, as the oil market stabilized and the Energy sector recovered, Energy corporate spreads quickly tightened and fallen angels outperformed a similarly credit-rated high-yield index. In the second half of 2016, the Energy sector comprised 28% of the fallen angels ETF, compared to 13% and 10% of the high-yield and investment grade ETFs respectively (Chart 13).7 Risks The arguments above should make fallen angels of interest to any investor. However, there are also risks, in particular the following: Sector skew: We have shown that fallen angels can be concentrated in sectors going through distress – the oil market in 2014-2015 being a perfect example. It is important to be aware of the sector skew of fallen angels compared to the high-yield and investment-grade bond universes. As of October 2019, the fallen angels universe was skewed towards the Energy, Technology, and the Industrials sectors compared to both high-yield and investment-grade bonds. It was notably underweight Consumer Non-cyclicals (Chart 14). Fallen angels also have a skew towards Banks – 12% as opposed to 2% in the high-yield universe. This might represent an opportunity rather than a risk. It could allow investors to exploit sectoral differences in the credit market. Longer Duration: Fallen angels also present greater duration risk. Given that they were once investment grade, they have a longer maturity of 9.8 years on average, versus 7.1 years for the credit-weighted high-yield basket. That would partially explain why fallen angels’ duration did not decline as much this year when long-term bond yields fell over 100 bps. We expect higher long-term interest rates over the next 12 months, which might hurt the performance of fallen angels (Chart 15). Chart 14Sector Skew: Risk And Opportunity Chart 15Fallen Angels: Characteristics Idiosyncratic Risks: The most obvious risk would be that the firm is incapable of fixing its balance sheet, and ultimately becomes subject to further downgrades. Catching Fallen Angels Investors now have access to vehicles that track fallen angels, though these ETFs are still new and rather small. ANGL and FALN were launched in 2012 and 2016 and track the BofA Merrill Lynch and Bloomberg Barclays fallen angles indices respectively (Table 2). Table 2ETFs Tracking Fallen Angels Chart 16Catching Fallen Angels Chart 16 shows the tracking error and tracking difference between the fallen angels index and the FALN ETF. The tracking error for FALN has been higher than the ETF tracking the overall high-yield index (HYG), but the tracking difference has been less volatile. Conclusion        Fallen angels allow investors to buy certain high-yield bonds at an attractive valuation for a period of time. Fallen angels have historically provided a pick-up in risk-adjusted performance over overall high-yield bonds, even when adjusting for quality differences. They have also outperformed investment-grade bonds on a risk-adjusted basis, as well as other asset classes. Investors need to time their entry-point into fallen angels. The ideal timing is usually about a week after the bond is downgraded. The sector weighting of the fallen-angels index tends to be related to a recent market or sector shock. Sector skew and long duration remain the principal risks that investors should be wary of.   Amr Hanafy Research Associate AmrH@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Please see Financial Times "Search for yield draws US life insurers to risky places", available at https://www.ft.com/ 2   Please see National Association Of Insurance Commissioners, Capital Markets Special Report Index, “U.S. Insurers’ High-Yield Bond Exposure On The Rise”, December 21st 2017. 3   Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report titled “The Risk From US Corporate Debt Part 2: Fund Flows, BBBs, And Leveraged Loans", available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4   Please see Prof. Andrew Clare, Prof. Stephen Thomas, Dr Nick Motson “Fallen Angels: The investment opportunity”, dated September 2016, Cass Business School. 5   We looked at the 12-month price trajectory (six months before and after the downgrade date) of 60 corporate bonds in the FALN ETF. 6   Please see Moody’s Investors Service, Fallen angels: High-yield market buffers potential transitions amid wider risks, May 13, 2019. 7   We used the iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) as a proxy for fallen angels, the iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYG) as a proxy for high-yield bonds, and the iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) as a proxy for investment-grade bonds.

特別レポート

Highlights Rising recession risk, shaky economic fundamentals, and absence of positive yielding assets motivate us to reexamine which assets can be counted on to protect a portfolio in the future. We analyze 10 safe havens on four different dimensions: consistency, versatility, efficiency, and costs. Using this framework, we examine the historical performance of each safe haven and provide an outlook on their likely effectiveness over the next decade. We conclude that U.S. TIPS and farmland should provide the best portfolio protection. Cash, U.S. Treasuries and gold are other good alternatives. Meanwhile, U.S. investment-grade bonds, global ex-U.S. bonds, silver, and currency futures are likely to be poor protection choices. Feature For most investors, capital preservation is the most important goal when managing money. However, how to go about it remains a difficult question.  