Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Highlights Analysis on Chile is available below. EM local bond yields have decoupled from their traditional macro drivers. This could be a sign that EM domestic bonds are entering a New Normal. We refer to a New Normal for EM local bonds when their yields drop during a global growth slowdown even as their currencies depreciate. Only time will tell whether the recent decoupling between EM local bond yields and their currencies is due to investor complacency or represents a sustainable paradigm shift. We are instituting a buy stop on the MSCI EM equity index at 1075. If and when the EM stock index in dollar terms breaks decisively above this level, we will become cyclically bullish and recommend playing the rally. Feature EM local currency bond yields have fallen below their 2013 lows (Chart I-1) – levels not reached since before the Federal Reserve-induced “Taper Tantrum” in the spring of 2013, when EM domestic bond yields spiked and currencies plunged. Crucially, in a major departure from their historical relationship, the aggregate EM GBI index of local bond yields has decoupled from EM currencies (Chart I-1), commodities prices, EM U.S dollar-denominated sovereign bond yields and the global business cycle (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Local Bond Yields Have Decoupled From EM Currencies Chart I-2EM Domestic Bond Yields Have Diverged From Their Traditional Macro Drivers   Will this decoupling persist, or will the past relationship be re-established? In other words, have EM local currency bonds entered a New Normal – a paradigm where their yields behave like DM yields – falling during deflationary periods and rising during business cycle recoveries? What We Got Right And Wrong We had not been anticipating such a large drop in EM domestic bond yields this year. Our analysis has been based on the following pillars: That the global trade and manufacturing recession would persist until late 2019, and that such an outcome would herald lower commodities prices and weaker EM currencies. Falling resource prices and EM currency deprecation, consistent with the history shown in Chart I-1 and I-2, would lead to a foreign investor exodus from EM local bonds, reinforcing currency depreciation and somewhat higher yields.   Our theme that the global trade and manufacturing recession has been driven by weak domestic demand in China and the rest of the EM has played out quite well; commodities prices have been weak and EM currencies have depreciated. In addition, the broad trade-weighted dollar has been strong and DM bond yields have plunged in the past 12 months, in line with our theme of a global growth slump. In a major departure from their historical relationship, the aggregate EM GBI index of local bond yields has decoupled from EM currencies commodities prices, EM U.S dollar-denominated sovereign bond yields and the global business cycle. Nevertheless, our view of a selloff in EM domestic bonds has not panned out. In other words, our spot-on macro analysis has not translated into a successful investment call on the direction of EM local yields. The reason has been a change in the relationship between EM bond yields and their typical global macro drivers, specifically EM currencies. A potential counter-argument could be that falling DM bond yields have pushed EM local yields lower. However, contrary to the widespread consensus view, both EM local bond yields and currencies have illustrated a relatively weak correlation with U.S. bond yields (Chart I-3). All in all, even though our macro view has been on the ball, we have been flat-footed by the shifting relationship between EM domestic bond yields and their traditional macro drivers as illustrated in Chart I-1 and I-2.  Finally, even though EM bond yields have plunged, their total returns in U.S. dollar terms have not been spectacular (Chart I-4, top panel). Crucially, the EM GBI total return index in dollar terms has not outperformed that of duration-matched U.S. Treasurys (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart I-3No Stable Correlation Between EM Markets And U.S. Bond Yields Chart I-4EM Local Bonds Have Rallied But Have Not Outperformed U.S. Treasurys   Our macro views and themes have been positive for DM bonds. Fixed-income investors who favored U.S. Treasurys over EM local bonds have not underperformed by much in the past 12 months and have actually dramatically outperformed in 2018. Complacency Or A New Normal? There are two possible scenarios for EM domestic bonds going forward: Bullish Scenario: EM Local Bonds Have Entered A New Normal We refer to a New Normal for EM local bonds when their yields drop during a global growth slowdown even as EM currencies depreciate. This implies the past relationships between EM domestic yields on the one hand, and EM currencies and global macro variables on the other hand have permanently reversed. If EM domestic bonds have entered a New Normal, central banks in high-yielding EMs should cut interest rates during global growth slowdowns even if their exchange rate depreciates. Besides, their local bond yields should move lower despite currency weakness. If these two conditions are satisfied, one can argue that a major regime shift in EM interest rates has taken place. Ongoing rate cuts by a few of EM central banks - despite lingering weakness in their currencies - could be an indication that we are entering such a regime shift (Chart I-5). We refer to a New Normal for EM local bonds when their yields drop during a global growth slowdown even as EM currencies depreciate. We are open to accept this idea of a New Normal. Central banks in any economy where growth is slowing and inflation is low or falling should reduce interest rates even if their exchange rate depreciates. This will be a positive development for these countries, as it will make their monetary policy counter-cyclical - as it should be. One pre-condition for EM domestic bonds entering a New Normal is for the share of foreign investors holding of local currency bonds to decline. It is occurring at the margin in some countries. In Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia and Poland, the share of foreign investors in domestic bonds has fallen (Chart I-6). Yet, this phenomenon is not occurring in Indonesia, Russia, Colombia and Mexico. Chart I-5Rare Examples Of Rate Cuts Amid Currency Weakness Chart I-6Falling Share Of Foreign Investors   Negative Scenario: Investor Complacency Ends Chart I-7EM Currencies Correlate With Global Business Cycle And Commodities Prices Another potential explanation for the resilience of EM domestic yields to local currency depreciation is investor complacency: extremely low and negative bond yields in DM is inducing an unrelenting search for yields. As a result, investors are looking through EM currency depreciation, hoping it will be fleeting. Conditional on our view that EM currencies remain at risk of further depreciation panning out, EM local bonds are unlikely to avoid foreign outflows and higher yields under this scenario. This is especially true for the EM countries with high foreign ownership of local bonds. In theory, various macro forces such as expectations of domestic monetary policy, fiscal policy, inflation prospects, domestic business cycles, individual countries’ exchange rates as well as global interest rates should influence EM local bond yields. In reality, however, EM local yields have historically risen during periods of global business cycle downturns and falling commodities prices. The channel was via EM currencies, which depreciated during these periods (Chart I-7). Thereby, the primary driver for local bond yields has historically been swings in domestic exchange rates. In turn, the basis for this high sensitivity of EM domestic bond yields to their exchange rates has been due to the large share of foreign ownership. Table I-1 illustrates that the share of local currency government bonds held by foreign investors is high in the majority of EM countries. The exceptions are China, India, Korea, the Philippines and Chile. The data for Brazil are suspect. It is difficult to believe that foreigners own a mere 12% and declining share of Brazilian local currency bonds. Another potential explanation for the resilience of EM domestic yields to local currency depreciation is investor complacency: extremely low and negative bond yields in DM is inducing an unrelenting search for yields. As a result, investors are looking through EM currency depreciation, hoping it will be fleeting. What is critical, is that international investors care about the returns on their investments in U.S. dollars, euros or Japanese yen. Hence, they are very sensitive to exchange rates. Historically, foreign investors flee EM local bond markets when EM currencies depreciate, and vice versa. Chart I-8 illustrates the wide gap between total returns on EM domestic bonds in local currency and U.S. dollar terms. Table I-1Share Of Domestic Bonds Held By Foreign Investors Chart I-8EM Currencies Are Key To EM Local Bonds Volatility   In short, most investment return volatility in EM local bonds can be attributed to exchange rates – i.e., investments in EM local bonds have in practical terms constituted a bet on their exchange rates. If EM currencies experience another downleg, foreign investors’ patience might run out, causing a spike in EM local yields. Bottom Line: It is still early to conclude if a New Normal in EM domestic bonds has already taken hold. Only time will tell whether the recent decoupling between EM local bond yields and their currencies is due to an unrelenting search for yield or represents a paradigm shift. Reasons Why Local EM Yields Could Rise There are two macro risks to EM local bonds: 1.  A deepening/persisting growth slump in China Deteriorating Chinese domestic growth or a weaker RMB remain the key risks to the rest of the world. In brief, odds are high that China will continue exporting deflation to the rest of the world. Shrinking Chinese imports imply that the rest of the world’s export revenues emanating from their shipments to China are contracting (Chart I-9). A negative growth shock in EM economies that are exposed to China heralds both weaker currencies and lower interest rates. Given that high-yielding EM local bonds yields have risen historically during negative growth shocks, we are reluctant to chase these EM yields lower. This has been, and remains, our main thesis for high-yielding EM bond markets. 2.  Rising inflation in the U.S. Despite commentators’ preoccupation with global deflation and recession, U.S. core inflation is moving up. The equal-weighted average of various core measures presently stands at 2.2% and is drifting higher (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Chinese Imports Are Shrinking Chart I-10U.S. Core Inflation Is Above 2% And Rising   Besides, BCA Research’s U.S. wage tracker and unit labor costs have been accelerating (Chart I-11). The tight labor market in the U.S. suggest that risks to wages and unit labor costs and, ultimately, inflation are skewed to the upside. Chart I-11U.S. Wages And Unit Labor Costs Are Accelerating Unless U.S. growth slows much further, America’s fixed-income markets will at some point wake up to the reality of rising inflation. This will produce a shift up in the entire yield curve. Such a spike in U.S. Treasury yields will lead to a period of dollar strength and a selloff in overbought EM local bonds. Bottom Line: EM local bonds are discounting a goldilocks scenario. The two most likely risks that investors should monitor are a deepening growth slump in China and upside surprises in U.S. consumer price inflation.  Investment Strategy: Instituting A Buy Stop on EM Equities Given our negative stance on EM exchange rates, we have been receiving rates in EM countries where interest rates historically dropped amid currency deprecation. These include Korea, Chile and Mexico (the latter due to the value in local rates). For a dedicated EM local bond portfolio, our recommended overweights have been: Mexico, Russia, Central Europe, Chile, Korea and Thailand. Our underweights have been South Africa, Turkey, Indonesia, the Philippines and Argentina. Clients can always find our country allocation and trades for the EM local bond universe at the end of our weekly reports - please refer to page 14 - or on our website.  Also, gauging the direction of EM local bond yields is critical not only to fixed-income portfolio managers but to equity managers as well. Chart I-12 illustrates that EM equities rally when their domestic bond yields are falling. The failure of EM share prices to rally in recent months amid plunging EM local bond yields has been due to shrinking corporate profits. We are instituting a buy stop on the MSCI EM equity index at 1075. Any pick-up in EM domestic bond yields without recovery in EM corporate earnings will cause a major drop in EM equities. As to our EM equity strategy, our negative view is currently being challenged by the reaction of global share prices to negative profits and growth data releases. Despite very weak global trade and manufacturing data as well as downbeat profits from cyclical sectors, U.S. high-beta stocks and global cyclicals – an equal-weighted average of global industrials, materials and semiconductor stocks - have held up well (Chart I-13). Chart I-12EM Stocks Struggled Despite Falling Local Yields Chart I-13Global Cyclicals And U.S. High-Beta Stocks Are Holding Up   This could reflect investor complacency or it could be that the equity market is sensing an imminent recovery in global growth that we do not see in data. In particular, DM equities are at a critical juncture – not only the S&P 500 but also euro area stock prices are flirting with their previous highs (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Euro Area Stocks Are At Their Major Resistance If they relapse from here, it will signify a bear market. On the other hand, if these equity markets break out, it would suggest that a major upleg is in the making. Even though EM share prices are well below their previous highs, they are also at a make or break juncture. Therefore, we are instituting a buy stop on the MSCI EM equity index at 1075 (Chart I-15). If and when the EM stock index in dollar terms breaks decisively above this level, we will become cyclically bullish and recommend playing the rally. Chart I-15We Are Instituting A Buy Stop at 1075 on MSCI EM Index   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Chile: Structural Equity De-Rating The latest violent protests in Chile have raised doubts about its socio-political and economic stability. As a result, Chilean share prices could be facing both absolute and relative (versus other EM bourses) de-ratings. We are downgrading this bourse from overweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio, reiterating our short position in the peso versus the dollar, and continue to bet on lower rates and falling inflation cyclically, as discussed in great length in our recent report. Chilean stocks have always been among the most expensive within the EM universe due to the nation’s economic and socio-political stability. The violent protests now warrant a structural de-rating of equity valuations (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Chilean Share Prices: A Long-Term Perspective First, the government will be forced to adopt much more populist policies, such as the recently announced raise in minimum wages, pension payments and healthcare benefits. Unit labor costs for businesses are set to rise substantially, eating into corporate profit margins. Second, in line with more populist policies, larger budget deficits and structurally higher inflation will cause the long-end of the yield curve to rise. Higher interest rates will put downward pressure on equity multiples. Finally, equity investors will require a higher risk premium to invest in this bourse. Chile’s equity valuation premium versus EM overall will shrink. Bottom Line: The central bank will have to cut rates by a larger margin: continue receiving 3-year swap rates. A recession is unavoidable as business confidence will plunge and derail hiring and investments. Inflation will fall much further cyclically: bet on lower inflation by going long 3-year local currency bonds and shorting their inflation-linked counterparts. Continue shorting the peso versus the U.S. dollar. Downgrade the allocation to Chilean stocks from overweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. Footnotes   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights On a tactical horizon, underweight bonds versus cash, especially those bonds with deeply negative yields… …and underweight bonds versus equities. On a strategic horizon, remain overweight a 50:50 combination of U.S. T-bonds and Italian BTPs versus a 50:50 combination of German Bunds and Spanish Bonos, at either 10-year or 30-year bond maturities. Investors could also play the component pairs: overweight U.S. T-bonds versus German bunds; and overweight Italian BTPs versus Spanish Bonos. New recommendation: switch Japanese yen long exposure into Swedish krona long exposure. Fractal trade: long SEK/JPY. Feature Chart of the WeekSwiss Bond Yields Have Found It Difficult To Go Down, But Easy To Go Up! Anybody who has dared to bet that JGB yields would rise has ended up being carried out of their job, feet first. Shorting Japanese government bonds (JGBs) is known as the widow maker trade. Over the past 20 years, any investment manager who has dared to bet that JGB yields would rise – whether starting from 2 percent, 1 percent, or even 0.5 percent – has ended up being carried out of their job in a box, feet first. Today, the Bank of Japan’s policy of ‘yield curve control’ means that JGB yields are constrained within a tight range around zero, limiting their immediate scope to break higher. The European equivalent of the widow maker trade has been to short Swiss government bonds. Just as with JGB’s during the past two decades, anybody who has dared to bet that Swiss government bond yields would rise – whether starting from 2 percent, 1 percent, or 0.5 percent – has been proved fatally wrong (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Widow Makers: Shorting Japanese And Swiss Bonds That is, until this year, when Swiss government bond yields reached -1 percent. The Lower Bound To Bond Yields Is Around -1 Percent According to several senior central bankers who have spoken to us, the practical lower bound to the policy interest rate is -1 percent, because “-1 percent counterbalances the storage cost of holding physical cash and/or other stores of value”. They argue that if bank deposit rates were to fall much below -1 percent, it would be logical for bank depositors to flee wholesale into physical cash, and such a deposit flight would destroy the banking system.1 Still, couldn’t central banks just abolish physical cash, forcing us all into ‘digital cash’ with unlimited negative interest rates? No, because that would just push us into other stores of value: for example, gold, or the rapidly growing ‘decentralised’ cryptocurrency asset-class. The common counterargument is that cryptocurrencies’ volatility makes them a poor store of value. But that is also true for gold: during a few months in 2013, gold lost one third of its value (Chart I-3). Yet who has ever argued that gold cannot be a store of value just because its price is volatile! Chart I-3Gold Is A Store Of Value ##br## Despite Its Volatility The practical lower bound to the policy interest rate is around -1 percent because the central bank policy rate establishes the banking system’s funding rate – for example, the Eonia rate in the euro area (Chart I-4). If the funding rate fell well below the rate that the banks were paying on deposits, the banking system would come under severe strain and ultimately go bust. The lower bound of the policy rate also sets the lower bound of the bond yield, because a bond yield is just the expected average policy rate over the bond’s lifetime. Chart I-4The Policy Interest Rate Establishes The Banking System's Funding Rate There is one important exception. If bond investors price in the possibility of being repaid in a different and more valuable currency, the bond yield will carry a further redenomination discount as an offset for the potential currency gain. This is relevant to euro area bonds because there remains the remote possibility of euro disintegration. Bonds which would expect to see a currency redenomination gain – notably, German bunds – therefore carry an additional discount on their yields. But for bonds where no currency redenomination is possible, the practical lower bound to bond yields is around -1 percent. Overweight High Yielding Bonds Versus Low Yielding Bonds To state the obvious, the closer that a bond yield gets to the -1 percent lower bound, the more limited becomes the possibility for a further yield decline (capital gain), while the possibility for a yield increase (capital loss) stays unlimited. This unattractive lack of upside combined with plenty of potential downside is called negative skew or negative asymmetry. It follows that, close to the lower bound of yields, the cyclicality or ‘beta’ of bond prices also becomes asymmetric. In risk-off phases, the bond prices cannot rally; while in risk-on phases, bond prices can plummet. Making such bonds a ‘lose-lose’ proposition. Case in point: Swiss bond yields have found it difficult to go down this year, but very easy to go up (Chart of the Week). Because their yields were already so close to -1 percent, Swiss bond yields could not decline much during the bond market’s recent strong rally – meaning, Swiss bond prices were very low beta on the way up. But in the recent reversal, Swiss bond yields have risen much more than others – meaning, Swiss bond prices are high beta on the way down (Chart I-5).   Chart I-5Swiss Bond Prices Are Low Beta Going Up, But High Beta Going Down Does this mean the widow maker trade can finally work? Yes, but only on a tactical horizon. For the full rationale, which we will not repeat here, please see Growth To Rebound In The Fourth Quarter, But Fade In 2020. However in summary, expect bond yields to edge modestly higher, and especially those yields that are deeply in negative territory. Also on a tactical horizon, prefer equities over bonds.  