Investing in safe havens can be painful during bull markets, as their returns are usually lower than those of equities. Moreover, economic, political, and financial regimes change over time, which means that an asset that protected your portfolio in the past might not do so in the future. Therefore, it becomes good practice to review one’s safety measures periodically, even if one does not think that a crash is imminent. The current environment in particular, is a propitious time to review safe havens given that: Chart I-1A Great Time To Review Safety Measures A key recession signal is flashing red: The yield curve inverted in the United States in August (Chart I-1 – top panel). An inversion of the yield curve does not necessarily imply a recession, but historically it has been a very reliable signal of one, given that it indicates that monetary policy is too tight for the economy. Structural risks are rising: Rich equity valuations in the U.S. and high leverage levels elsewhere are signs that the pillars supporting this bull market might be fragile (Chart I-1 – middle panel). In addition, protectionism and populism, forces that BCA has long argued are here to stay, threaten to upend the regime of free trade that has benefited equities since the 1950s.1 Yields are near all-time lows: Historically, investors have been able to endure bear markets by hiding in safe assets with positive yield, as these assets will normally provide a reliable cash flow regardless of the economic situation. However, these type of assets are increasingly hard to find, particularly in the government bond space, where 50% of developed country bonds have negative yields (Chart I-1 – bottom panel). Considering these factors, how should investors protect their portfolios in the next decade? To answer this question, we analyze 10 safe havens divided into five broad asset classes: Nominal government bonds: U.S. Treasuries and global ex-U.S. government bonds. Other fixed income: U.S. investment-grade credit and U.S. TIPS.2 Currencies: yen futures and Swiss franc futures. Precious metals: gold futures and silver futures. Other assets: farmland and U.S. cash. We look at historical performance since 1973 for all safe havens except for global ex-U.S. bonds and farmland. For these assets, we look at performance since 1991 due to limited data availability. We mainly look at quarterly returns in order to compare illiquid assets to publicly traded ones. We do not consider each safe haven in isolation, but rather as an addition to equities within a portfolio. Specifically, we explore our safe haven universe relative to the MSCI All Country World equity index from the perspective of a U.S. investor. For our non-U.S. clients, we will release a report from the perspective of other countries if there is sufficient interest. Importantly, we do not look only at historical performance. We also examine whether there is a reason to believe that future returns will be different from past ones, by analyzing how the properties of each safe haven might have changed. When evaluating each safe haven, we focus on four properties: Consistency: a safe haven should generate consistent positive returns during periods of negative equity performance, with returns increasing with the severity of the equity drawdown. Versatility: safe havens should perform well across different types of crises. Efficiency: a safe haven should produce enough upside during crises, so only a small allocation to the safe haven is necessary to reduce losses. Costs: drag to portfolio overall performance (opportunity costs) should be as small as possible. Readers who wish to see just our overall conclusions should read our Summary Of Results section below. For our analysis of how safe havens have performed in the past, please see the Historical Performance section. Finally, for our analysis of how we expect the performance of safe havens to change, please see our Outlook section. Summary Of Results The Best Safe Havens U.S. TIPS should be an excellent safe haven to protect a portfolio in the next decade. While TIPS might not be as cheap to hold as they have been in the past, upside potential remains strong, which means that a moderate allocation can provide substantial protection to an equity portfolio. Moreover, U.S. TIPS are one of the best hedges against crises triggered by rising rates and inflation, which in our view are the biggest structural risks that asset allocators face. Farmland could also be a great safe haven for investors who have the ability to allocate to illiquid assets given that it is the cheapest safe haven in terms of portfolio drag. However, investors should be aware that the current low yield could potentially affect its performance during crises. Good Alternatives Cash can be a good alternative to protect an equity portfolio, given its outstanding performance during equity drawdowns caused by inflation. Moreover, its opportunity costs should decrease relative to the past. However, investors should take into account that the efficiency of cash at the current juncture is poor, which means that a relatively large allocation is needed in order to achieve meaningful portfolio protection. A portfolio with a 30% allocation to Treasuries historically provided the same downside protection as a portfolio with a 44% allocation to gold. We also like gold futures as a safe haven since they offer some of the most attractive opportunity costs. In addition, their upside is greater than that of most safe havens due to their negative correlations with real rates. However, gold’s volatility makes it an unreliable asset, which prevents us from placing it higher in the safe haven hierarchy. Historically, U.S. Treasuries have been one of the best safe havens to hedge an equity portfolio. Will this performance continue in the future? We do not think so. While yields are still high enough to provide plenty of upside potential, they have fallen to the point where they have increased the opportunity costs of U.S. Treasuries and reduced their consistency. The Rest Global ex-U.S. bonds have very limited upside due to their low yields. Meanwhile U.S. investment-grade credit remains at risk from poor corporate balance sheets, compounded by the fact that credit no longer has an attractive yield cushion. Currencies like the yen and the Swiss franc will continue to be unreliable and very expensive safe havens. Finally, while silver’s costs and reliability could improve, its high cyclicality relative to other safe havens will make silver a poor protection choice. Historical performance Consistency How did safe havens perform when equities lost money? To assess consistency, we plot the performance of each safe haven during all quarters when global equities had losses (Chart I-2). Cash and farmland were the only assets to have positive returns during every equity drawdown. U.S. Treasuries and U.S. TIPS were also very consistent, and had the additional advantage that their returns tended to increase as equity