On a longer term horizon, a much safer way to play the asymmetric beta is to short low yielding bonds in relative terms. In other words, overweight high yielding bonds versus low yielding bonds.2 Close to the lower bound of yields, the cyclicality or ‘beta’ of bond prices becomes asymmetric. Our strategic recommendation is to overweight a 50:50 combination of U.S. T-bonds and Italian BTPs versus a 50:50 combination of German Bunds and Spanish Bonos, at either 10-year or 30-year bond maturities. Since initiation five months ago, the recommendation at the 30-year maturity is already up by almost 7 percent. Nevertheless, it has a lot further to go (Chart I-6). Investors could also play the component pairs: overweight U.S. T-bonds versus German bunds; and overweight Italian BTPs versus Spanish Bonos (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8), but the combined two bonds versus two bonds recommendation has better return to risk characteristics. Chart I-6Expect High Yielding Bonds To Outperform Low Yielding Bonds Chart I-7Expect Yield Spread Convergence At 10-Year Maturities... Chart I-8...And At 30-Year ##br##Maturities Switch Into The Swedish Krona   Bond yield spreads are also an important driver of currency moves. The currency corollary of overweighting high yielding versus low yielding bonds is to tilt towards low yielding currencies, because these are the currencies that have the most scope for substantial upside. Our favourite low yielding currency has been the Japanese yen, and this has worked very well. Since early 2018, the yen has been the strongest major currency, and is up 16 percent versus the euro. But our favourite currency is now changing to the Swedish krona, for three reasons: The SEK is depressed from a valuation perspective. For example, it is the only major currencies that is weaker than the GBP compared to before the Brexit vote in 2016 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Swedish Krona Has Underperformed The Pound Despite Brexit Unlike other major central banks, the Riksbank is seeking to normalise the policy rate upwards. The SEK is technically oversold on its 130-day fractal dimension, signalling over-pessimism in the price (Chart I-10), while the JPY is showing the opposite tendency. Chart I-10The Swedish Krona Is Due A Countertrend Move Bottom Line: switch Japanese yen long exposure into Swedish krona long exposure. Fractal Trading System* (Chart 1-11) As just discussed, this week's recommended trade is long SEK/JPY. Set the profit target at 1.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, long NZD/JPY has started off very well and long Spain versus Belgium achieved its 3.5 percent profit target, at which it was closed, leaving five open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European  Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The cost of holding physical cash is the cost of its safe storage. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report ‘Growth To Rebound In The Fourth Quarter, But Fade In 2020’, October 3, 2019 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Shifting Trends: The factors that have driven bond yields lower throughout 2019 – slowing growth, rising uncertainty, demand for safe assets and dovish monetary policy expectations – have all started to turn in a more bond-bearish direction. Duration & Country Allocation Strategy: Maintain a moderate below-benchmark stance on aggregate bond portfolio duration. Favor lower-beta countries with central banks that are more likely to stay relatively dovish as global yields drift higher, like core Europe, Australia and Japan. Credit Allocation Strategy: Stay overweight corporate bonds versus government debt in the U.S. and Europe, both for investment grade and high-yield. Maintain just a neutral stance on EM USD-denominated spread product, but look to upgrade if global growth improves further and the USD begins to weaken. Feature Chart of the WeekBond Yields Sniffing A Turn In Global Growth? It has been fifty days (and counting) since the 2019 low for the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield was reached on September 3. The year-to-date low for the benchmark 10-year German bund yield was seen six days before that on August 28. Yields have risen by a healthy amount since those dates, up +34bps and +37bps for the 10yr Treasury and Bund, respectively. This has occurred despite the significant degree of bond-bullish pessimism on global growth and inflation that can be found in financial media reporting and investor surveys. The fact that yields are now steadily moving away from the lows suggests that the 2019 narrative for financial markets – slowing global growth, triggered by political uncertainty and the lagged impact of previous Fed monetary tightening and China credit tightening, forcing central banks to turn increasingly more dovish – is no longer correct. If that is true, yields have more near-term upside as overbought government bond markets begin to “sniff out” a bottoming out of global growth momentum (Chart of the Week). In this Weekly Report, we take a look at the changing state of the factors that fueled the sharp decline in bond yields in 2019. We follow that up with a review of all our current recommended investment positions on duration, country allocation and spread product allocations in light of recent developments. We conclude that maintaining a below-benchmark duration exposure, while favoring lower-beta countries in sovereign debt and overweighting corporate debt in the U.S. and Europe, is the most appropriate fixed income strategy for the next 6-12 months. The timing of the bottoming of yields in the major developed markets (DM) should not be surprising, given the more bond-bearish turn of reliable leading directional yield indicators. Yields Are Rising At The Right Time, For The Right Reasons Chart 2Bond-Bullish Growth & Inflation Factors Are Turning The timing of the bottoming of yields in the major developed markets (DM) should not be surprising, given the more bond-bearish turn of reliable leading directional yield indicators. The diffusion index of our global leading economic indicator (LEI), which leads the real (ex-inflation expectations) component of DM bond yields by twelve months, is at an elevated level (Chart 2). At the same time, the slowing of the annual rate of growth in the trade-weighted U.S. dollar, which leads 10-year DM CPI swap rates by around six months, is signaling that bond yields have room to increase from the inflation expectations side. Finally, the rising trend of positive data surprises for the major DM countries is also pointing to higher yields. Breaking it down at the country level, the pickup in DM 10-year bond yields since the 2019 lows has been widespread (Charts 3 & 4). The range of yield increases is as low as +16bps in Japan, where the Bank of Japan (BoJ) is pursuing a yield target, to +46bps in Canada where the economy and inflation are both accelerating. Chart 3Pricing Out Some Expected Rate Cuts … Chart 4… Across All Developed Markets The increase in yields has also occurred alongside reduced expectations for easier monetary policy. Our 12-month discounters, which measure the expected change in short-term interest rates priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves, show that markets have partially priced out some (but not all) expected rate cuts in all major DM countries. The Three Things That Have Changed For Global Bond Markets So what has changed to trigger a reduction in rate cut expectations and an increase in global yields? The bond-bullish narrative that we refer to in the title of this report can be broken down into the following three elements, which have all turned recently: Slowing global growth (now potentially bottoming) Chart 5Global Growth Bottoming Out Current global growth is still trending lower, when looking at measures like manufacturing PMIs or sentiment surveys like the global ZEW index. Forward-looking measures like our global LEI, however, have been moving higher in recent months, suggesting that a bottom in the PMIs may soon unfold (Chart 5). We investigated that improvement in our global LEI in a recent report and concluded that the move higher was focused almost exclusively within the emerging market (EM) sub-components that are most sensitive to improving global growth.1 This fits with the improvement shown in the OECD LEI for China, a bottoming of the annual growth rate of world exports, and the general acceleration of global equity markets – the classic leading economic indicator. Rising political uncertainty (now potentially fading) The U.S.-China trade war (including the implications for the upcoming 2020 U.S. presidential election) and the U.K. Brexit saga have been the main sources of bond-bullish political uncertainty over the past several months. Yet recent developments have helped reduce the odds of the most negative tail risk outcomes, providing a bit of a boost to global bond yields. The U.S. and China have agreed (in principle) to a “phase one” trade deal that, at a minimum, lowers the chances of a further escalation of the trade dispute through higher tariffs. Meanwhile, the momentum has shifted towards a potential final Brexit agreement between the U.K. and European Union that can avoid an ugly no-deal outcome. Our colleagues at BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy believe that developments are likely to continue moving away from the worst-case scenarios, given the constraints faced by policymakers.2 U.S. President Donald Trump is now in full campaign mode for the 2020 elections and needs a deal (of any kind) to deflect criticism that his trade battle with China is dragging the U.S. economy into recession. Already, there has been a sharp decline in income growth for workers in swing states that could vote for either party’s candidate in next year’s election (Chart 6). Trump cannot afford to lose voters in those states, many of which are in the U.S. industrial heartland (i.e. Ohio, Michigan) that helped put him in the White House. In other words, he is highly incentivized to turn down the heat on the trade war or else face a potential loss next November. While these political uncertainties have not been fully resolved by these latest developments, the shift in momentum away from worst-case scenarios has likely been enough to reduce the safe-haven bid for DM government bonds, helping push yields higher. Meanwhile, China is facing a slowing economy and rising unemployment, but with reduced means to fight the downtrend given high private sector debt that has impaired the typical response between easier monetary conditions and economic activity (Chart 7). While the Chinese government does not want to be seen as caving in to U.S. pressure on trade policy, its desire to maintain social stability by preventing a further rise in unemployment from the trade war provides a powerful incentive to try and ratchet down tensions with the U.S. Chart 6Political Reasons For Trump To Retreat On Trade In the U.K., a no-deal Brexit is an economically painful and politically unpopular outcome that would severely damage the re-election chances of Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative party. Thus, even a hard-line Brexiteer like Johnson must respond to the political constraints forcing him to try and get a Brexit deal done (Chart 8). Chart 7Economic Reasons For China To Retreat On Trade Chart 8Political Reasons To Retreat On A No-Deal Brexit While these political uncertainties have not been fully resolved by these latest developments, the shift in momentum away from worst-case scenarios has likely been enough to reduce the safe-haven bid for DM government bonds, helping push yields higher. Bull-flattening pressure on yield curves (now turning into moderate bear-steepening) The final leg down in bond yields in August had a technical aspect to it, fueled by the demand for duration and convexity from asset-liability managers like European pension funds and insurance companies. Falling yields act to raise the value of liabilities for that group of investors, forcing them to rapidly increase the duration of their assets to match the duration of their liabilities (the technique used to limit the gap between the value of assets and liabilities). That duration increase is carried out by buying government bonds with longer maturities (and higher convexity), but also through the use of interest rate derivatives like long maturity swaps and swaptions. The end result is a bull flattening of yield curves (both for government bonds and swaps) and a rise in swaption volatility (i.e. the price of swaptions). Those dynamics were clearly in play in August after the shocking imposition of fresh U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports early in the month. Bond and swaption volatilities spiked, and bond/swap yield curves bull-flattened, in both Europe and the U.S. (Chart 9). That effect only lasted a few weeks, however, and volatilities have since declined and curves have steepened. This suggests that the “convexity-buying” effect has run its course and is now starting to work in the opposite direction, with asset-liability managers looking to reduce the duration of their assets as higher yields lower the value of their liabilities. This is putting some upward pressure on longer-maturity global bond yields. Chart 9Signs Of Reduced Convexity-Related Bond Buying Chart 10Bull-Flattening Yield Curve Pressures Easing Up A Bit Chart 11Fed & ECB Actions Should Help Steepen Up Curves The steepening seen so far must be put in context, however, as yield curves remain very flat across the DM world (Chart 10). Term premia on longer-term bonds remain very depressed, although those should start to increase as global growth stabilizes and the massive safe-haven demand for global government debt begins to dissipate. Some pickup in inflation expectations would also help impart additional bear-steepening momentum to yield curves – a more likely result now that the Fed and ECB have both cut interest rates and, more importantly, will start provide additional monetary easing by expanding their balance sheets (Chart 11). Bottom Line: The factors that have driven bond yields lower throughout 2019 – slowing growth, rising uncertainty, demand for safe assets and dovish monetary policy expectations – have all started to turn in a more bond-bearish direction. Reviewing Our Recommended Bond Allocations In light of these shifting global trends described above, the fixed income investment implications are fairly straightforward: Yields are rising around the world, suggesting that the current move is a shift higher driven by non-country-specific factors like more stable future global growth prospects. Duration: A moderate below-benchmark overall duration stance is warranted for global fixed income portfolios, with yields likely to continue drifting higher over at least the next six months. A big surge in yields is unlikely, as central banks will need to see decisive evidence that global growth is not only bottoming, but accelerating, before shifting away from the current dovish bias. Given the reporting lags in the economic data, such evidence is unlikely to appear until the first quarter of 2020 at the earliest. Yet given how flat yield curves are across the DM government bond markets, the trajectory of forward rates is quite stable relative to spot yield levels, making it much easier to beat the forwards by positioning for even a modest yield increase. Country Allocation: Yields are rising around the world, suggesting that the current move is a shift higher driven by non-country-specific factors like more stable future global growth prospects. In that case, using yield betas to the “global” bond yield is a good way to consider country allocation decisions within a fixed income portfolio. We looked at those yield betas in an August report, using Bloomberg Barclays government bond index data for the 7-10 year maturity buckets of individual countries and the Global Treasury aggregate (Chart 12).3 The rolling 3-year betas were highest in the U.S. and Canada, making them good countries to underweight within a global government bond portfolio in a rising yield environment. The yield betas were lowest in Japan, Germany and Australia, making them good overweight candidates. The U.K. was a unique case of having a relatively high historical yield beta prior to the 2016 Brexit referendum and a lower yield beta since then - making the U.K. allocation highly conditional on the resolution of the Brexit uncertainty. Spread Product Allocation: The backdrop described in this report, where global growth is bottoming out but where central banks maintain a dovish bias, is a perfect sweet spot for global spread product like corporate bonds and Peripheral European government debt. Thus, an overweight stance on overall global spread product versus governments is warranted. The backdrop described in this report, where global growth is bottoming out but where central banks maintain a dovish bias, is a perfect sweet spot for global spread product like corporate bonds and Peripheral European government debt. With regards to our current strategic fixed income recommendations and model bond portfolio allocations, we already have much of the positioning described above in place. We are below-benchmark on overall duration, underweight higher-beta U.S. Treasuries; overweight government bonds in lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and Australia (Chart 13); overweight investment grade corporate bonds in the U.S., euro area and U.K.; and overweight high-yield corporate bonds in the U.S. and euro area. Chart 12Favor Lower-Beta Government Bond Markets There are areas where our positioning could change, however. Chart 13Lower-Beta Laggards Should Start To Outperform In terms of government bonds, we are currently overweight the U.K. and neutral Canada. A final Brexit deal would justify a downgrade of Gilts to at least neutral, if not underweight, as the Bank of England has signaled that rate hikes would be justified if the Brexit uncertainty was resolved. A downgrade of higher-beta Canadian government debt to underweight could also be justified, although the Bank of Canada is not signaling that a change in monetary policy (in either direction) is warranted. For now, we will hold off on any change to our U.K. stance, as it is now likely that there will be another extension of the Brexit deadline beyond October 31. As for Canada, we remain neutral for now but will revisit that stance in an upcoming Weekly Report. With regards to spread product, we are only neutral EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt, as well as Spanish sovereign bonds; and underweight Italian government debt. An EM upgrade to overweight would require two things that are not yet in place: a weaker U.S. dollar and accelerating Chinese economic growth. Chart 14Stay Overweight Corporates In The U.S. & Europe As for Peripheral governments, we have preferred to be overweight European corporate debt relative to sovereign bonds in Italy and Spain. The recent powerful rally in the Periphery, however, has driven the spreads over German bunds in those countries down to levels in line with corporate credit spreads (Chart 14). We will maintain these allocations for now, but will investigate the relative value proposition between euro area Peripheral sovereigns and corporates in an upcoming report. Bottom Line: Maintain a moderate below-benchmark stance on aggregate bond portfolio duration. Favor lower-beta countries with central banks that are more likely to stay relatively dovish as global yields drift higher, like core Europe, Australia and Japan. Stay overweight corporate bonds versus government debt in the U.S. and Europe, both for investment grade and high-yield. Maintain just a neutral stance on EM USD-denominated spread product, but look to upgrade if global growth improves further and the USD begins to weaken. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “What Is Driving The Improvement In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator?”, dated October 2, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter”, dated October 11, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research U.S. Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Where’s The Positive Carry In Bond Markets?", dated August 20, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

ハイライト 先週お会いした投資家は朗報を聞く準備ができていました： 当社が3日間のクライアントミーティングで語った建設的なシナリオはコンセンサス見解よりも楽観的ですが、クライアントはそれを検討する用意がありました。 世界的な経済減速と米国景気後退の高まるリスクが主要な懸念事項でした、…： 当社のグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー同僚が示唆するように、世界の製造業が本当に底を打ったこと、そして米国が景気後退の瀬戸際にいないことを投資家が確信するには時間がかかるでしょう。 … 次に貿易摩擦と企業の債務水準、…： 当社の小さなサンプルでは、投資家は米中対立の日々の増減に対して感覚が鈍くなっている可能性がありますが、企業経営陣の頭の中では依然として大きな懸念事項であると考えています。 … しかしエリザベス・ウォーレンの台頭が引き起こす不安には及びません： すべてのクライアントがウォーレン政権の可能性について尋ねました。 特集 先週の大半を、ウェルスマネジメントやファミリーオフィスのクライアントの一部と面会して過ごしました。彼らは相対リターンより絶対リターンに重点を置いていますが、主要な懸念点は相対リターン重視の仲間とほぼ同一でした。我々の会合では、景気拡張の行方、株式ブルマーケット、世界成長、米中貿易交渉について幅広い疑問が取り上げられました。クライアントはまたクレジット見通しやインフレが警戒すべきかどうかも尋ねましたが、全ての会合で最も熱心に話題にしたのはウォーレン氏またはサンダース氏の大統領就任の見込みでした。 Q: 債券市場は何を伝えていますか？ 我々は債券市場を金利（米国債）とクレジット（スプレッド商品）という2つの明確な要素に分けて考えています。2016年7月の底以来、10年物米国債利回りの定期的な戻りを見慣れてきましたが、昨年11月の3.25%から今年8月の1.5%へと急低下するのを目の当たりにして、米国経済に対する我々の建設的見解は試されました。しかし、利回りの低下が必ずしも差し迫った経済トラブルを示しているとは限らないため、景気後退が発生するのは2021年末〜2022年初を待たないと起きない、という見方を維持しています。 我々は今年の米国債利回りの低下を、景気減速の同時的な反映と見ており、景気後退の前兆とは考えていません。 純粋に国内要因だけを見れば、利回り低下の主因は金融政策期待の変化でした。FRBのハト派転換はもちろんどこか真空の中で起きたわけではありません。景気減速の明確な兆候が、ここでも海外でも緩和的な政策の舞台を整えました。FRBが常に相手をしていたかどうかにかかわらず、12か月先のフォワードフェドファンド金利期待の3回の段階的低下は、いずれも市場に緩和政策を予想させるように誘導されたタイミングで発生しました：3月のFOMC前（FRB関係者がインフレ期待の下振れリスクについて警告し始めた頃）、5月（利下げの準備が進められていた頃）、そして7月の会合後に7月の利下げが単発ではない可能性が示唆された時です（チャート 1）。 チャート 1 FRBのハト派転換、... FRBのハト派的転換、... FRBのハト派的転換、... 各国の利回りは完全に国内要因で決まるわけではなく、米国債利回りの弱さの多くは世界の他地域の利回りの軟調さを反映しています。今年これまで、10年物主権債利回りは大西洋の両側で足並みをそろえて動いており（チャート 2）、通貨ヘッジ済みの米国債、ギルト、ブンデンにおける裁定の余地は保たれています。原油価格も別のグローバル変数であり、その下落はインフレ期待のブレークイーブン（金利差）を押し下げ（チャート 3）、米国債買い手が要求するインフレ補償を抑制しました。金利の観点では、債券市場は世界成長が減速し、中央銀行が金融緩和姿勢を強め、原油価格が下落したことを伝えています。それは必ずしも成長にとって理想的な状況ではありませんが、拡張の終焉を意味するものでもありません。 チャート 2 ... そして欧州主権債の重力が米国債利回りを引き下げた ...そして欧州国債の牽引力が米国債利回りを押し下げている ...そして欧州国債の牽引力が米国債利回りを押し下げている クレジット市場も同意見です。拡張が危機に瀕しているという気配はまったく見られません。スプレッドは昨年の第4四半期のスパイクを速やかに解消し、その後はポスト危機以来の低水準付近に張り付いています（チャート 4）。非金融企業は拡張期を通じて負債を増やしてきましたが、利回りが史上低水準にあるため債務のサービスは決して過重ではありません（チャート 5）。当社のU.S. ボンド・ストラテジーサービスの独自のコーポレート・ヘルス・モニターは企業のバランスシートが弱まっていることを示唆しています（チャート 6、第3パネル）が、スプレッドの意味のある拡大に必要な他の要素――金融引締めサイクルの完了1（チャート6、第2パネル）や貸出基準の引き締め（チャート 6、下パネル）――はまだ整っていません。 チャート 3 原油安がインフレ懸念を抑え込んだ 原油価格の下落がインフレ懸念を抑え込んだ 原油価格の下落がインフレ懸念を抑え込んだ チャート 4 スプレッドはタイト、... スプレッドはタイト… スプレッドはタイト…   チャート 5 ... そして債務サービスは容易 ...そして債務返済は簡単です ...そして債務返済は簡単です Q: クレジットエクスポージャーを削減する時期ではありませんか？タイトなスプレッドは逆張りの警告サインかもしれません。 株式よりもはるかに安いならば企業の資金調達負担を債務に一部移すのは合理的ですが、債務負担の増加と契約条項の劣化を組み合わせるのは懸念材料です。低金利は債務サービスコストが負担にならないようにし、当面はデフォルトを抑える助けになりますが、債券市場は次第に脆弱になっています。 チャート 6 スプレッド拡大の条件はまだ整っていない スプレッド拡大の条件はまだ整っていない スプレッド拡大の条件はまだ整っていない チャート 7 インカム投資家は出番なし インカム投資家は対象外 インカム投資家は対象外 その脆弱性はあるものの、次のデフォルトサイクルが到来しても、住宅バブルの影響に比べればはるかに限定的でしょう。