losses worsened. Global ex-U.S. bonds, while not as consistent, generated positive returns most of the time. Chart I-2Safe Haven Returns During Drawdowns In Global Equities On the other hand, investment-grade bonds, the yen, the Swiss franc, gold, and silver were much more inconsistent. In general, even though these assets had larger positive returns than other assets, they were prone to deep selloffs concurrent with equity drawdowns. Silver was the worst of all safe havens, being mostly a negative return asset during quarters of negative equity performance. Versatility How did the type of crisis affect the performance of safe havens? We classify crises according to their catalyst into the following four categories: bursts of U.S. asset bubbles (tech bubble, 2008 housing crisis), ex-U.S. crises (1998 EM crisis, European debt crisis), flash crashes/political events (1987 Black Monday, 9/11 terrorist attack),  rate/inflation shocks (1974 oil crisis, 1980 Fed shock) and others (every other equity drawdown we could not classify).3  We look at the performance of seven safe havens since 1973 (Chart I-3A) and of all 10 since 19914 (Chart I-3B): Chart I-3ASafe Haven Return During Different Type Of Crisis (1973 - Present) Chart I-3BSafe Haven Return During Different Type Of Crisis (1991 - Present)   During bursts of U.S. asset bubbles, U.S. Treasuries were the most effective hedge in both sample periods, followed by U.S. TIPS and farmland. Corporate bonds, cash, gold, and the Swiss franc also had positive returns, though they were small. Finally, the yen and silver had negative returns. During crises happening outside of the U.S., U.S. Treasuries were once again the best option. U.S. TIPS, yen futures, farmland, gold, and U.S. investment-grade bonds also provided strong returns.  Meanwhile, global ex-U.S. bonds and cash provided relatively weak returns, while both the Swiss franc and silver accrued losses. During flash crashes/political events, the Swiss franc had the best performance followed by global ex-U.S. bonds, though in general all safe havens but silver provided positive returns. Rate/inflation shocks were the most difficult type of crisis to hedge. Cash and U.S. TIPS were by far the best performers. Moreover, while U.S. Treasuries were able to eke out a small positive return, all other safe havens lost money during these crises. Efficiency How much allocation to each safe haven was needed to protect an equity portfolio? Chart I-4 show how adding incremental amounts of each safe haven5 to an equity portfolio reduced the overall portfolio’s 10% conditional VaR (the average of the bottom decile of returns).6 Since 1973, U.S. TIPS and U.S. nominal government bonds were the most efficient safe havens, providing the most protection per unit of allocation (Chart I-4 – top panel). Conditional VaR was reduced by almost half when allocating 40% to either Treasuries or TIPS. Cash, U.S. investment-grade, the yen, the Swiss franc, gold, and silver followed in that order. The difference between the safe havens was significant. As an example, a portfolio with a 30% allocation to U.S. Treasuries historically provided the same downside protection as a portfolio with a 36% allocation to U.S. IG credit, a 39% allocation to the yen or a 44% allocation to gold. Meanwhile, there was no allocation to silver which would have provided the same level of protection. When using a sample from 1991, the main difference was the reduced efficiency of cash – the result of lower average interest rates when using a more recent sample. Other than cash, the efficiency of most safe havens remained unchanged: U.S. Treasuries were the best option, followed by U.S. TIPS, farmland, U.S. investment-grade bonds, global ex-U.S. government bonds, cash, the yen, gold, the Swiss franc, and silver in that order (Chart I-4 – bottom panel). Chart I-4Historically, Fixed-Income Assets Were The Most Efficient Safe Havens Costs How do safe haven returns compare to equities? To evaluate opportunity costs, we compare the difference of the historical return of each safe haven versus global equities. Overall, hedging with currencies was extremely costly, as their return was well below that of equities in both samples (Chart I-5). Cash was also an expensive safe haven to hedge with, particularly in the most recent sample. On the other hand, fixed-income assets like U.S Treasuries, investment-grade credit, and U.S. TIPS had very low costs (global ex-U.S. bonds also had cost of around 2% in a limited sample).  Farmland had negative opportunity costs because it outperformed equities during the sample period.7 Chart I-5Historically Fixed Income Assets And Farmland Had The Lowest Opportunity Cost Outlook Chart I-6No More Yield Cushion Chart I-7Silver Has Become Less Cyclical For our outlook, we assess how the four traits under study have changed for all safe havens: Consistency: Will safe havens continue to be reliable in the absence of high coupons? Many of the safe havens in our sample were effective at hedging equities due to their high yield. Even if they had negative capital appreciation, total returns stayed positive thanks to the offsetting effect of the yield return. However, as rates have declined, yield return has also decreased substantially (Chart I-6). Therefore, safe havens, like cash, government bonds, and even farmland will not be as consistent as they were in the past. Credit could be even more vulnerable: the combination of a low yield, and unhealthy fundamentals will turn U.S. corporate bonds into a negative-return asset in the next crisis. Silver might be the lone safe haven to improve its consistency. Industrial use for silver has fallen substantially in the past 10 years, decreasing its cyclical nature (Chart I-7). Thus, while silver might still be an erratic safe haven, it should be more consistent in the future than its historical performance would suggest.   