なぜなら銀行への直撃はほとんどないからです。米国の銀行システムは一戸建て住宅を担保にしており、企業債はレバレッジのかかっていない多様な投資家群が保有しています。レバレッジをかけていない投資家にとって損失は厳しいものですが、全体経済に大きな波紋を広げることはありません。今日の企業借入の蓄積は2006〜07年の住宅ローンの汚染地帯には相当せず、逆の主張は根拠が乏しいです。 企業レバレッジの高まりは脆弱性ですが、投資家が脆弱性を見つけるだけでは十分ではなく、それが破綻する触媒を特定する必要があります。非金融企業の債務水準は亀裂ですが、契約条項の緩みでその亀裂は長くなっています。市場が苦しむのは、その亀裂が十分に長く広がり、投資家が無視できない亀裂に変わった時です。我々の見方では、緩和的な金融環境は少なくとも数か月はその亀裂を視界と記憶から遠ざけ続けるでしょう。 デフォルトは借り手が満期債務を再資金調達できない時にのみ発生します。少なくとも一つの貸し手が管理可能な条件で新規融資を延長する意思がある限り、借り手は破綻しません。現在の金融政策の背景は、主要経済の多くでゼロ/マイナス金利政策が存在し、融資意思のある貸し手の安定供給をほぼ確実にしています。保険会社、年金基金、債務を相殺するために収益を必要とする基金は、収益を確保するためにリスクを取らざるを得ませんでした（チャート 7）。その結果、多少脆弱なクレジットに対して追加で50〜75ベーシスポイントを提供する貸し手の列ができあがっています。 世界の製造業はすでに景気後退に陥っていますが、サービス部門の堅調さが先進国経済の拡張を維持しています。 最も脆弱なクレジットは救済を見つけられないでしょうが、多くの怪しいものは救済を受けるでしょう。現在の超緩和的金融政策環境は、デフォルトが本格的に増加するような背景ではありません。中央銀行がもう少し寛容でなくなるまでは、限界貸し手は選別的にならず、盤は回り続け、スプレッド商品は現金や米国債に対して超過リターンを生み続けるでしょう。 Q: 米国外の状況はより悪く見えます。世界の成長見通しはどうですか？ チャート 8 製造業は底打ちかもしれない、... 製造業は底打ちの可能性がある… 製造業は底打ちの可能性がある… 世界の製造業セクターはリセッションにありますが、世界全体の経済はそうではありません（チャート 8）。製造業のリセッションが必ずしも全面的な景気後退につながるわけではなく、先進国のはるかに大きなサービス部門の継続的な拡張は製造業の苦戦に対して強力な防波堤を提供しています（チャート 9）。世界活動がいつ加速するかを結論づけるにはまだ時期尚早ですが、当社のグローバル先行経済指標とそれを導く拡散指標は、底打ち過程にあることを示唆しています（チャート 10）。 チャート 9 ... そしてサービスは減速を止めたかもしれない ... ... そしてサービスは減速が止まったかもしれない ... ... そしてサービスは減速が止まったかもしれない ... チャート 10 ... 先行指標が足場を固めたなら ... 先行指標が足場を固めたなら ... 先行指標が足場を固めたなら チャート 11 向かい風から追い風へ 逆風から追い風へ 逆風から追い風へ 当社のチャイナ・インベストメント・ストラテジーチームは、地方政府が今年末まで北京によって課された予算制約から解放される来年第1四半期に中国成長が勢いを取り戻す余地があると見ています。なお、9月のマネー・クレジット成長は予想を上回り、政策当局は預金準備率の引き下げなどささやかな景気刺激策を講じています。中国のクレジット成長の変化は、中国のクレジット依存の輸入チャネルを通じて世界の成長の変化に先行します（チャート 11）。中国の輸入は欧州、日本、アジア新興国、オーストラリア、ブラジル、チリの輸出です。彼らの輸出が増えれば総需要も増え、好循環が自己強化的に生まれます。 Q: ウォーレン氏が大統領になったら市場には何を意味しますか？ ウォーレン氏が大統領になることへの投資家の懸念はもっともです；ウォーレン上院議員は銀行、防衛関連企業、製薬企業、フラッキングに関与する石油会社、大手ハイテク企業に対して公然と、しばしば陽気に敵意を示しています。それは相当なリストであり、S&P500の時価総額のかなりの割合を占めます。ウォーレン政権は株式投資家にとって友好的ではないと言って差し支えありませんが、資産を清算して国外に逃げる前に念頭に置くべき点がいくつかあります。 彼女に民主党の指名を早々に与えるのは時期尚早です。2007年10月、賢明な投資家はヒラリー・クリントンがすでに決勝戦の座を確保したと確信していました。まだ知名度の低かったイリノイ州の新人上院議員は2004年大会での演説以外にあまり知られていませんでしたが、彼はオバマ大統領になりました。2月3日のアイオワ党員集会までにまだ多くのことが起こり得ます。 現職大統領を打倒するのは大きな挑戦です。景気が今から来年11月までにリセッションに入らず、政権が高プロファイルの政策失敗を被らずに政策成果を達成できる限り、当社のジオポリティカル・ストラテジー同僚はトランプが2020年選挙の推定勝者であるべきだと主張します。彼らの見立ては、誰が民主党の指名を獲得するかにかかわらず当てはまります。米国有権者は時間とともに左寄りにシフトしていますが（チャート 12）、それでもです。 ワシントンを根本的に変えるのは口で言うほど簡単ではありません。建国の父たちは連邦政府を大幅な変化に対してかなり耐性のあるものに設計しました。選挙人団は大統領選で国民感情の高まりを抑え、議会と裁判所は行政府の権力を制限します。上下両院で多数派を持つ政権でも、一つの大きな立法イニシアティブを達成して政治資本を使い果たすと（オバマ政権と医療保険制度改革のように）欲しいほどの自由は得られないことが常です。たとえ来年11月に民主党がウォーレン氏の追い風で議会を制圧したとしても、保守的またはスウィング地区・州の議員は彼女の提案全体に躊躇するでしょう。 チャート 12 民主党有権者はより左に傾いている 旅先からの質問 旅先からの質問 投資への示唆 我々のより楽観的な世界経済見通しは、世界各地域・ブロックにおける株式のより建設的な配分に反映されます。BCAのハウス・ビューは、戦術的（0〜3か月）および景気循環的（3〜12か月）の時間軸で、グローバル株式ポートフォリオ内で新興市場とユーロ圏へのイコールウェイト配分を推奨します。世界成長が加速し始めたら、我々は新興市場とユーロ圏の株式をオーバーウェイトに格上げし、米国株をオーバーウェイトから格下げすることを期待しています。また、データが我々のベースケースの成長シナリオを検証する態勢であれば、ドルに対してハイアベータの通貨を好み、円やスイス・フランのようなローアベータ通貨へのエクスポージャーは制限または回避することを支持します。 BCAの推奨は特にデータ依存的になっています。世界の投資家は明確に「証拠を見せてほしい（show-me）」モードに入っているようです。当社として、そして先週の会合から受けた印象に支えられた感触として、投資家は成長見通しやリスク資産に対して容易に楽観できないでいます。貿易関連のツイートに心をすり減らされ、最近の異例な金融政策措置が成長やインフレに目に見える影響を及ぼすとは懐疑的であり、転換の決定的な証拠を見て初めてポートフォリオポジションを調整したがります。この慎重さは、事業サイクル後期に出る矛盾するシグナルや地政学的不確実性の高止まりも反映しています。 もし我々の見通しどおり世界経済がまもなく反転するなら、世界の投資家はサイクリックなエクスポージャーをポートフォリオに追加する準備をしておくべきです。例えエリザベス・ウォーレンが民主党指名の現時点の有力候補として地位を固めたとしてもです。 この慎重さから、我々は0〜3か月の戦術的時間軸ではフィクスト・インカム・ポートフォリオにベンチマークのデュレーションエクスポージャーを推奨し続けていますが、近い将来を越えた金利エクスポージャーにはほとんど意欲がなく、3〜12か月の景気循環的および12か月超の戦略的時間軸ではベンチマーク以下のデュレーションです。12か月全体では、成長が強まれば良好な米国企業がより信用力のあるクレジットになると期待し、ZIRP/NIRPは残余の一部を引き続き保護すると見ているため、スプレッド商品を引き続き好みます。我々は相対的な米国株のリターンが鈍化する可能性を支持しますが、世界成長は絶対的な株式リターンを押し上げるはずであり、バランスド・ポートフォリオでは少なくともイコールウェイトの株式を維持することを推奨し続けます。 Doug Peta, CFA チーフ米国投資ストラテジスト dougp@bcaresearch.com 脚注 1 我々はパウエル議長が述べた見解に同意しており、今回の利下げはサイクルの中間で行う利下げであって、新たな緩和サイクルの始まりではないという認識です。

Highlights Duration & Fed: Our late-1990s & 2015/16 roadmap for the economy still holds, but risks are mounting. Despite the risks, we expect that trade tensions will calm enough for the economic data to improve during the next few months. The result will be one more Fed rate cut this month, followed by an extended on-hold period. Investors should keep portfolio duration low in that environment. Junk Quality Spreads: This year’s divergence between the Caa/Ba quality spread and the high-yield index spread is highly unusual, but has more to do with movements in Treasury yields and changing index duration than with broader concerns about corporate credit quality. Investment Grade Risk & Reward: We present a novel approach for assessing the risk/reward trade-off among investment grade corporate bond sectors. We note that Saudi Arabian and Mexican Sovereign bonds, Foreign Agency bonds and Conventional 30-year Agency MBS look particularly attractive in risk-adjusted terms. Feature Contagion? This publication has repeatedly pointed to the late-1990s and the 2015/16 periods as appropriate comparables for today’s global growth slowdown. That is, we expect that the current spate of weakness will stay confined within the manufacturing sector and will not spread into the broader economy, leading the U.S. into recession. This call is important from an investment perspective because it implies that the Fed is not currently engaged in an easing cycle that will bring the funds rate back to zero. Rather, we anticipate only three rate cuts this year (we’ve already seen two), followed by the eventual resumption of hikes. Bond yields will not make new lows in that environment. Chart 1Manufacturing Weakness Spreading? Chart 2"Hard" Data Still Firm But some data received this month challenge our economic narrative. Specifically, September’s drop in the ISM Non-Manufacturing PMI from 56.4 to 52.6 and the year-over-year decline in the Conference Board’s survey of consumer confidence (Chart 1). Both are sending tentative signals that economic weakness might be spreading from the manufacturing sector into the broader U.S. economy. The Fed is worried about the same thing, as evidenced by this passage from the September FOMC minutes: One risk that the economy faced was that the softness recorded of late in firms’ capital formation, manufacturing, and exporting activities might spread to their hiring decisions, with adverse implications for household income and spending. Participants observed that such an eventuality was not embedded in their baseline outlook; however, a couple of them indicated that this was partly because they assumed that an appropriate adjustment to the policy rate path would help forestall that eventuality. This passage makes two important points. First, it stresses the risk of contagion from manufacturing into services and consumer spending as a precondition for recession. This risk has clearly increased, but we are not yet ready to abandon our base case outlook. For one thing, Chart 1 shows that the ISM Non-Manufacturing survey printed at 51.8 for one month in 2016, before rebounding sharply. Second, the “hard” economic data paint a much rosier picture that the “soft” survey data (Chart 2). Industrial production has already bounced off its lows and, unlike the ISM Manufacturing PMI, has not yet approached 2015/16 levels. Similarly, new orders for capital goods are much stronger than during the 2015/16 period. As for consumer spending, it continues to grow at a rapid pace despite the drop in confidence. Chart 3Expect One Rate Cut In October The most logical explanation for the divergence between “hard” and “soft” data is that business and consumer sentiment are being pulled down by concerns about the ongoing trade war. Our sense is that some positive news on that front is now required to bring the survey data back into line with the “hard” numbers. On that note, we anticipate that the looming 2020 election will provide enough incentive for President Trump to reach some sort of détente with China. In fact, as we go to press, optimism about a potential trade deal has pushed the 10-year Treasury yield up above 1.70%. If this optimism is not vindicated, then weak survey data will eventually drag the “hard” data lower. The economy is at a critical and highly uncertain juncture. Amidst so much uncertainty, and with so much hinging on near-term political decisions, how should we expect the Fed to respond? The above passage from the September FOMC minutes gives us a strong clue. It illustrates that the Fed believes that sufficiently accommodative monetary policy will help mitigate the risk of contagion from manufacturing into services and consumer spending. In other words, the Fed must help weather the current storm by ensuring that financial conditions remain supportive. This means refraining from delivering hawkish surprises to market expectations.1 The Fed believes that sufficiently accommodative monetary policy will help mitigate the risk of contagion from manufacturing into services and consumer spending. With that in mind, we note that the market has mostly priced-in an October rate cut (Chart 3), and we expect the Fed to deliver on that expectation. Assuming an October cut, the market is only pricing-in a 28% chance of another cut in December. Overall, the market is priced for 59 basis points of rate cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate a 25 bps cut this month, followed by an improvement in the economic data that will make further cuts unnecessary. Bottom Line: Our late-1990s & 2015/16 roadmap for the economy still holds, but risks are mounting. Despite the risks, we expect that trade tensions will calm enough for the economic data to improve during the next few months. The result will be one more Fed rate cut this month, followed by an extended on-hold period. Investors should keep portfolio duration low in that environment. High-Yield Quality Spreads: Less Than Meets The Eye Corporate bonds have generally performed quite well this year, but oddly, the lowest tier of junk has not kept pace (Chart 4). Investment grade excess returns have followed a typical risk-on pattern. That is, the lowest rated / riskiest credit tiers have performed best in a bull market. However, in the high-yield space, Caa-rated debt has bucked the trend and actually underperformed the duration-matched Treasury index by 33 bps. Chart 4Caa-Rated Junk Is Not Keeping Pace Is this a potentially worrying sign for corporate spreads more generally? To consider the question, we looked at the historical relationships between quality spreads – the spread differential between low-rated and high-rated credit tiers – and the overall index spreads for both investment grade and high-yield. We found a strong positive correlation in both cases, but no leading or lagging properties. That is, quality spreads tend to follow the same trend as the overall index spread, but do not flag signs of trouble before the overall index. Nonetheless, the current divergence between the Caa/Ba quality spread and the high-yield index spread is highly unusual (Chart 5). Our sense, however, is that the divergence has less to do with concerns about credit quality and more to do with this year’s large moves in Treasury yields and changes to bond index duration. Chart 5De-Coupling In Quality Spreads... Chart 6...Is Due To Duration   Specifically, we note that this year’s large decline in Treasury yields has caused junk index duration to plunge, but the drop has been greater for the Ba credit tier than the Caa credit tier (Chart 