Versatility: What will the next crisis look like? Chart I-8Inflation and Political Crisis Will Plague The 2020s Determining what the next crisis will look like is crucial for safe haven selection. Below we rank the types of crises in order of how likely and severe we think they will be in the future: Inflation/rate shock: We expect inflation to be significantly higher over the next decade. This will be the highest risk for asset allocators in the future. As we explained in our May 2019 report, a change in monetary policy framework, procyclical fiscal policy, waning Fed independence, declining globalization, and demographic forces are all conspiring to lift inflation in the next decade.8 Importantly, we believe that the Fed will be dovish initially, as it cannot let inflation continue to underperform its target after missing the mark for the last 10 years (Chart I-8 – top panel). However, this will cause an inflationary cycle, which will eventually lead the Fed to raise rates significantly and trigger a recession. Political events/flash crashes: Political events will also pose a risk to the markets on a structural basis. The rise of China as a superpower has shifted the world into a paradigm of multipolarity, which historically has resulted in military conflict. Moreover, animus for conflict is not dependent on President Trump. The American public in general feels that the economic relationship with China is detrimental to the United States (Chart I-8 – bottom panel). This means that any president, Democrat or Republican will have a political incentive to jostle with China for economic and political supremacy for years to come. Ex-U.S. crises: We expect Emerging Markets in general, and China in particular, to be among the most vulnerable parts of the global economy as we enter the next decade. Over the last 10 years, China’s money supply has increased four-fold, becoming larger than the money supply of the U.S. and the euro area combined. In addition, corporate debt as a % of GDP stands at 155%, higher than Japan at the peak of its bubble and higher than any country in recorded history (Chart I-9). We rank this type of crisis slightly below the first two because Emerging Market assets are depressed already. Thus, while we believe that there is further downside to come for these economies, some weakness has already been priced in. U.S. asset bubble burst: We believe that there are no systemic excesses in the U.S. economy, making a U.S. asset bubble burst a lesser risk than other types of crises. Although it is true that U.S. corporate debt stands at all-time highs, it is still at a much lower level than in other countries. Moreover, weakness of corporate credit is not likely to have systemic consequences on the economy, given that leveraged institutions like banks and households hold only a small amount of outstanding corporate debt (Chart I-10). Chart I-9EM crises Are Also A Risk Chart I-10A U.S. Corporate Debt Deblacle Will Not Have Systemic Consequences What does this ranking mean in terms of safe haven performance? U.S. TIPS and cash should be held in high regard as they will be some of the only assets that will perform well during an inflation/rate shock. The Swiss franc and global ex-U.S. bonds should be best performers during political crises, although U.S. TIPS could also provide adequate protection. Efficiency: Is there any upside left for safe havens when interest rates are near zero? As yields go below the zero bound it becomes harder for bonds to generate large positive returns. European or Japanese government bonds in particular would need their yields to go deep into negative territory to counteract a large selloff in equities (Table I-1). But can interest rates go that low? We do not think so. The recent auction of German bunds, where a 0%-yielding 30-year bond attracted the weakest demand since 2011, suggests that interest rates in these countries might be close to their lower bound.  On the other hand, though U.S. yields are low, they are still high enough for U.S. Treasuries to provide high returns in case of a crisis. Table I-1No Room For Positive Returns In The Government Bond Space Outside Of The U.S. Low rates also have an effect on the efficiency of U.S. investment-grade bonds, cash, and farmland because their upside during crises does not come from capital appreciation but rather from their yield, (the price of IG credit actually declines during most crisis). As mentioned earlier, their yield has declined substantially compared to the past, which means that a larger allocation will be necessary to counteract a selloff. Chart I-11Switzerland Has A High Incentive To Prevent The Franc From Appreciating The upside of the yen could also be compromised. The Bank of Japan is likely to intervene aggressively in the currency market to prevent the Japanese economy from falling into a deflationary spiral, since it is very difficult for it to lower Japanese rates further. The Swiss franc is even more vulnerable. In contrast to Japan, Switzerland is a small open economy that has to import most of its products (Chart I-11). This means that the Swiss National Bank has a very high incentive to intervene in currency markets during a crisis, given that a rally in the franc could depress inflation severely. What about U.S. TIPS? In contrast to nominal government bond yields or even yields on corporate debt, U.S. real rates are not limited by the zero bound (Chart I-12).  This makes TIPS a more attractive option than other fixed-income assets, since real rates can have much more room for further downside than nominal ones. To be clear, this will only be the case if our forecast of an inflationary crisis materializes. Likewise, since gold is heavily influenced by real rates, it should also offer significant upside during the next crisis.9 Chart I-12Real Rates Have More Downside Potential Than Nominal Ones Costs: Can I afford to hold safe havens in a world of low returns? To provide an outlook for the expected cost of each safe haven, we use the return assumptions from our June Special Report.10 We subtract the expected return on global equities from the expected return for each safe haven to reach an expected cost value. However, three of the safe havens (global ex-U.S. government bonds, the Swiss franc and silver) did not have a return estimate. We compute their expected returns as follows: For the Swiss franc we use the methodology we used for all other currencies in our report. We base the expected return on the current divergence from the IMF PPP value, as well as the IMF inflation estimates. In addition, we add the relative cash