6). Ba index duration has fallen by 0.8 this year (from 4.4 to 3.5), while Caa index duration has fallen by 0.6 (3.4 to 2.8). The result is that if we control for changes in duration by looking at a 12-month breakeven spread instead of the average index option-adjusted spread (OAS), we see that the quality spread widening is roughly consistent with the overall index (Chart 6, panel 3).2 In other words, the steep drop in Treasury yields has not led to the same reduction in risk in the Caa credit tier as it has in the other junk credit tiers. Caa spreads have widened on a relative basis, as a result. This year’s large decline in Treasury yields has caused junk index duration to plunge. It’s also interesting to note that the opposite dynamic is afoot within the investment grade corporate space. The Baa/Aa quality spread is more or less consistent with the overall index spread in OAS terms (Chart 5, top panel), but the quality spread widening is exacerbated when the impact of changing duration is considered (Chart 6, panels 1 & 2). That is, index duration has lengthened by more for the upper credit tiers than it has for the Baa credit tier. This makes Baa corporates look particularly attractive in risk-adjusted terms, as we have noted in prior research.3 From a big picture perspective, it is unusual for Treasury yields to fall so much without a concurrent widening in credit risk premiums. Eventually, this anomaly will be resolved by either: Higher Treasury yields in the event that recession is avoided, or Wider credit spreads in the event of a contraction in U.S. economic activity But in the meantime, negatively convex sectors such as high-yield corporates and Agency MBS look particularly attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. These sectors have benefited from the drop in Treasury yields by seeing their durations fall. They should perform well as long as the current environment of low Treasury yields and stable credit spreads persists. We take a more detailed look at the prospects for risk-adjusted performance within the different investment grade bond sectors in the next section. Risk And Reward In Investment Grade Bond Sectors As mentioned above, in this week’s report we present a novel approach for considering the risk/reward trade-off between different investment grade sectors of the U.S. bond market. We consider 23 sectors in total: 4 corporate credit tiers Conventional 30-year Agency MBS and Agency CMBS Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS, credit card ABS and auto loan ABS Domestic and Foreign Agency bonds Supranationals Local Authority bonds (mostly taxable munis and USD-denominated Canadian provincial debt) USD-denominated Sovereign bonds for 10 different emerging markets Reward First, we consider the reward side of the equation. We do not impose any macro view, but instead, use the average index OAS as the best estimate for each sector’s 12-month expected excess returns relative to a duration-matched position in Treasuries. Chart 7 shows the expected excess returns for each sector. Right away, the attractiveness of Mexican sovereign debt is apparent. Mexico carries an A rating, but offers a greater spread than the Baa corporate index. Chart 7Expected Returns Risk We decided to assess risk using a breakeven spread framework. We calculate a 12-month breakeven spread for each sector. This spread represents the basis point spread widening required for each sector to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasury securities on a 12-month horizon. We calculate the breakeven spread using the following equation: 0 = OAS – D(B) + 0.5*CVXs*(dYs)2 - 0.5*CVXT*(dYT)2 Where: OAS = the sector’s option-adjusted spread D = the sector’s duration B = the breakeven spread CVXs = the sector’s convexity CVXT = the convexity of a duration-matched Treasury security dYs = trailing 1-year volatility of the sector’s yield dYT = trailing 1-year volatility of the duration-matched Treasury yield Chart 8 shows each sector’s 12-month breakeven spread, and it illustrates that the breakeven spread is a sub-optimal measure of risk. In theory, the highest breakeven spreads should be the least likely to see losses, but this is obviously not the case. Baa-rated South African Sovereign debt carries the largest breakeven spread, but it should be among the riskiest of the sectors. Chart 812-Month Breakeven Spreads The missing piece of the puzzle is spread volatility. South African sovereign spreads need to widen by 39 bps before losses are incurred, while Aaa-rated credit card ABS spreads only need to widen by 13 bps. However, if spread volatility is much higher for South African sovereigns than for credit card ABS, then the sovereign sector still might be more likely to see losses. To control for this difference we calculate the standard deviation of annual spread changes for each sector, starting from May 2014 when all sectors have available data. We then divide each sector’s breakeven spread by the result. This calculation gives us a volatility-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread. In other words, it is the number of standard deviations of spread widening required for each sector to see losses on a 12-month horizon (Chart 9). Chart 912-Month Volatility-Adjusted Breakeven Spreads Risk & Reward We bring risk and reward together in Charts 10-12. Chart 10 shows expected returns on the y-axis and the vol-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread on the x-axis. Sectors plotting near the top-right of the chart give the best returns and lowest risk of losses, while sectors plotting near the bottom-left provide low expected returns and high risk of losses. Immediately, Saudi Arabian sovereigns and Foreign Agency debt stand out as offering high expected returns for their risk levels. Note that South African sovereigns plot off the charts, toward the top-left of Charts 10-12, as indicated by the arrows. Chart 10Expected Returns Vs. Risk Of Negative Excess Returns Chart 11Expected Returns Vs. Risk Of Losing 100 BPs Chart 12Expected Returns Vs. Risk Of Losing 200 BPs In Charts 11 and 12 we make one further refinement to our risk measure. In these charts, instead of calculating 12-month breakeven spreads, we calculate the spread change necessary for each sector to underperform Treasuries by 100 bps and 200 bps, respectively. Saudi Arabian sovereigns and Foreign Agency debt stand out as offering high expected returns for their risk levels. This adjustment arguably gives a more useful perspective on risk. For example, because spreads are quite narrow in the Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors, the risk of negative returns versus Treasuries is quite elevated. However, these sectors also carry high credit ratings and low spread volatility, making it exceedingly unlikely that they would deliver losses of 100 bps or more. Considering Charts 11 and 12, we look for sectors that clearly dominate other ones, i.e. plotting both higher and further to the right. Once again, Foreign Agencies and Saudi Arabian sovereigns both look very appealing. Mexican sovereign debt also offers very high expected return, and less risk that the Baa corporate sector. We would also like to point out the attractiveness of Agency MBS. As we noted in a recent report, Agency MBS offer considerably less risk than high-rated corporate debt, and similar expected returns. Note that this analysis doesn’t impose any macroeconomic view, and our sense is that the macro back-drop is more favorable for MBS spreads than for corporates.4 All in all, we reiterate our recommendation to favor Agency MBS over Aaa-, Aa- and A-rated corporate bonds. We will continue to refine this approach to measuring the risk/reward trade-off in the coming weeks, including incorporating high-yield debt into our analysis. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For further discussion on this topic please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Act As Appropriate”, dated August 27, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. It can be approximated by dividing the option-adjusted spread by duration, as is done in Chart 6. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights In this Weekly Report, we present our semi-annual chartbook of the BCA Central Bank Monitors. All of the Monitors are now below the zero line, indicating a growing need to ease global monetary policy (Chart of the Week). Central bankers have already gone down that path in several countries over the past few months (the U.S., the euro area, Australia and New Zealand), helping sustain the powerful 2019 rally in global bond markets. Feature With the global manufacturing & trade downturn now threatening to spill over into domestic demand in the major developed markets, policymakers will need to stay dovish to stave off recession. This will keep global bond yields at depressed levels in the near term, at least until widely-followed data like manufacturing PMIs stabilize and/or there is positive news on U.S.-China trade negotiations. Chart of the WeekStrong Pressures To Ease Global Monetary Policy Yields already discount a lot of bad economic news, however, and there is a ray of hope visible in the bottoming out of our global leading economic indicator. A sustainable bottom in global bond yields, though, will require some change in the current downward growth or inflation momentum highlighted in our Central Bank Monitors. Yields already discount a lot of bad economic news, however, and there is a ray of hope visible in the bottoming out of our global leading economic indicator. A sustainable bottom in global bond yields, though, will require some change in the current downward growth or inflation momentum highlighted in our Central Bank Monitors.  