rate assumed return for both our yen and Swiss franc estimates, as futures take into account carry return. For global ex-U.S. bonds we take the weighted average of the expected return of the euro area, Japan, U.K., Canada, and Australia government bonds. We weight the returns according to their market capitalization in the Bloomberg/Barclays government bond index. Due to silver’s dual role as an inflation hedge and industrial metal, silver prices are a function of both gold prices and global growth. To obtain a return estimate we run a regression on silver against these two variables and use our growth and gold return estimate to arrive at an assumed return for silver. Chart I-13 shows our results: while their cost will improve, currency futures remain the most expensive hedge. The opportunity cost of precious metals and cash will decrease, making them more attractive options than in the past. Meanwhile, low yields will increase the opportunity costs of most fixed-income assets. Finally, farmland will remain the cheapest safe haven, even with decreased performance. Chart I-13Oportunity Cost For Fixed Income Safe Havens Will Be Higher Than In The Past Juan Manuel Correa Ossa Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com Appendix A Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here, " dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 We use a synthetic TIPS series for data prior to 1997. For details on the methodology, please see: Kothari, S.P. and Shanken, Jay A., “Asset Allocation with Inflation-Protected Bonds,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 54-70, January/February 2004. 3 For a detailed list of how we classified each equity drawdown, please see Appendix A. 4 The only crises caused by a rate/inflation shock occurred in 1974 and 1980. Thus we have this type of drawdown only in Chart 3A and not in Chart 3B. 5 For yen, Swiss franc, silver and gold futures we assume an allocation to an ETF which follows their performance. Since futures have zero initial costs they cannot be directly compared to traditional assets in terms of percentage allocation. 6 We prefer this measure over VaR given that it captures the properties of the left tail of returns more accurately. 7  While the farmland index subtracts management fees, we recognize that there are costs involved in holding these illiquid assets which are not necessarily captured by the return indices. Thus, the real historical cost of holding farmland was not negative but likely close to zero. 8 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report "Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises," dated May 22, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report "All that Glitters…And Then Some" dated July 25, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report "Return Assumptions - Refreshed and Refined" dated June 25, 2019,  

ハイライト 米国の製造業セクターの減速は、他国よりも深刻化するリスクがある。 これは米ドルにとって弱気材料ではない。米ドルは景気循環に逆行する通貨だからだが、建設的な展開でもない。 この行き詰まりは、より緩和的な連邦準備制度（FRB）によって解消される可能性があり、それはドルを押し下げるだろう。 当面は、単純なドルの方向性予想よりもクロス通貨でのトレードに重点を置き続ける。 スイス国立銀行（SNB）は国内景気の減速を受けて通貨を武器化し始める可能性が高い：EUR/CHFを1.06でロング。 円ロングはコンセンサス取引になっているが、USD/JPYショートポジションのより良い脱出ポイントを待つつもりだ。 特集 スイス経済は徐々にデフレに踏み込んでいる。今週の最新のインフレ指標は前年同月比0.1%で、SNBの今年の中央見通しである0.4%を大きく下回っている。財（モノ）価格のインフレは完全に止まり、サービスのインフレも2016年以来の低水準にある。放置すれば、インフレ期待がデアンカー（固定化が崩れる）し始め、SNBが対処するのが非常に困難な負のフィードバックループが始まる可能性がある（Chart I-1）。 Chart I-1 SNBはこれに##br##対抗しなければならない SNBはこれに対して対応せざるを得ない SNBはこれに対して対応せざるを得ない Chart I-2 強いスイスフランが強力なデフレ圧力を生んでいる 強いフランが強力なデフレ圧力を及ぼしている 強いフランが強力なデフレ圧力を及ぼしている 世界的なディスインフレ傾向も確かに影響しているが、これらの傾向を悪化させているのは強い通貨である。小規模で開放的な経済であるスイスにとって、貿易対象財の価格は重要だ。輸入物価は前年同月比で3%以上のデフレとなっており、これは部分的に実効的に重み付けされた強い通貨によるものだ（Chart I-2）。これにより、SNBが金融環境を刺激するために通貨を使い始める確率が高まっている。 弱いフラン作戦 Chart I-3 重力の引力にいつまで逆らえるか？ どれだけ長く重力の引力に逆らえますか？ どれだけ長く重力の引力に逆らえますか？ 国内的にはスイス経済は踏みとどまっているが、外部セクターの減速の引力にどれだけ長く逆らえるかは不確かだ。KOFの雇用指標は2010年以来の高水準にあり、期待成分は依然として現状評価を上回っている。通常時はこれは強気材料だ。しかし、輸出主導型の経済においては、製造業セクターが通常は全体の経済動向を決定する（Chart I-3）。 製造業PMIは現在44.6で、金融危機以来の最低水準だ。こうした水準は通常、SNB内部で大きな警鐘を鳴らしてきた。2011年当時、スイスは再び急速にデフレに向かっており、1年前にかろうじて逃れたばかりだった。SNBは小規模で開放的な経済において為替レートが国内インフレの趨勢を左右することを迅速に認識した。従って、貿易加重のスイスフランが上昇し続けるのをただ見ていること、特にユーロが崩落している局面では、災いのレシピに見えた。これは今日の状況と不気味に似ている。 ECBが量的緩和を再開し、直近の政策会合で利下げを見送ったSNBのシグナルは、金利が底打ちした可能性があることを示している。この見解はSNBの準備金の追加的な階層化によってさらに補強される。言い換えれば、金利は金融安定性の瀬戸際に立ち始めている可能性がある。こうした中で政策手段として残されているのは通貨である。 我々のバイアスは、EUR/CHFの「ささやかなる下限」1.08〜1.10は、スイス経済がデフレから決定的に脱するまで持続するとみている。しかし、市場はスイス為替をオーバーシュートさせることがある。もしそうなれば、スイス経済が特にユーロに対してより弱い通貨を必要としていることを示唆する4つの主要因がある。 スイスの貿易収支は世界的な減速に直面しても概ね堅調に推移してきたが、これは主に交易条件に支えられている。 スイスの貿易収支は世界的減速の中でも堅調に推移してきたが、これは主に交易条件によるものである（Chart I-4 Chart I-4 交易条件の改善が##br##輸出を支えてきた 貿易条件の上昇が輸出を下支えしている 貿易条件の上昇が輸出を下支えしている Chart I-5 金の##br##避難所 金のセーフヘブン 金のセーフヘブン スイスの貿易収支改善の一部は貴金属の輸出によって牽引されている。例えば、ETF口座の保管需要の増加により、英国向けの貴金属輸出は新高値に向かって急増している（Chart I-5 当社モデルではフランは現在ユーロに対してほぼ10%割高と示唆している。モデルの歴史ではフランの割高は最大で15%に達し、その後SNBの介入が続くことが多い（Chart I-6）。 失業率は2.3%と低いが、国内の賃金圧力はほとんど見られない。賃金圧力が高まらない限りサービスのインフレが上昇するのは難しい。これは今後6〜9か月では起こりにくいだろう。雇用増は引き続きパートタイムが中心であり、予防的貯蓄の必要性が支出を抑制し続ける。一方で製造業は回復が見えてくるまで賃上げを始める可能性は低い。 しかし最近では、外貨準備高が再び加速し始め、マネタリーベースの安定はある程度のステリリゼーションの影を示唆している。 世界的に金利が低下する中で、SNBがECBやリクスバンクのような他の中央銀行に市場を一部奪われてきたのは驚きだった。SNBの中央銀行総裁トーマス・ジョーダンのメッセージは非常に明確だ：金利はさらに引き下げられる可能性があり、必要なら外国為替市場で強力な介入も行う、というものだ。これは理事会内での見解の食い違いを若干示唆しているかもしれない。 Chart I-6 フランは##br##割高である フランは高い フランは高い Chart I-7 SNBは準備高の蓄積を##br##ステリライズしているか？ SNBは準備高の増加をステリライズしているのか？ SNBは準備高の増加をステリライズしているのか？   興味深いことに、SNBは近年バランスシートを大幅に拡大する必要がなかった。その一因は世界貿易の減速がフランの自然な需要を緩和し、SNBが以前のような勢いで外貨準備を積み上げなくなったためだ。これは過剰流動性の排除と政策のある程度の正常化に寄与した。 これは、さらなる為替介入の余地が再び開かれたことを意味する。しかし、最近では外貨準備高が再び加速し始め、マネタリーベースの安定は一定のステリリゼーションの影を示唆している（Chart I-7）。経済的には、SNBはスイスの主としてデフレ的な背景と、G-10の中で高位にある債務対GDP比の上昇という間で微妙な綱渡りをしなければならない。刺激が足りなければ、インフレ期待が下方に強く固定されたまま経済は債務デフレスパイラルに陥るリスクがある。刺激が過剰ならば歪みが蓄積し、最終的な破綻を招くことになる。 通貨キャップの検証 SNBはフランのステルスな切り下げを好むかもしれないが、完全な通貨キャップを行うには政治的および経済的制約がある。良いニュースは、経済が減速するにつれてそうした経済的力学は弱まっていることだ。 一方で、2014年には右派政治家、特にスイス人民党（SVP）の間で不満の声が高まっており、中央銀行に外貨買いをやめて金保有を大幅に増やすよう求める声があった。今月の選挙を控えた世論調査でSVPが優勢であることから、これは制約として残るだろう。良いニュースは、気候変動などの新たな課題が前面に出ており、スイスが準備を金を通じて裏付けるべきかどうかという議論が以前ほど中心ではなくなっていることだ（Chart I-8）。 キャップの主要リスクは、ユーロが大幅に下落した場合にスイス経済への投機的資本流入を招くことだ。このリスクはスイスの政治家とSNBの双方にとって耐え難いものであり、だからこそ2015年に両方向の非対称性が制度に再導入されたのである。 Chart I-8 スイス人民党はこれを##br##歓迎するだろう！ スイス人民党はこれを気に入るだろう！ スイス人民党はこれを気に入るだろう！ Chart I-9 健全な##br##再均衡 健全なリバランス 健全なリバランス 好材料としては、住宅市場の投機がやや浄化されたことが挙げられる。通常投資住宅の大半を占める賃貸用住宅の増加が停滞しており、これは持ち家の伸びからはポジティブに乖離している。ここからのメッセージは明確だ：第二住宅の上限やより厳格な貸出基準といったマクロプルーデンシャル措置が奏功している（Chart I-9）。2015年、SNBは賢明にもEUR/CHFのフロアを放棄して市場を驚かせた。これにより、SNBのプットを利用してチューリッヒやジュネーブの不動産に投機していた欧州の投資家はユーロの崩壊によりインセンティブを失い、市場の再均衡に寄与した。その後、スイス不動産への需要は概ね安定しており、SNBにとってのこの主要なリスク源は排除された。 SVPの移民抑制策は重要な需要源を無力化した。賃貸物件の空室率は意味のある上昇に転じている。 より重要なのは、賃貸物件の空室率が意味のある上昇に転じていることである。これは通常、約12か月のラグを経て住宅価格の下落につながる（Chart I-10）。SVPが近いうちに移民に対してより寛容になる可能性は低く、これは引き続き逆風となるだろう（Chart I-11）。これは、グローバル経済が製造業の低迷に沈む中、SNBが通貨のステルスな切り下げを用いて景気を刺激するための政治的資本が高いことを示唆している。予算黒字の歴史は、SVPが近いうちに大規模な財政拡張政策を通す可能性が低いことを示している。 Chart I-10 移民減速が住宅需要を抑制している 人口移動の鈍化が住宅需要を抑制している 人口移動の鈍化が住宅需要を抑制している Chart I-11 労働力の減速が住宅需要を抑制している 労働力の伸び鈍化が住宅需要を抑制している 労働力の伸び鈍化が住宅需要を抑制している 外国人からの銀行バランスシートに対する請求は比較的低く、為替レートが下落した場合の住宅市場への資本流入リスクは低い（Chart I-12）。銀行の貸出マージンは今後数年は抑制される公算が高く、厳格なマクロプルーデンシャル措置とともに一部の外貨流入が不動産セクターを支えるだろう。 Chart I-12 銀行の対外住宅ローン負債は低い 銀行の海外モーゲージ負債は低い 銀行の海外モーゲージ負債は低い EUR/CHF と USD/CHF について スイスは避難通貨の特徴をすべて備えている。GDP比115%の大きなネット国際投資ポジションは巨額の所得流入を生んでいる。一方で、長年の生産性向上は貿易収支の構造的な黒字と通貨の公正価値の上昇をもたらした。その結果、フランはリスク回避局面でさらに上昇する傾向がある（Chart I-13）。 一方で、CHFショートのヘッジコストは1年前より魅力が薄れている。ヘッジコストはさらに抑止的になる可能性があるが、それまではユーロや米ドルに対してフランをショートする際は慎重を勧める（Chart I-14）。当社のバイアスは、SNBが1.06でフランに対して本格的に対抗し始めるというものだ。 Chart I-13 リスク: スイスフランは##br##上昇しがちである リスク：スイス・フランは上昇しやすい リスク：スイス・フランは上昇しやすい Chart I-14 ヘッジコストは##br##高止まりしている ヘッジコストが高すぎる ヘッジコストが高すぎる   投資結論 Chart I-15 主要なドルの追い風はピークを迎えた 主要なドルの追い風はピークに達した 主要なドルの追い風はピークに達した 我々は引き続きクロス通貨でのトレードに注力しており、スイスフランのようなポートフォリオ保険を保有することが適切だと考える。今週のレポートの目的は、投資家やトレーダーが居座り過ぎないよう注意を喚起し、反転の兆候に目を光らせることである。通常、米国とその他世界との成長の乖離は中期的なドルの変動を説明する良い変数である。従って、米国の製造業PMIの減速は通常ドルにとって悪い前兆である（Chart I-15）。フランはドル強気局面のクロスでは良好に推移し、ドル弱気局面ではパフォーマンスが悪化する傾向がある。 しかし、調整には良性のものと悪性のものがあり、世界成長の大幅な鈍化に伴う米国の製造業PMIの低下は悪性のタイプに見える。もし「ドル弱化のシナリオ」が実現するならば、我々が見る必要があるのは、世界の製造業セクターが反転上昇する中で米国の製造業が安定化することだ。これはクロスでのフランの弱体化にもつながるだろう。続報に注意されたい。   Chester Ntonifor, 外国為替ストラテジスト chestern@bcaresearch.com 通貨 米ドル Chart II-1 USDのテクニカル 1 USD テクニカル 1 USD テクニカル 1 Chart II-2 USDのテクニカル 2 米ドル テクニカル分析 2 米ドル テクニカル分析 2 米国から多数の経済指標が公表され、全体としてはネガティブな内容だった： 8月のヘッドラインPCEは前年同月比1.4%で横ばい。コアPCEは前年同月比1.8%に上昇。 シカゴ購買担当者指数は9月に50.4から47.1に低下。 ダラス連銀の製造業ビジネス指数は9月に2.7から1.5へ低下。 ISM製造業PMIは9月に47.8へ急落し、2か月連続で50を下回った。加えてISM非製造業PMIは9月に56.4から52.6へ低下し、予想の55を大きく下回った。なお、マークイットのコンポジットPMIは前月の50.7から51と上昇している。 ADP民間雇用者数は9月に135Kと予想を下回り、8月の157Kから低下。 耐久財受注の月次成長は8月に0.2%へ減速。工場受注は8月に月次で0.1%縮小。 DXY指数は当初0.6%上昇したが、その後急落し今週は0.4%下落した。ISMの製造業と非製造業の両方の悪化は景気後退の差し迫った懸念を刺激した。金曜日に雇用統計が発表されるが、これは比較的タカ派的なFRB政策を支える最後の柱の一つである。金融政策面ではFRBはバランスシートの拡大を再開するだろう。ドルの供給増は最終的にドルを押し下げる力に寄与する可能性がある。 レポートリンク： 暴動局面で資本を守る方法 - 2019年9月6日 通貨環境は変わったか？ - 2019年8月16日 USD/CNYと市場の混乱 - 2019年8月9日 ユーロ Chart II-3 EURのテクニカル 1 EUR テクニカル 1 EUR テクニカル 1 Chart II-4 EURのテクニカル 2 EUR テクニカル 2 EUR テクニカル 2 ユーロ圏の最近のデータはネガティブだった： 8月のインフレはユーロ圏各国で依然として抑制されている。ユーロ圏のヘッドラインインフレ率は前年同月比1.0%から0.9%へ低下。フランスは1.3%から1.1%へ、スペインは0.3%から0.1%へ、ドイツは1.4%から1.2%へそれぞれ低下した。 ユーロ圏の失業率は8月に7.5%から7.4%へわずかに低下した。 ユーロ圏の経済センチメント指標は9月に103.1から101.7へ低下した。 生産者物価指数は8月に前年同月比0.8%の下落となった。 小売売上高の伸びは8月に前年同月比2.1%でほぼ横ばいだった。 EUR/USDは今週0.6%上昇した。インフレ面では、周辺国よりも中核国でCPIの下落が急であることは、ユーロ圏を維持するために必要な再分配努力がある程度機能していることを示唆している。ECB総裁マリオ・ドラギは火曜夜のアテネでの演説で「ユーロ圏レベルでの投資主導の刺激」を呼びかけたが、現実には周辺国は既に低金利を用いて資本を投入している。J.P.モルガンのアナリストは今週欧州株を格上げした。もし株式ファンドの資金流入が増え始めれば、ユーロは米ドルに対して反発する可能性がある。 レポートリンク： いくつかのトレードアイデア - 2019年9月27日 中央銀行の戦い - 2019年6月21日 EUR/USDと中立金利 - 2019年6月14日 日本円 Chart II-5 JPYのテクニカル 1 JPY テクニカル 1 JPY テクニカル 1 Chart II-6 JPYのテクニカル 2 JPYテクニカル 2 JPYテクニカル 2 日本の最近のデータは期待外れだった： 今週発表された重要な短観では、製造業とサービス業の見通しが第3四半期に悪化したが、いずれも予想を上回った。設備投資計画は相対的に高水準にとどまっている。 8月の鉱工業生産は前年同月比で4.7%縮小した。 8月の小売売上高は前年同月比で2%増加したが、消費税率引上げの影響を考慮して過度に評価していない。 8月の着工件数は前年同月比で7.1%減少。建設受注は前年同月比で25.9%減（後者は非常に変動が大きい）。 8月の失業率は2.2%で横ばい。有効求人倍率も1.59で変化なし。 消費者信頼感は8月に35.6へ低下（7月の37.1から）。リカードの等価性フレームワークにおける重要性を我々は議論してきた。 サービスPMIは9月に52.8へ低下したが、50の拡張域は上回っている。 USD/JPYは今週1%下落した。最近の意見要旨では、日銀は外需の低下リスクを指摘しているが、税率引上げの負の影響を緩和する各種の対策が準備されている点はポジティブだ。下方余地の限定されたヘッジとして避難通貨である日本円に対して我々は引き続きポジティブである。 レポートリンク： いくつかのトレードアイデア - 2019年9月27日 通貨環境は変わったか？ - 2019年8月16日 薄いサマートレーディングでのポートフォリオ調整 - 2019年7月5日 英ポンド Chart II-7 GBPのテクニカル 1 GBP テクニカル 1 GBP テクニカル 1 Chart II-8 GBPのテクニカル 2 GBPのテクニカル分析 2 GBPのテクニカル分析 2 英国の最近のデータはまちまちだった： 第2四半期のGDP成長率は前年同月比1.3%に上昇した。ただし前期比では第2四半期に0.2%の縮小となった。 経常収支の赤字は第2四半期に331億ポンドから252億ポンドへ縮小した。 ナショナルワイドの住宅価格は9月に前年同月比0.2%上昇（8月の0.6%から減速）。 マークイット製造業PMIは9月に47.4から48.3へ上昇。建設PMIは45から43.3へ低下。サービスPMIは50を下回り49.5となった。 GBP/USDは今週0.8%上昇した。ボリス・ジョンソン首相は今週演説を行い、ブレグジット案の詳細を示したが、その内容は論争の的となった。別のブレグジット延期と再選が高い確率で起こると思われる。マークイットの製造業PMIの改善は、強硬なブレグジットの確率低下に対する自信の表れと我々は見ている。我々は最近、英国見通しを上方修正し、GBP/JPYのロングを取った。引き続き保有を推奨する。 レポートリンク： いくつかのトレードアイデア - 2019年9月27日 英国：循環的減速か構造的停滞か？ - 2019年9月20日 中央銀行の戦い - 2019年6月21日 豪ドル Chart II-9 AUDのテクニカル 1 AUD テクニカル指標 1 AUD テクニカル指標 1 Chart II-10 AUDのテクニカル 2 AUD テクニカル 2 AUD テクニカル 2 オーストラリアの最近のデータはまちまちだった： 9月のヘッドラインインフレは前年同月比1.7%から1.5%へ減速した。 民間部門のクレジットは8月に前年同月比2.9%増加した。 AiG製造業PMIは9月に53.1から54.7へ上昇。AiGサービスPMIは51.4から51.5へわずかに上昇。 コモンウェルス製造業PMIは8月の上方改定50.9から50.3へわずかに低下。コモンウェルスサービスPMIは52.4でほぼ横ばい。 建築許可件数は8月に前年同月比で21.5%縮小が続いている。 輸出は8月に前月比で3%減少し、輸入は横ばい。貿易黒字は73億豪ドルから59億豪ドルへ縮小した。 AUD/USDはRBA後に当初1.3%下落したが、その後米ドル全面安により回復し、今週はほぼ横ばいとなった。RBAは火曜に追加で25bp利下げを行い、「豪州経済は緩やかな転換点にある」と表明した。低金利はモーゲージ金利に完全には転嫁されていないが、住宅市場をある程度安定させ、賃金成長を押し上げる可能性がある。我々はプロシクリカルな姿勢を維持し、豪ドルに対してポジティブである。 レポートリンク： 豪ドルに対する逆張りの見解 - 2019年5月24日 限界収益逓減に注意 - 2019年4月19日 まだ抜け出せていない - 2019年4月5日 NZドル Chart II-11 NZDのテクニカル 1 NZD テクニカル 1 NZD テクニカル 1 Chart II-12 NZDのテクニカル 2 NZD テクニカル分析 2 NZD テクニカル分析 2 ニュージーランドの最近のデータは概ねネガティブだった： 建築許可は8月に前月比0.8%増加した。 9月の活動見通しは前月比で1.8%低下した。 9月の企業信頼感は-52.3から-53.5へさらに低下した。 NZD/USDは今週0.3%上昇した。ニュージーランド経済研究所が実施した最新の四半期企業調査は、企業景況感が経済活動のさらなる鈍化を示していることを示した。製造業が最も問題であり、企業は激しいコスト圧力と弱い価格決定力の組合せにより拡大に慎重だ。オーストラリアが利下げを行ったことで、近隣諸国が追随する可能性がある。RBNZの11月13日の次回政策会合での利下げ確率は100%に達しており、25bpが90%、50bpが10%と見込まれている。 レポートリンク： USD/CNYと市場の混乱 - 2019年8月9日 次の米ドルの行き先は？ - 2019年6月7日 まだ抜け出せていない - 2019年4月5日 カナダドル Chart II-13 CADのテクニカル 1 CAD テクニカル 1 CAD テクニカル 1 Chart II-14 CADのテクニカル 2 CAD テクニカルズ 2 CAD テクニカルズ 2 カナダの最近のデータはまちまちだった： 7月の月次ベースではGDPは横ばい。前年比では7月に成長率が1.5%から1.3%へ鈍化した。 マークイット製造業PMIは9月に49.1から51へ上昇した。 Bloomberg Nanosの消費者信頼感は9月27日週で57.8に上昇した。 原材料価格は8月に月次で1.8%下落した。 USD/CADは今週0.5%上昇した。カナダの7月のGDP成長はサービス部門が牽引した。7月の前年比でサービスGDPと財GDPの乖離は2.5%で、財GDPは引き続き悪化し前年同月比で1.8%縮小した。