An Overview Of The BCA Central Bank Monitors* Chart 2Low Bond Yields Are Consistent With Our CB Monitors The BCA Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators designed to measure the cyclical growth and inflation pressures that can influence future monetary policy decisions. The economic data series used to construct the Monitors are not the same for every country, but the list of indicators generally measure the same things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand strength, commodity prices, labor market conditions, exchange rates, etc). The data series are standardized and combined to form the Monitors. Readings above the zero line for each Monitor indicate pressures for central banks to raise interest rates, and vice versa. Through the nexus between growth, inflation, and market expectations of future interest rate changes, the Monitors do exhibit broad correlations to government bond yields in the Developed Markets (Chart 2). All of the Monitors are currently pointing in a bond-bullish direction, making them less useful as a country allocation tool within global bond portfolios. With easing pressures most intense in the euro area, given that the ECB Monitor has the lowest reading, our recommended overweight stance on core euro area government bonds (hedged into U.S. dollars) remains well supported. In each BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, we include a new chart for each country that we have not shown previously. In this edition, we show the components of the Monitors, grouped into those focusing on economic growth and inflation, plotted against our central bank discounters that indicate the amount of rate cuts/hikes priced into global Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves. Fed Monitor: Signaling A Need For More Cuts Our Fed Monitor has fallen below the zero line (Chart 3A), indicating that the Fed’s summer rate cuts were justified with more easing still required. The Monitor, however, has not yet fallen to levels seen during U.S. recessions and is more consistent with the below-trend growth periods in 2016 and the late-1990s. The views of the FOMC on U.S. monetary policy are more deeply divided now than has been seen in many years. The doves can point to slumping global growth, persistent trade uncertainty, contracting capital spending and falling inflation expectations as reasons to continue cutting rates. The hawks can look at continued labor market tightness, elevated asset prices and realized inflation rates holding near the Fed’s 2% inflation target (Chart 3B) as reasons to keep monetary policy steady. That mixed picture can be seen in the components of our Fed Monitor, with the growth components showing the biggest pressure for more rate cuts compared to more stable readings from the inflation and financial components (Chart 3C). Chart 3AU.S.: Fed Monitor Chart 3BU.S. Realized Inflation Holding Firm Chart 3CGreatest Pressure For Fed Rate Cuts From Growth Components Of Our Fed Monitor The U.S. Treasury market may have gotten ahead of itself after the latest decline in yields, which looks stretched versus the Fed Monitor. The U.S. Treasury market may have gotten ahead of itself after the latest decline in yields, which looks stretched versus the Fed Monitor (Chart 3D). We still expect the Fed to deliver just one more rate cut at the FOMC meeting at the end of October, as the “hard” U.S. data is outpeforming the “soft” data like the weak ISM surveys. That leaves Treasury yields vulnerable to some rebound if global growth stabilizes, although that is conditional on no new breakdown of the U.S.-China trade negotiations – a factor that continues to weigh on U.S. business confidence. Chart 3DTreasury Yields More Than Fully Discount Fed Easing Pressures BoE Monitor: Easier Policy Needed Our Bank of England (BoE) Monitor, which was in the “tighter money required” zone from 2016-18, has been below the zero line since April of this year (Chart 4A). The market agrees with the message from the Monitor and is now pricing in -12bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months. The relentless uncertainty surrounding Brexit has triggered sharp downgrades of growth expectations and weakened business confidence, which the BoE is now factoring into its own projections. In the August Inflation Report, the BoE lowered its 2020 inflation forecast to below 2% - no surprise given the sharp fall in realized inflation that has already occurred even as economic growth has still not yet fallen substantially below trend (Chart 4B). Chart 4AU.K.: BoE Monitor Chart 4BFalling U.K. Inflation Opens The Door To A BoE Ease Still, weakening growth components have been the main driver of the BoE Monitor into rate cut territory (Chart 4C). While a strong jobs market is helping support consumer spending, the Brexit turmoil is having a lasting impact on future growth. Since the 2016 Brexit referendum, business confidence and real business investment have collapsed which, in turn, has hurt productivity growth, as we discussed in a Special Report last month.1 Chart 4CBrexit Uncertainty + Slumping Growth = Pressure For BoE Rate Cuts The uncertainty around Brexit dominates the economic outlook and any future BoE decisions. Our Geopolitical Strategy service anticipates that Brexit will be delayed beyond October 31st. As a result, uncertainty will continue to weigh on Gilt yields, even though yields have already fallen in line with our BoE Monitor (Chart 4D). We continue to recommend an overweight stance on U.K. Gilts. Chart 4DGilt Yields Have Fallen In Line With Our BoE Monitor ECB Monitor: Intense Pressure For Easier Monetary Policy Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor is now well below the zero line, signaling a strong need for easier monetary policy (Chart 5A). The global manufacturing downturn has hit the export-dependent economies of the euro area hard, with Germany now likely in a technical recession. Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor is now well below the zero line, signaling a strong need for easier monetary policy. Despite the weaker growth momentum, there remains far less spare capacity in the euro area economy than at any time since before the 2009 global recession (Chart 5B). This is keeping realized inflation in positive territory, in contrast to what was seen during the previous downturn in 2015-16. Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BEuro Area Inflation Is Subdued, Despite Tight Labor Markets The ECB has already responded to the weakening growth & inflation pressures, introducing a new TLTRO program back in March and then cutting the overnight deposit rate and restarting its Asset Purchase Program in September. The latest policy moves were reported to be more contentious, with the “hard money” northern euro area countries opposed to restarting bond purchases. The new incoming ECB President, Christine Lagarde, will likely have her hands full trying to gain consensus on any further easing measures from here, even as both the growth and inflation components of our ECB Monitor indicate that more stimulus is needed (Chart 5C). Chart 5CA Consistent Message On The Need For Future ECB Easing From Growth & Inflation The big decline in euro area bond yields, which has pushed large swaths of sovereign yields into negative territory, does not look particularly stretched relative to the plunge in the ECB Monitor (Chart 5D). Without signs that the global manufacturing downturn is ending, however, euro area yields will stay mired at current deeply depressed levels. We recommend a moderate overweight on core European government bonds, on a currency-hedged basis into U.S. dollars. Chart 5DBund Rally Looks In Line With The ECB Monitor BoJ Monitor: A Rate Cut On The Horizon? Our Bank of Japan (BoJ) Monitor has drifted slightly below the zero line into “rate cut required” territory (Chart 6A). Over the past few years, the BoJ’s monetary policy has remained unchanged for the most part and its messaging has grown less dovish, citing an expanding economy. However, recent Japanese economic data shows widespread deterioration in growth momentum, as the nation has been hit hard by the global manufacturing and trade recession. Yet even with weaker growth, Japan’s unemployment rate keeps hitting all-time lows. This has not helped boost inflation much, though, with Japan’s CPI inflation still struggling to reach even the 1% level (Chart 6B). Still, the latest leg lower in our BoJ Monitor has been driven by the growth, rather than inflation, components (Chart 6C). Chart 6AJapan: BoJ Monitor Chart 6BNo Spare Capacity In Japan, But Still No Inflation Weakening confidence has resulted in significant declines in both consumer spending and business investment. Due to the struggling domestic economy, it was expected that the Abe government would postpone the scheduled consumption tax hike, but it was finally initiated on October 1st. The timing could not be worse given the ongoing contraction in global manufacturing and trade activity that has clearly spilled over into Japan’s export and industrially-focused economy. Chart 6CThe Slumping Japanese Economy Could Use Some More BoJ Assistance The BoJ will likely try and deliver some sort of easing in the next few months, but its options are limited after years of already hyper-easy policy. A modest rate cut is likely all that will be delivered, on top of a continuation of the Yield Curve Control policy. That will be enough to keep JGB yields at depressed levels (Chart 6D), even if global yields were to begin climbing. Chart 6DJGB Yields Look Fairly Valued Vs The BoJ Monitor BoC Monitor: Rate Cuts Needed, But Will The BoC Deliver? The Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has been below zero since April of this year, indicating a need for easier monetary policy (Chart 7A). Although the BoC has maintained its policy rate at 1.75%, dovish Fed policy and softening domestic economic growth are making it harder for the BoC to continue sitting on its hands Although the Canadian labor market remains solid, household consumption has continued to weaken alongside falling consumer confidence. However, the inflation rate for both headline and core CPI measures is still hovering near the mid-point of BoC 1-3% target range (Chart 7B). Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BRising Inflation Making The BoC’s Job Harder At the moment, our BoC Monitor is more influenced by weaker growth components than stabilizing inflation components (Chart 7C). Similar mixed messages are also evident in other data. According to the latest BoC Business Outlook Survey, the overall outlook has edged up to the historical average,2 but real capex growth remains in negative territory and manufacturing new orders are still falling. In contrast, the Canadian labor market remains tight and both wage and price inflation are holding firm. Chart 7CBoC Growth & Inflation Components Signaling Moderate Pressure To Ease Canadian government bonds have rallied strongly this year, but the yield momentum has appeared to overshoot the decline in our BoC Monitor (Chart 7D). The Canadian OIS curve is discounting -27bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months, but the BoC is not signaling that they will ease. We upgraded our recommended stance on Canadian government bonds to neutral back in May, and we see no need to alter that view without further evidence of more deterioration in Canadian growth or inflation data.3 Chart 7DCanadian Bond Rally Looks A Bit Stretched RBA Monitor: Expect Another Cut The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor has been below the zero line since September 2018, indicating a need for easier monetary policy (Chart 8A). The RBA has already delivered on that signal this year, cutting the Cash Rate twice to an all-time low of 0.75%. Markets are still expecting more, with the Australian OIS curve discounting another -29bps of cuts over the next year, although most of those cuts are expected to occur within the next six months. The signal from our RBA Monitor suggests that Australian bond yields should remain under downward pressure, although the yield momentum has been excessive relative to the fall in the Monitor. Both headline and core CPI inflation remain below the RBA’s 2-3% target range (Chart 8B), and the central bank continues to lower its inflation forecasts, suggesting an entrenched dovish bias. Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BNo Inflation For The RBA To Worry About The latest downturn in our RBA Monitor is related to declines in both the inflation and growth components (Chart 8C). The weakness in the growth components is led by falling exports to Asia, in addition to the sharp drop in house prices in the major cities. The fall in the inflation components reflects both weak inflation expectations and spare capacity in labor markets. Chart 8CA Loud & Clear Message On The Need For RBA Easing The signal from our RBA Monitor suggests that Australian bond yields should remain under downward pressure, although the yield momentum has been excessive relative to the fall in the Monitor (Chart 8D). Australia’s economy will not begin to outperform again, however, until China’s current growth slump starts to bottom out, which is unlikely to occur until the first quarter of 2020 at the earliest. Thus, we expect the RBA to deliver another rate cut before the end of the year, justifying a continued overweight stance on Australian government bonds. Chart 8DA Lot Of Bad News Discounted In Australian Bond Yields RBNZ Monitor: More Easing To Come Our Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) monitor remains well below zero, indicating that easier monetary policy is still required (Chart 9A). The central bank has already delivered two rate cuts this year: a -25bps cut in May and, more importantly, a shock rate cut of -50bps in August. Forward guidance remains dovish, with RBNZ Governor Adrian Orr signaling more easing is likely and even hinting at negative rates in the future. This rhetoric is reflected in the NZ OIS curve, which is pricing in a further -42bps of easing over the next twelve months. High inflation is not a constraint for the RBNZ. Both headline and core measures of inflation are currently at 1.7% (Chart 9B). As the RBNZ targets a 1-3% range over the medium term, the prospect of overshooting the 2% longer-term target will not restrict policymakers from acting as appropriate to boost growth. Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BNZ Inflation Creeping Higher Most of the pressure to ease has come from the continued deterioration in the growth component of our RBNZ Monitor (Chart 9C), reflecting weakness in manufacturing and consumption. The manufacturing PMI is currently in contractionary territory at 48.4, having fallen almost five points since February of this year. Annual growth in retail sales has been slowing for the past two years while consumer confidence is at 7-year lows. Chart 9CWeak Growth Is The Reason RBNZ Rate Cuts Are Needed We feel confident in reiterating our bullish recommendation on NZ government bonds versus U.S. and German sovereign debt. The RBNZ Monitor suggests that policy will stay dovish for some time, while NZ yields still offer a relatively attractive yield, unlike deeply overbought Treasuries and Bunds (Chart 9D). Chart 9DStill A Bullish Case For New Zealand Government Bonds Riksbank Monitor: Watching And Waiting Our Riksbank Monitor remains very slightly below zero and the market is currently priced for -4bps of rate cuts over the next year (Chart 10A). The Riksbank has decided to hold the Repo Rate constant at -0.25% while forecasting a hike towards the end of this year or the beginning of 2020. Given the policy environment, rate cuts remain unlikely. At most, the Riksbank can further delay rate hikes if the data continues to disappoint. The Riksbank noted in its September Monetary Policy Report that the unexpectedly weak development of the labor market indicates that resource utilization will normalize sooner than expected. This is reflected in Chart 10B, where the unemployment gap is now negative. Meanwhile, inflation readings are giving a mixed signal for the central bank. While the headline CPI measure has declined precipitously year-to-date, owing to the dramatic fall in oil prices, core inflation has continued to climb steadily. Chart 10ASweden: Riksbank Monitor Chart 10BMixed Messages From Swedish Inflation As a result, the inflation components of our Riksbank monitor - driven by a spike in the Citigroup Inflation Surprise Index, wage growth hooking upward and inflation expectations holding firm around 2% - are signaling the need for tighter monetary policy (Chart 10C). However, the growth components – led by weak exports, employment, and manufacturing data - are exerting pressure in the opposite direction. This is evident in the Swedish Manufacturing PMI, which tumbled from 51.8 to 46.3 in September, deep into contractionary territory. Chart 10CThere Is A Reason Why The Riksbank Has Been On Hold Keeping in mind the inflation constraint, it remains unlikely that the Riksbank will cut rates unless the economic data disappoints more significantly to the downside. This should help put a floor under Swedish bond yields in the near term (Chart 10D). Chart 10DSwedish Yields Have Fallen Too Far, Too Fast Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com   Shakti Sharma Research Associate shaktis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes * NOTE: All information in this report reflects our knowledge of global events as of Thursday, October 10. 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report “United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise?” dated September 20, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2019/06/business-outlook-survey-summer-2019/ 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Weekly Report, “Reconcilable Differences” dated May 8, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

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

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

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

ハイライト 欧州および世界の成長は第4四半期に反発するが、その反発は長続きしないだろう。 債券：債券利回りはわずかに上昇すると予想され、特に深くマイナス圏にある利回りがそうである。欧州または世界の債券ポートフォリオではドイツ国債をアンダーウェイトする。 通貨：ゼロ／マイナス利回りの通貨が最も上昇余地を持ち、我々の選好は引き続き円である。 株式：成長とバリュエーションの綱引きにより、広範な株式市場指数は横ばいチャネルにとどまるだろう。しかし利回りがより高いため、債券より株式を優先する。 株式セクター：中国以外の景気循環株が中国関連株をアウトパフォームするだろう。資源および／または工業セクターに対して銀行を引き続きオーバーウェイトする。 株式地域：ユーロストックス50を上海総合指数および／または日経225に対して引き続きオーバーウェイトする。 特集 快適さと不快感は絶対的なものではなく相対的なものである。手を冷たい水に入れると、それが快適に感じるか不快に感じるかは、手がどこから来たかによる。室温から来た手なら冷たい水は不快に感じられるだろう。しかしもし手が氷水から来たなら、冷たい水は至福に感じられるだろう！ 同じ原理が、我々や金融市場が短期的な経済成長をどのように認識するかにも当てはまる。強い拡大の後では、年率1％の穏やかな成長率は不快に感じられる。しかし経済収縮の後では、1％の成長は非常に心地よく感じられる。 ここから重要な点が二つ導かれる： 短期的には、市場は成長率そのものよりも、成長率が加速しているのか減速しているのかを重視する。 成長の短期的なドライバー、すなわち債券利回り、クレジット、そして原油価格については、それらの単なる変化ではなく、それらの変化の変化、すなわちインパルスに注目しなければならない。なぜなら、債券利回り、クレジット、原油価格のインパルスが経済成長の加速や減速を引き起こし、しばしば数ヶ月の先行性を持つからである。 今週のチャートとチャート I-1–I-4を組み合わせれば疑いはない。ユーロ圏、米国、中国では、国内債券利回りの6か月インパルスが国内の6か月クレジットインパルスをほぼ完璧な精度で先導してきた。 今週のチャート 信用成長は第4四半期に反発、その後減速する クレジットの伸びは第4四半期に回復、その後は鈍化する クレジットの伸びは第4四半期に回復、その後は鈍化する チャート I-2 ユーロ圏の債券利回りインパルスは信用インパルスをリードする ユーロ圏の債券利回りインパルスはクレジット・インパルスに先行する ユーロ圏の債券利回りインパルスはクレジット・インパルスに先行する チャート I-3 米国の債券利回りインパルスは信用インパルスをリードする 米国の債券利回りインパルスは同国のクレジット・インパルスに先行している 米国の債券利回りインパルスは同国のクレジット・インパルスに先行している チャート I-4 中国の債券利回りインパルスは信用インパルスをリードする 中国の債券利回りインパルスはクレジット・インパルスに先行する 中国の債券利回りインパルスはクレジット・インパルスに先行する このほぼ完璧な精度に基づけば、ユーロ圏と米国の信用インパルスは第4四半期に短期間反発するはずである。しかし中国では、反発はほとんど、あるいは全く期待できない。ユーロ圏と米国では債券利回りが急落し、それが信用インパルスに追い風をもたらしたが、中国では動きが小さかった。実際、中国の債券利回りの6か月インパルスは過去数か月でむしろ逆風領域へと深まっている（チャート I-5）。 チャート I-5 ユーロ圏と米国では債券利回りインパルスが追い風だったが、中国ではそうではない 債券利回りのインパルスはユーロ圏と米国では追い風だったが、中国ではそうではなかった 債券利回りのインパルスはユーロ圏と米国では追い風だったが、中国ではそうではなかった したがって、第4四半期の信用成長の反発は中国ではなく欧州と米国に起因するだろう。戦術的には、これは中国以外の景気循環株を中国株より有利にする。しかし2020年前半にかけては、債券利回りが今後あらゆる地域で非常に急落しない限り、主要経済圏全てで信用インパルスは薄れていくと予想する。 インパルスに基づく投資 多くの人にとって、債券利回り、クレジット、原油価格の変化ではなくインパルスが経済成長の加速・減速を駆動するという点は混乱を招く。混乱を解消するために、その点を明確にしよう。 ユーロ圏と米国の信用インパルスは第4四半期に短期間反発するはずだ。 債券利回りの低下は新たな借入を誘発する。例えば、米国の債券利回りが0.5％低下すると、住宅ローン申請件数が一定程度増加する（チャート I-6）。新規借入は需要を押し上げ、成長を生む。しかし次期にさらに0.5％低下しても、同じ程度の新規借入と成長を生むだけであり、重要な点は利回りの低下が同じであれば成長は加速しないということである。 チャート I-6 一定の債券利回り低下は一定の新規借入増加を引き起こす 債券利回りの一定の低下は新規借入の一定の増加を引き起こす 債券利回りの一定の低下は新規借入の一定の増加を引き起こす 最初の0.5％の利回り低下に続いて、より大きな例えば0.6％の低下が起これば成長は加速する――これは追い風インパルスを意味する。逆に直感に反して、最初の0.5％の低下に続いて0.4％のようなより小さな低下が続けば、成長は減速する――これは逆風インパルスを意味する。 ドイツの景気後退を自動車のせいにするな チャート I-7 ドイツの自動車生産は第3四半期に反発した ドイツの自動車生産は第3四半期に反発した ドイツの自動車生産は第3四半期に反発した もしドイツ経済が第3四半期に縮小し、いわゆるテクニカル・リセッションに入れば、反射的に自動車産業の問題が原因だと非難されるだろう。しかし証拠はその説明を支持していない。ドイツの新車生産は第3四半期に反発した（チャート I-7）。問うべきは：もし自動車でないとすれば、減速の真の原因は何か、である。 もっともらしい答えは、ドイツは最近、原油価格インパルスから深刻な逆風を受けたということだ。ドイツはGDP単位当たりの道路交通量が世界で非常に高く、米国に次いで2番目である（表 I-1）。ドイツの高い交通強度の説明として考えられるのは、米国と同様にドイツが複数のハブとスポークを持つ分散型経済であり、交通の交差が多いことだろう。しかし米国とは異なり、ドイツの輸送は原油輸入に大きく依存しており、これらは代替が難しく価格に対して非常に非弾力的である。原油価格と歩調を合わせてドイツの原油輸入の価値が上昇すると、ドイツの純輸出は減少し、成長を押し下げる。 表 I-1 ドイツはGDP単位当たりの道路交通強度が非常に高い 成長は第4四半期に持ち直すが、2020年に失速する 成長は第4四半期に持ち直すが、2020年に失速する   要するに、原油価格インパルスはドイツの短期的な成長の加速と減速に大きな影響を与えている。2019年6月ごろまでの6か月期間は深刻な逆風インパルスに相当した。これは、その期間の原油価格が30％上昇したが、直前の6か月期間では40％下落しており、合わせて70％の逆風インパルスに相当するからである。1  ドイツはGDP単位当たりの道路交通量が世界で非常に高い国の一つである。 通常の数か月のラグを考慮すると、この深刻な逆風インパルスはドイツの最近の減速に大きく寄与した。原油価格の6か月インパルスの振動は、ドイツの6か月経済成長の振動を不気味なほどの精度で説明している（チャート I-8）。良いニュースは、原油価格の深刻な逆風インパルスが緩和され、第4四半期にドイツ経済成長の反発を可能にしたことだ。 チャート I-8 原油価格インパルスがドイツの成長変動を説明する 原油価格のインパルスがドイツの成長の変動を説明する 原油価格のインパルスがドイツの成長の変動を説明する それでも、想定される反発はワイルドカード、すなわち「地政学的リスクインパルス」によって無効化される可能性がある。明確にしておくと、これは技術的な意味でのインパルスではないが、類似の概念である：潜在的なテールイベントの数が増えているのか減っているのか。第4四半期について我々の主観的な答えは、それらは減少している、である。 欧州では、イタリアでの新しい連立政権の形成が当面の間イタリア政治をテールイベントの候補から外した。一方、英国ではベン・バート法案が10月31日の合意なきブレグジットを排除するのに十分に起草されたと我々は想定する。他方、米中貿易戦争や中東の緊張は第4四半期を通じて停滞状態にある可能性が高い。 第4四半期のポジショニング 世界および欧州の成長が第3四半期に失望的であった後、我々は第4四半期の反発を期待する。しかし現時点では、その反発の勢いが2020年深くまで続くと確信するには至っていない。第4四半期に向けたポジショニングは以下の通りである： 第4四半期の反発を期待する。 債券： 債券利回りはわずかに上昇すると予想され、特に深くマイナス圏にある利回りがそうである。欧州あるいは世界の債券ポートフォリオではドイツ国債をアンダーウェイトする。 通貨： ゼロ／マイナス利回りの通貨が最も上昇余地を持ち、我々の選好は引き続き円である。ブレグジットの決着が付けば、ポンドが最大の動き手となる可能性があり、我々の印象は上方向である。ただし実行する前により明確な状況を待つ。 株式： 成長とバリュエーションの綱引きにより、広範な株式市場指数は過去2年間に存在している横ばいレンジにとどまるだろう（チャート I-9）。しかし債券より利回りが高いため、醜い対決では株式を優先する。 株式セクター： 中国以外の景気循環株が中国関連株をアウトパフォームするだろう。資源および／または工業に対して銀行を引き続きオーバーウェイトする。 株式地域： ユーロストックス50を上海総合指数および／または日経225に対して引き続きオーバーウェイトする（チャート I-10）。 チャート I-9 グローバル株式はここ2年間ほとんど動いていない グローバル・エクイティはこの2年間ほとんど動いていない グローバル・エクイティはこの2年間ほとんど動いていない チャート I-10 引き続き欧州をオーバーウェイトする ##br## 中国に対して 中国に対してヨーロッパを引き続きオーバーウェイトで保つ 中国に対してヨーロッパを引き続きオーバーウェイトで保つ   フラクタル・トレーディング・システム* ニッケル価格の最近の急騰は供給混乱、特にインドネシアの輸出禁止に関する懸念によるものである。しかし、その上昇幅はテクニカルに過熱しているように見える。これを金とのペアトレードとして表現する：金ロング／ニッケルショート。 チャート I-11 ニッケル対金 ニッケル VS. ゴールド ニッケル VS. ゴールド 利食い目標を11％に設定し、対称的なストップロスを適用する。 いかなる投資においても、過度のトレンド追随やグループシンクが自然な不安定点に達すると、外的な触媒の有無にかかわらず既存のトレンドが崩壊しやすくなる。初期の警告サインは、投資のフラクタル次元がその自然な下限に近づくことである。励みになることに、このトリガーはあらゆる資産クラスにわたるさまざまな規模の逆トレンド・ムーブを一貫して特定してきた。 2016年6月9日以降のフラクタルトレーディング・モデルのルールは次の通りである： 投資が確立されたトレンドにある状態でフラクタル次元が下限に近づくと、それは流動性によるトレンド反転の潜在的トリガーである。したがって、逆トレンドのポジションを建てる。 利食い目標は直前13週間の動きの3分の1の反転幅とする。対称的なストップロスを適用する。 利食い目標またはストップロスでポジションをクローズする。そうでなければ13週間後にポジションをクローズする。 リスク管理にはポジションサイズの倍率を用いる。リスクが高いポジションほどポジションサイズは小さくする。 * 詳細はヨーロピアン・インベストメント・ストラテジー特別レポート「フラクタル、流動性 & トレーディング・モデル」（2014年12月11日付）を参照。eis.bcaresearch.comで入手可能である。 Dhaval Joshi, チーフ 欧州インベストメント・ストラテジスト dhaval@bcaresearch.com フットノート 1 WTI原油価格の6か月ステップは$74.15、$45.21、$58.24であった。最初の変化は40％の下落に相当し、二番目の変化は30％の上昇に相当した。したがって6か月インパルスは70％であった。 フラクタル・トレーディング・モデル 景気循環向け推奨 構造的推奨 終了したフラクタルトレード トレード 終了したトレード 資産パフォーマンス 通貨＆債券 株式セクター 国別株式 指標 債券利回り チャート II-1 注目指標 - 債券利回り 注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り 注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り チャート II-2 注目指標 - 債券利回り 注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り 注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り チャート II-3 注目指標 - 債券利回り 注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り 注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り チャート II-4 注目指標 - 債券利回り 注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り 注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り   金利 チャート II-5 注目指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し チャート II-6 注目指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し チャート II-7 注目指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利期待 注目すべき指標 - 金利期待 チャート II-8 注目指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し