エネルギー部門のGDPは7月に前年同月比で3.4%減少しており、これは原油価格の変動の影響を受けている。さらに、当社の同僚がコモディティ＆エネルギー戦略で指摘しているように、カナダ産原油とWTIの価格差は西部の輸送制約によりさらに拡大し、2020年第1四半期に向けて1バレルあたり20ドルのディスカウントに達する可能性がある。 レポートリンク： 暴動局面で資本を守る方法 - 2019年9月6日 薄いサマートレーディングでのポートフォリオ調整 - 2019年7月5日 金、石油、暗号通貨について - 2019年6月28日 スイスフラン Chart II-15 CHFのテクニカル 1 CHF テクニカル 1 CHF テクニカル 1 Chart II-16 CHFのテクニカル 2 CHF テクニカル 2 CHF テクニカル 2 スイスの最近のデータはネガティブだった： KOF先行指標は9月に93.2へ低下した。 実質小売売上高は8月に前年同月比で1.4%縮小した。 製造業PMIは9月に47.2から44.6へ低下した。 ヘッドラインインフレは9月に前年同月比0.3%から0.1%へ低下した。 USD/CHFは今週0.7%上昇した。スイス経済は特にユーロ圏の動向と強く結びついているが、経常収支の黒字があるため相対的には脆弱性が低い。引き続きヘッジとしてフランを支持する。フランについては今週の序盤セクションで詳述した。 レポートリンク： スイスフランへの対処法 - 2019年5月17日 限界収益逓減に注意 - 2019年4月19日 G10の国際収支 - 2019年2月15日 ノルウェークローネ Chart II-17 NOKのテクニカル 1 NOK テクニカル指標 1 NOK テクニカル指標 1 Chart II-18 NOKのテクニカル 2 NOK テクニカル 2 NOK テクニカル 2 今週のノルウェーのデータは乏しい： 8月の小売売上高は横ばいだった。 USD/NOKは今週0.3%上昇した。原油価格の最近の下落は我々のペトロカレンシーバスケット取引に悪影響を与えたが、サウジアラビアの産出回復の早さや景気後退への懸念が影響している。それでも我々はエネルギー価格とノルウェークローネをオーバーウェイトしている。中東での緊張が高まれば供給がさらに混乱し、原油価格が再上昇する可能性がある。 レポートリンク： いくつかのトレードアイデア - 2019年9月27日 薄いサマートレーディングでのポートフォリオ調整 - 2019年7月5日 金、石油、暗号通貨について - 2019年6月28日 スウェーデンクローナ Chart II-19 SEKのテクニカル 1 SEKのテクニカル指標 1 SEKのテクニカル指標 1 Chart II-20 SEKのテクニカル 2 SEK テクニカル 2 SEK テクニカル 2 スウェーデンの最近のデータはネガティブだった： 小売売上高は8月に前年同月比で2.7%増加し、7月の3.9%から減速した。 製造業PMIは9月に52.4から46.3へ急落した。 USD/SEKは今週0.5%上昇した。PMIの雇用成分は51.9から52.4へ上昇したが、新規受注指数は50を下回り45.8へ急落した。新規受注と在庫の比率も引き続き低下しており、これは通常ユーロ圏の製造業PMIを数か月先行する。これは我々が注視する重要なデータポイントの一つであり、この指標の示すメッセージに従っている。 レポートリンク： 次の米ドルの行き先は？ - 2019年6月7日 G10の国際収支 - 2019年2月15日 通貨の単純な魅力度ランキング - 2019年2月8日 トレード＆予測 フォーキャスト概要 コアポートフォリオ タクティカルトレード 指値注文 クローズ済みトレード

Feature In investment, there are times when your view and your strategy should not be the same. Our view remains that the global economy is likely to avoid recession over the next 18 months, that the Fed will cut rates once or twice more as an “insurance” but not enter a full easing cycle, that global bond yields will rise, and that risk assets will outperform over the next 12 months. But the risks to that view have increased, and so we want to bolster the hedge against our view being wrong. We don’t see Recommended Allocation Chart 1GAA Portfolio Volatility Relative To Benchmark government bonds as an attractive hedge at this level of yield, and so are moving to a “barbell” strategy, with overweights in equities and cash, and an underweight in fixed income. This lowers the volatility of our recommended portfolio to close to that of the benchmark (Chart 1). First, the good news. Although the manufacturing sector globally continues to deteriorate, with many PMIs falling to below 50, services and consumption remain robust almost everywhere (Chart 2). With central banks easing monetary policy, and in some countries (Italy, the U.S., the U.K., maybe even Germany) governments loosening fiscal policy, financial conditions are improving, which will eventually support growth (Chart 3). Intra-cyclical manufacturing downturns typically last around 18 months, and this one is close to its sell-by date (Chart 4). Chart 2Manufacturing Weak, Services Fine So what has changed? First, manufacturing has continued to decline for longer than we expected. In the early summer, there were signs of a bottoming in Europe, but these are no longer evident. The diffusion index of the global manufacturing PMI (i.e. the percentage of countries with a rising versus falling PMI), which typically leads the PMI by six months, suggests the PMI has further to fall (Chart 5). Chart 3Easing Financial Conditions Will Help Chart 4Close To The Bottom?   Chart 5Further Downside For PMIs? Chart 6China's Reluctant Monetary Stimulus   The most likely cause of this is that China has been more reluctant to ramp up monetary stimulus than we expected. It has eased fiscal policy, but monetary policy has been tentative: despite a moderate increase in credit creation this year, M3 money supply growth has barely accelerated (Chart 6). This has been enough to stabilize Chinese growth, but has been insufficient to give the sort of boost to global growth that China provided in 2016. There are two reasons for China’s reluctance to stimulate. The authorities seemingly continue to prioritize debt deleveraging and clamping down on shadow banking. And, also, maybe they do not want to give a boost to the global economy that would help the U.S. avoid recession and increase the probability of President Trump’s being reelected. China has been more reluctant to ramp up monetary stimulus than we expected. The Trade War is an increasing risk. BCA’s geopolitical strategists continue to assign a 40% probability to a resolution by year-end,1 but it is becoming harder to see how (or, indeed, why) President Xi would offer concessions to the U.S. that would lead to a deal. Ultimately, if Chinese growth slows significantly and U.S. stocks fall sharply, China will boost monetary stimulus and President Trump will push for even a superficial trade agreement. But things will need to get worse first. Meanwhile, the rise in global political uncertainty – and the mercurial nature of Trump’s foreign and trade policies – are a risk for markets (Chart 7). Chart 7Global Political Risks Rising Chart 8Consumers (Mostly) Remain Confident   We are also concerned about how long consumption can remain robust in this environment. So far, consumer confidence has remained resilient in the U.S., though it has dipped a little in Europe and Japan (Chart 8). But, if corporate profits remain weak, companies will start to delay hiring decisions and begin to lay off workers. This would be the transmission mechanism for the manufacturing slowdown to spread into the broader economy. So far, fortunately, there are few signs it is happening: German unemployment is at a record low, and U.S. initial claims continue to run at or below last year’s level (Chart 9). Chart 9No Signs Of Weakening Labor Market Table 1GAA Recession Checklist     In the recession checklist we have published for the past two or more years, we are starting to have to tick off more warning signs (Table 1 and Chart 10). Chart 10Some Worrying Signs Chart 11Risk Of Recession No Longer Negligible   For example, the yield curve has inverted both for the 3-month/10 year and 2-year/10-year. Although the yield curve has been an almost infallible predictor of recession in the past 70 years, there are some reasons to argue that it may not be as good this time: for example, central bank purchases have artificially pulled down long-term rates. But inversion is probably a self-fulfilling prophesy. For example, in a recent Fed Senior Bank Loan Officers Survey, 40% of banks said they would tighten credit standards simply because of a moderate inversion of the yield curve. Formal models of recession 12 months ahead that incorporate the yield curve slope, put recession risk now at about 25% (Chart 11).   Chart 1218 Months Of Ups And Downs Given all this, we think it is appropriate to take some risk off. As far back as February 2018, we argued that “investors primarily concerned with capital preservation might look to dial down risk or hedge exposure now”.2 Given the ups and down of markets in the past 18 months, we suspect that those risk-averse investors would not have been unhappy with that advice (Chart 12), although they would also have missed some nice equity rallies over that time, if they had been nimble enough to time entry and exit points. Since a majority of the subscribers to this service are rather conservative, we are now extending that advice to all clients. On a 12-month time horizon, we raise cash to overweight. We are also reducing somewhat both our equity overweight and bond underweight. In this period of increased uncertainty, a portfolio closer than usual to benchmark makes sense. (BCA’s House View is a little more bullish, remaining neutral on cash and overweight equities on the 12-month horizon). Fixed Income: Absent recession, we see little room for rates to fall further. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield (now 1.5%) should stay above its July 2016 historic low of 1.37%. The Fed is unlikely to cut rates by 100 basis points over the next 12 months, as futures imply. We would expect only two 25 bp rate cuts: in September and either October or December. Yields are likely eventually to move up over the next 12 months (particularly given that inflation continues to trend higher). But they may not move much for a while, and so we move from underweight to neutral on duration for now. Eventually, we see investors understanding that government bonds are no longer an attractive hedge at current yields. Even if German 10-year yields fell to -1.2% (probably around the lowest possible), one-year total return would only be 5% (Table 2). The U.S. looks a little better, though. One could imagine the yield falling to zero in the next recession, which would give a return of 16%. On credit, we remain neutral: it represents a low-beta play on equities. So far this year, both investment-grade and high-yield bonds have eked out a small positive excess return (Chart 13). Table 2Not Much Room For Positive Returns Chart 13Credit Returns Have Not Been Bad Chart 14Downside For Cyclicals?   Equities: To offset our overweight on equities, we continue with a low-beta country/regional tilt. We recommend an overweight on the U.S., and underweight on Emerging Markets. The key for upside to U.S. equities remains earnings. Analysts have a pessimistic forecast of only 2.5% EPS growth in 2019 for the S&P500. A rough proxy for earnings growth (nominal GDP growth of 4.5%, wage growth of 3.5% leading to some margin expansion, 2% buybacks) points to EPS growth of around 7-8%. Q3 earnings (where analysts forecast -2% year-on-year) are likely to surprise on the upside, as did Q1 and Q2, though the strong dollar and weak overseas growth are risks. In our next Quarterly, to be published on October 1, we may make some adjustments to further dial down risk, for example in our equity sector recommendations, which currently have a slight cyclical tilt. The relative performance of cyclicals has started to wobble, and the message from bond markets is that cyclicals have further to fall in relative terms (Chart 14). Investors will come to understand that government bonds are no longer an attractive hedge at current yields. Currencies: The trade-weighted dollar has broadly moved sideways in the past year (Chart 15), weakening against the yen, but strengthening against the euro and EM currencies. We remain neutral on the dollar. It will continue to be pulled by two opposing forces: weak global growth is a positive, but the Fed has more room to cut rates than the rest of the world and so interest rate differentials will shift against the dollar. The renminbi is likely to continue to weaken, as the Chinese use currency policy as the least painful offset against U.S. tariffs. The latest  set of tariffs suggests that the CNY needs to fall to around 7.5-7.6 to the USD to offset their impact but, if Trump implements all the tariffs he has threatened, it could fall as far as 8.0 (Chart 16). This would pull other EM currencies down further. GBP will continue to be buffeted by Brexit scenarios. A no-deal Brexit could bring it down to 1.00 against the USD, whereas Remain or a very soft Brexit would take it back to PPP, 1.43. The current level is a probability weighted average of the two. Chart 15Dollar Has Moved Broadly Sideways Chart 16CNY Could Fall Much Further     Commodities: The oil price has been hurt by a slowing of demand in developed economies (Chart 17). Supply, however, remains tight, and our energy strategists have cut their forecast for Brent this year only modestly to an average of $66 a barrel (from an earlier forecast of $70, and from a current spot price of $60).3 Industrial commodities continue to struggle because of China’s slowdown (Chart 18) and are unlikely to recover until China’s stimulus is beefed up. Gold remains a good insurance for investors worried about geopolitical risk, recession, and inflation.   Chart 17EM Oil Demand Has Been Weak   Chart 18Industrial Commodities Hurt By China       Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly, “Big Trouble In Greater China,” dated August 23, 2019, available at gps.bcareseach.com 2      Please see Global Asset Allocation, “GAA Monthly Portfolio Update,” dated February 1, 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy, “USD Strength Slows Oil Demand Growth; 2020 Brent Forecast Remains At $75/bbl,” dated August 22, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation