Inflation Protected

Highlights Chart 1Manufacturing PMIs Track Bond Yields November’s manufacturing PMI data were released yesterday, giving us an update for two of our preferred global growth indicators: the Global Manufacturing PMI and the US ISM Manufacturing PMI (Chart 1). Unfortunately, the two indicators sent conflicting signals, providing us with very little clarity on the global growth outlook. On the positive side, the Global Manufacturing PMI jumped back above 50 for the first time since April. China is the largest weighting in the global index, and its PMI rose for the fifth consecutive month. Conversely, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI dipped further into contractionary territory in November – from 48.3 to 48.1. Optimistically, the index’s inventory component contracted by more than the new orders component, meaning that the difference between new orders and inventories rose to its highest level since May. The difference between new orders and inventories often leads the overall ISM index by several months. All in all, we continue to see tentative signs of stabilization in our preferred global growth indicators. But a more significant rebound will be necessary to push bond yields higher in the first half of next year, as we expect. Stay tuned. Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 63 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +494 bps. We consider three main factors in our credit cycle analysis: (i) corporate balance sheet health, (ii) monetary conditions and (iii) valuation.1 On balance sheets, our top-down measure of gross leverage is high and rising (Chart 2). In contrast, interest coverage ratios remain solid, propped up by the Fed’s accommodative stance. With inflation expectations still depressed, the Fed can maintain its “easy money” policy for some time yet. The third quarter’s tightening of C&I lending standards is a concern, because it suggests that monetary conditions may not be sufficiently stimulative for banks to keep the credit taps running (bottom panel). But the yield curve, another indicator of monetary conditions, has steepened significantly since Q3, suggesting that lending standards will soon move back into “net easing” territory. For now, we see valuation as the main headwind for investment grade credit spreads. Spreads for all credit tiers are below our targets, with the Baa tier looking less expensive than the others (panels 2 & 3).2 As a result, we advise only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds, with a preference for the Baa credit tier. We also recommend increasing exposure to Agency MBS in place of corporate bonds rated A or higher (see page 7). 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 47 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +671 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 22 bps on the month and currently sits at 370 bps, 131 bps above our target (Chart 3). Ba and B rated junk bonds outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 79 bps and 76 bps, respectively, in November. But Caa-rated credit underperformed Treasuries by 89 bps. This continues the trend of Caa underperformance that has been in place since late last year (panel 3). We analyzed the divergence between Caa and the rest of the junk bond universe in last week’s report and came to two conclusions.3 First, the historical data show that 12-month periods of overall junk bond outperformance are more likely to be followed by underperformance if Caa is the worst performing credit tier. Second, we can identify several reasons for this year’s Caa underperformance that make us inclined to downplay any potential negative signal. Specifically, we note that the Caa credit tier’s exposure to the shale oil sector is responsible for the bulk of this year’s underperformance (bottom panel). With elevated spreads, accommodative monetary conditions and a looming recovery in global economic growth, we expect junk spreads to tighten during the next 6-12 months.    MBS: Overweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +22 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread tightened 3 bps on the month, as a 5 bps tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) was offset by a 2 bps increase in expected prepayment losses (aka option cost). We recommend an overweight allocation to Agency MBS, particularly relative to corporate bonds rated A or higher, for three reasons.4 First, expected compensation is competitive. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS is now 50 bps (Chart 4). This is very close to its pre-crisis average and only 3 bps below the spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds (panel 4). Also, spreads for all investment grade corporate bond credit tiers trade below our targets. Second, risk-adjusted compensation heavily favors MBS. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency MBS plot well to the right of investment grade corporates. This means that the sector is less likely to see losses versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. Finally, the macro environment for MBS remains supportive. Mortgage lending standards have barely eased since the financial crisis (bottom panel), and most homeowners have already had at least one opportunity to refinance their mortgages. This burnout will keep refi activity low, and MBS spreads tight (panel 2). Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +197 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 36 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +513 bps. Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 24 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +245 bps. Meanwhile, Foreign Agencies outperformed by 4 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +266 bps. Domestic Agencies outperformed by 11 bps in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +51 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +36 bps. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated sovereign bonds, given that spreads remain expensive compared to US corporate credit (Chart 5). However, we noted in a recent report that Mexican and Saudi Arabian sovereigns look attractive on a risk/reward basis.5 This is also true for Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities, as shown in the Bond Map in Appendix C. Our Emerging Markets Strategy service also thinks that worries about Mexico’s fiscal position are overblown, and that bond yields embed too high of a risk premium (bottom panel).6 Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 70 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +6bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 4% in November, and currently sits at 83% (Chart 6). We upgraded municipal bonds in early October, as yield ratios had become significantly more attractive, especially at the long-end of the Aaa curve (panel 2).7 Specifically, 2-year and 5-year M/T yield ratios are somewhat below average pre-crisis levels at 68% and 72%, respectively. However, M/T yield ratios for longer maturities (10 years and higher) are all above average pre-crisis levels. M/T yield ratios for 10-year, 20-year and 30-year maturities are 84%, 93% and 97%, respectively. Fundamentally, state & local government balance sheets remain solid. Our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory and state & local government interest coverage has improved considerably in recent quarters (bottom panel). Both of these 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 shifted higher in November, steepening out to the 7-year maturity and flattening beyond that. The 2/10 Treasury slope was unchanged on the month. It currently sits at 17 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened 7 bps to end the month at 59 bps (Chart 7). In a recent report we discussed the 6-12 month outlook for the 2/10 Treasury slope.8 We considered the main macro factors that influence the slope of the yield curve: Fed policy, wage growth, inflation expectations and the neutral fed funds rate. We concluded that the 2/10 slope has room to steepen during the next few months, as the Fed holds down the front-end of the curve in an effort to re-anchor inflation expectations. However, we see the 2/10 slope remaining in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps, owing to strong wage growth and downbeat neutral rate expectations. Despite the outlook for modest curve steepening, we continue to recommend holding a barbelled Treasury portfolio. Specifically, we favor holding a 2/30 barbell versus the 5-year bullet, in duration-matched terms. This position offers strong positive carry (bottom panel), due to the extreme overvaluation of the 5-year note, and looks attractive on our yield curve models (see Appendix B). TIPS: Overweight   Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 47 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -70 bps.The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.62%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 9 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.73%. Both rates remain well below the 2.3%-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s target. The divergence between the actual inflation data and inflation expectations remains 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. As we have pointed out in prior research, it can take time for expectations to adapt to a changing macro environment.9 That being said, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 29 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 maintain our view that long-dated TIPS breakevens will move above 2.3% before the end of the cycle. ABS: Underweight Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 7 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +74 bps. Chart 9ABS Market Overview The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 2 bps on the month. It currently sits at 34 bps; its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). Our Excess Return Bond Map (see Appendix C) shows that Aaa-rated consumer ABS rank among the most defensive US spread products and also offer more expected return than other low-risk sectors such as Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals. However, we remain wary of allocating too much to consumer ABS because credit trends continue to shift in the wrong direction. The consumer credit delinquency rate is still low, but has put in a clear bottom. The is true for the household interest expense ratio (panel 3). Senior Loan Officers also 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, our favorable outlook for global growth causes us to shy away from defensive spread products, and deteriorating ABS credit metrics are also a cause for concern. Stay underweight. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +221 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 72 bps, below its average pre-crisis level but somewhat above levels seen in 2018 (Chart 10). The macro outlook for commercial real estate (CRE) is somewhat unfavorable, with lenders tightening loan standards (panel 4) in an environment of tepid demand. The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey shows that banks saw slightly stronger demand for nonfarm nonresidential CRE loans in Q3, after four consecutive quarters of falling demand (bottom panel). CRE prices 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 7 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +107 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 2 bps on the month, and currently sits at 54 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer a compelling risk/reward trade-off. An overweight allocation to this high-rated sector remains appropriate. 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 US 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 26 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate a flat fed funds rate 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 Valuations 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: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US 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 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of November 29 2019) 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 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of November 29, 2019) 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 45 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 45 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) 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 US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of November 29, 2019) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2   For details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Perspective On Risk And Reward”, dated October 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6  Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Country Insights: Malaysia, Mexico & Central Europe”, dated October 31, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 7  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9  Please see US 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

Highlights Duration: The bond market’s bearish trend remains intact, but suffered a hiccup last week as some economic data disappointed. Our sense is that the worst of the global growth slowdown is over, but a rebound in our preferred global growth indicators – Global Manufacturing PMI, US ISM Manufacturing PMI and CRB Raw Industrials index – is necessary to push bond yields higher. We expect that such a rebound will transpire in the coming months. The Credit Cycle & Inflation: Low inflation expectations will keep monetary policy accommodative for the next 6-12 months. This justifies a positive outlook for spread product excess returns. Eventually, inflation will return and force the Fed to adopt a more restrictive stance. This will lead to the end of the credit cycle. We will get more defensive on spread product when long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates move above 2.3%. Municipal Bonds: The main issues facing municipal bonds are long-run in nature, mostly related to underfunded state & local government pensions. These concerns are propping up yield ratios at the long-end of the muni curve, but aren’t likely to cause a wave of ratings downgrades until revenue growth slows during the next downturn. For the time being, investors can grab an attractive after-tax yield premium in long-maturity munis. Hiccups Judging by the bond market, recession fears appear to have peaked in late August. Since then, the Treasury index has lost 2.1% versus a position in cash and the 2/10 yield curve is 23 bps steeper (Chart 1). Curve steepening has also occurred via the real yield curve, while the breakeven inflation curve is moderately flatter, consistent with our expectations.1 However, this bearish bond market trend suffered a set-back last week. The 10-year yield fell 10 bps, back down to 1.84%, and the 2-year yield fell 7 bps to 1.61%. The move was driven by an increase in skepticism about the US and China’s “phase 1” trade deal and some mixed economic data. Both industrial production growth and capacity utilization remain well above their 2016 lows, consistent with stronger PMIs.  October’s Industrial Production report was the worst of last week’s data releases. Production declined 0.8% on the month and capacity utilization fell from 77.5% to 76.7% (Chart 2). The data were significantly influenced by the General Motors strike, but the index still fell 0.5% with motor vehicles and parts stripped out. In our prior discussions of the divergence between “hard” and “soft” economic data, we pointed to relatively strong industrial production as a reason to expect a snapback in depressed manufacturing PMIs.2 This month’s weak print challenges that view, though both industrial production growth and capacity utilization remain well above their 2016 lows, consistent with stronger PMIs. The New York Fed’s Manufacturing PMI also came in roughly flat last week, and continues to point to a rebound in the national index (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 1Bumps On The Road ##br##To Higher Yields Chart 2Disappointing Data, But Well ##br##Above 2016 Lows October’s retail sales were also released last week, and we continue to observe a wide divergence between strong consumer spending growth and falling consumer confidence (Chart 3). As with the divergence between industrial production and the manufacturing PMI, we suspect that negative sentiment about the US/China trade war has unduly depressed consumer and business sentiment. Sentiment should rebound if trade tensions ease in the coming months, as we expect. Finally, we note that the CRB Raw Industrials index remains downbeat (Chart 4). We should continue to view the recent increase in bond yields as tenuous until it is confirmed by a rebound in this global growth bellwether. Chart 3Retail Sales Still Strong Chart 4Waiting On The CRB Index To Rebound Bottom Line: The bond market’s bearish trend remains intact, but suffered a hiccup last week as some economic data disappointed. Our sense is that the worst of the global growth slowdown is over, but a rebound in our preferred global growth indicators – Global Manufacturing PMI, US ISM Manufacturing PMI and CRB Raw Industrials index – is necessary to push bond yields higher. We expect that such a rebound will transpire in the coming months.   Inflation Will End The Cycle … But Not Anytime Soon As global growth improves during the next few months and recession fears fade into the background, discussion will once again turn toward questions about how much longer the credit cycle can run, and what will ultimately bring it to an end. On the first question, we find the slope of the yield curve to be an excellent indicator of the age of the cycle. Specifically, we like to split each cycle into three phases based on the slope of the 3-year/10-year yield curve: 3 Phase 1 starts at the end of the last recession and ends when the 3/10 slope flattens to below 50 bps. Phase 2 encompasses the period when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps. Phase 3 begins when the 3/10 slope inverts and ends at the start of the next recession. We expect Phase 2 to persist for some time given that inflation expectations remain downbeat. Table 1 shows that corporate bond excess returns are highest in Phase 1, when the yield curve is steep and spreads are tightening quickly. Excess returns tend to remain positive in Phase 2, but are much lower. Excess returns don’t usually turn negative until after the yield curve inverts and we enter Phase 3. Table 1Corporate Bond Performance During The Three Phases Of The Yield Curve Cycle Though some segments of the yield curve inverted in August, we do not think that the cycle has transitioned into Phase 3. The inversion was quite brief, and the measure we employ in our analysis – the monthly average of daily closing values of the 3-year/10-year slope – never broke below zero. The 3-year/10-year slope is currently +23 bps. We expect the current Phase 2 environment to persist for some time, and consequently, corporate bonds will deliver small positive excess returns relative to Treasuries. The reason why we expect Phase 2 to persist for some time is that inflation expectations remain downbeat (Chart 5). Both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are well below the 2.3%-2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed’s target. This means that the Fed has every incentive to maintain an accommodative monetary policy until inflation expectations are re-anchored. An accommodative policy stance will prevent the yield curve from inverting for any sustained period of time. Chart 5The Re-Anchoring Process Will Take Time The upshot is that a re-anchoring of TIPS breakeven inflation rates will be an important signal for us to get more defensive on corporate credit. When the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates move above 2.3%, the Fed will have less incentive to maintain an accommodative stance. The pace of tightening will likely quicken, leading to a sustained curve inversion and a transition into Phase 3 of the cycle. How Long Until Inflation Expectations Are Re-Anchored? Given our framework for thinking about the age of the cycle, the big question for our corporate credit call is: How long until inflation expectations are re-anchored? We have previously demonstrated that inflation expectations adapt to changes in the actual inflation data, and that this adaptive process occurs very slowly.4 Note that our Adaptive Expectations Model puts fair value for the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate at 1.9%. This is above the current rate of 1.63%, but still well below our 2.3%-2.5% target range (Chart 5, bottom panel). The gradual nature of the adaptive process means that actual core inflation will probably have to overshoot the Fed’s 2% target for a period of time before long-dated expectations are firmly re-anchored. With that in mind, we are still a long way away from inflation posing a problem for the credit cycle. Core CPI and core PCE inflation are running at year-over-year rates of 2.3% and 1.7%, respectively, both slightly below levels consistent with the Fed’s target (Chart 6).5 Trimmed mean measures are slightly higher and less volatile. They currently suggest that core inflation will remain in a slow and steady uptrend going forward. Any durable increase in core inflation will likely occur via the Core Services (ex. shelter and medical care) component.  Looking at the main components of core inflation, we see some reason to expect consumer price acceleration to cool in the coming months. Recent inflation gains have come mostly via the Core Goods component (Chart 7). This component tracks non-oil import prices with a long lag, and import prices have already rolled over. Meanwhile, shelter is the largest component of core inflation and we expect it will remain well supported in the coming months. The National Multifamily Housing Council’s Apartment Market Tightness Index has been in “net tightening” territory for two consecutive quarters (Chart 7, bottom panel). An above-50% reading from this index tends to coincide with rising shelter inflation. Chart 6Expect Core Inflation To Rise Slowly Chart 7A Closer Look At The Core CPI Components Ultimately, any durable increase in core inflation will likely occur via the Core Services (ex. shelter and medical care) component. This component has been relatively stable during the past few months (Chart 7, panel 3). Another interesting dynamic to monitor when assessing how long it will take for inflation to return is the labor share of national income. Chart 8 shows that the wage acceleration seen during the past few years has come mostly at the expense of corporate profit margins, and has not yet been significantly passed through to higher consumer prices. This is typical late-cycle behavior, and at some point firms will need to start raising prices in order to protect margins. Chart 8Where Will The Labor Share Peak? If we use the past few cycles as a guide, we see that the labor share of income peaked at above 70%. If this is an accurate road-map for the current cycle, then it means that firms can stomach quite a bit more margin compression, and it could be a long time before inflation pressures emerge. However, some recent research suggests that the labor share of income might peak at a lower level this cycle than in the past.6  This research documents that many industries are increasingly dominated by a small number of “superstar firms”. These firms have greater pricing power and might be able to sustain higher profit margins indefinitely. This would mean that inflationary pressures could re-emerge at a lower labor share of national income than in previous cycles. Bottom Line: Low inflation expectations will keep monetary policy accommodative for the next 6-12 months. This justifies a positive outlook for spread product excess returns. Eventually, inflation will return and force the Fed to adopt a more restrictive stance. This will lead to the end of the credit cycle. We will get more defensive on spread product when long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates move above 2.3%. Strong Revenue Growth Supports Munis We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to municipal bonds due to attractive yield ratios, particularly for long maturities, and steady state & local government revenue growth. Chart 9 shows that Aaa Municipal / Treasury yield ratios were quite low earlier this year, but have increased significantly during the past few months. Yield ratios are above average pre-crisis levels for maturities of 10-years and greater. Against that back-drop of attractive valuations, credit quality trends are also supportive. Municipal bond ratings upgrades are outpacing downgrades (Chart 10), and history suggests that will continue until state & local government revenue growth slows. On that front, the three main sources of state & local government revenue are all growing at strong rates, a trend that should continue as long as the economic recovery is maintained. Municipal bond ratings upgrades are outpacing downgrades, and history suggests that will continue until state & local government revenue growth slows.  Of course, many state & local governments face long-run credit constraints, mostly related to underfunded pension obligations. This is almost certainly the reason why yield ratios for long-maturity bonds are so attractive. Crucially, these long-run issues will not be exposed until revenue growth slows during the next economic downturn, and investors have an opportunity to capture the attractive yield premium in the meantime. Chart 9Great Value At The Long End Chart 10Revenue Growth Will Remain Strong State governments have also made progress shoring up their balance sheets during the past few years. The National Association of State Budget Officers calculates that the overall state & local government total balance has returned back to 2006 levels, while rainy day funds have been built up considerably (Chart 11). Chart 11States Are Growing Rainy Day Funds Bottom Line: The main issues facing municipal bonds are long-run in nature, mostly related to underfunded state & local government pensions. These concerns are propping up yield ratios at the long-end of the muni curve, but aren’t likely to cause a wave of ratings downgrades until revenue growth slows during the next downturn. For the time being, investors can grab an attractive after-tax yield premium in long-maturity munis.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Crisis Of Confidence”, dated October 22, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on our analysis of the phases of the cycle based on the slope of the yield curve please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For US Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 The Fed targets 2% PCE inflation, which is historically consistent with CPI inflation between 2.4% and 2.5%. 6 https://economics.mit.edu/files/12979 Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

特別レポート

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

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 世界の製造業サイクルはまもなくボトムに達する公算が大きく、消費とサービスは依然として堅調です。今後12か月の景気後退リスクは低く、これは株式が債券より引き続きアウトパフォームすることを示唆しています。 しかし、この楽観的なシナリオに対するリスクは高まっています。消費者信頼感の低下や地政学的緊張の悪化はリスク資産に打撃を与える可能性があります。我々はこれをヘッジするためにキャッシュをオーバーウェイトしています。 中国は現時点では積極的な金融緩和の使用に及び腰です。中国が動くまでは、景気循環性が低い米国株式市場がアウトパフォームするはずです。 中国が景気刺激を本格化させ、製造業サイクルが明確にボトムを打ったときに、新興市場（EM）および欧州株へシフトする可能性があります。この上振れリスクをヘッジするために、我々はファイナンシャルズを戦術的にオーバーウェイトとし、またインダストリアルズのオーバーウェイトとオーストラリアのニュートラルを再確認します。 債券利回りはリバウンドを継続するはずです。デュレーションをアンダーウェイトとし、TIPSを優先します。クレジットは景気循環の視点ではアウトパフォームするはずですが、企業の高負債はリスクですのでニュートラルを推奨します。 推奨 四半期ポートフォリオ見通し：全面的なヘッジ 四半期ポートフォリオ見通し：全面的なヘッジ   特集 概要 万全のヘッジ 世界経済にとって特に不確実な時期であり、資産配分担当者にとっては悩ましい局面です。製造業の活動はまもなく底打ちするのか、それともサービス部門や消費を巻き込んで下押しするのか。債券利回りは強いリバウンドを続けるのか。米連邦準備制度理事会（Fed）は利下げを終了したのか。中国は今や積極的に金融刺激を拡大するのか。イランはサウジアラビアとの対立を激化させるのか。トランプ大統領は次に何をツイートするのか。 こうした環境ではポートフォリオ構築の手腕が試されます。我々はこれらすべての問いについて見解を持っていますが、確信度は通常よりやや低めです。投資家が取るべき対応は、最も起こりそうなシナリオすべてにおいてポートフォリオが強靭であるように資産配分を計画することです。 我々は世界の製造業サイクルがまもなくボトムに達すると予想しています。グローバル先行経済指標はすでに回復しており、グローバルPMIも底打ちの兆候を示しています（チャート 1）。最短期の先行指標であるシティグループ経済サプライズ指数は、欧州を除くすべての地域で最近急上昇しました（チャート 2）。（サイクル底のより風変わりな指標については、7ページのクライアントが尋ねていることも参照してください。）底打ちの要因は、この9か月間の金融環境の緩和、 中国成長の安定化、そして単純に時間の経過です。製造業サイクルの下落局面は典型的に18か月続き、このサイクルは2018年上半期にピークをつけました。 チャート 1底打ちの最初の兆候 底打ちの最初の兆し 底打ちの最初の兆し チャート 2予想外に強いサプライズ 驚くほど強いサプライズ 驚くほど強いサプライズ     同時に、国債利回りはさらに上昇余地があるはずです。Fedはあと一度利下げする可能性がありますが、米国経済の堅調さを踏まえるとそれ以上にはならないでしょう。これはフェドファンド先物が織り込んでいる今後12か月の59ベーシスポイントの利下げよりも小さい幅です。最近の経済サプライズの持ち直しは、米10年国債利回りが少なくとも6か月前の水準である2.3～2.4％に戻ることを示唆しています（チャート 3）。ただし、例えば米中貿易協議の破綻のような政治的緊張の高まりがあると、この動きは遅れる可能性があります（チャート 4）。 チャート 3長期金利はさらにリバウンドへ... 長期金利、さらに反発へ... 長期金利、さらに反発へ... チャート 4...しかし地政学的緊張は依然リスク ...しかし地政学的緊張は依然としてリスクである ...しかし地政学的緊張は依然としてリスクである これは、今後数四半期にわたり株式が債券をアウトパフォームし続ける可能性が高いことを意味し、我々は12か月の投資期間でグローバル株式をオーバーウェイト、グローバル債券をアンダーウェイトの立場を維持しています。ただし、この明るいシナリオに対するリスクは増しています。我々は第二次世界大戦以降、ほぼ18か月前にほぼすべての景気後退を的中させてきたイールドカーブの逆イールド化を依然として懸念しています（チャート 5）。3か月/10年のカーブは今年中頃に逆イールド化しました。また、製造業部門の弱さが消費者信頼感を損なうことを懸念しています。これは欧州と日本にいくつかの兆候がありますが、米国ではまだ顕著ではありません（チャート 6）。したがって先月、景気後退に対するヘッジとして我々はキャッシュをオーバーウェイトしました。リスク／リワードの観点から、債券よりもキャッシュをより魅力的なヘッジとみなしています。 チャート 5イールドカーブのメッセージを無視できますか？ イールド・カーブからのメッセージを無視できますか？ イールド・カーブからのメッセージを無視できますか？ チャート 6消費者信頼感の弱さのいくつかの兆候 消費者信頼感の弱まりを示すいくつかの兆候 消費者信頼感の弱まりを示すいくつかの兆候     我々はまた、ベータが低く他地域の株式ほど構造的逆風が少ない米国株式を引き続きオーバーウェイトします。ただし、中国のより大胆な刺激策の恩恵を受けるであろう、より景気循環性の高い株式市場への参入ポイントを引き続き探しています。中国の金融緩和はこれまでの景気刺激局面に比べてなお慎重です。国内活動を安定化させるにはおそらく十分でした（チャート 7）が、2016年のように工業用コモディティ価格や新興市場資産、ユーロ圏株式のラリーを引き起こすほどではありません。グローバルPMIの上昇と中国の信用成長の強まりの兆候は、明らかに新興市場と欧州を助けるでしょう（チャート 8）が、我々が実際にそれらが起きているとより高い確信を持つまではその動きを取ることはしません。その間、欧州株がアウトパフォームし始めた場合に有利になるはずのため、我々は上振れリスクをヘッジする目的でグローバルの金融セクターを戦術的にオーバーウェイトに引き上げています。今年初めには、より積極的な中国刺激による上振れリスクをヘッジするためにインダストリアルズをオーバーウェイト、オーストラリア株式をニュートラルに引き上げました。 チャート 7中国の刺激は成長を単に安定化させただけ 中国の景気刺激策は成長を単に安定させただけに過ぎない 中国の景気刺激策は成長を単に安定させただけに過ぎない チャート 8欧州と新興市場は最も景気循環的な市場 欧州と新興市場は最も景気循環性の高い市場だ 欧州と新興市場は最も景気循環性の高い市場だ     チャート 9原油価格の急騰はしばしば景気後退に先行する 原油価格の急騰は景気後退に先行することが多い。 原油価格の急騰は景気後退に先行することが多い。 我々の楽観的なシナリオに対する最大の地政学的リスクは、サウジの石油精製施設への攻撃後の中東情勢です。過去50年のすべての景気後退は、原油価格の前年同月比100％の急騰に先行されてきました（ただし、この事態が現実となるにはブレントが年末までに現在の61ドルから100ドル超へ上昇する必要があります（チャート 9   チャート 10原油のリスクプレミアムは低すぎるのか？ 四半期ポートフォリオ見通し：全方位のヘッジ 四半期ポートフォリオ見通し：全方位のヘッジ   ギャリー・エヴァンス、シニア・バイス・プレジデント チーフ・グローバル・アセット・アロケーション・ストラテジスト garry@bcaresearch.com     クライアントが尋ねていること 世界成長の反発のタイミングを図るために投資家はどの先行指標を注視すべきか？ チャート 11世界成長に関するポジティブなシグナル ユーロ圏の製造業は底打ちに近いか？ 世界経済の成長に対するポジティブなシグナル ユーロ圏の製造業は底打ちに近いか？ 世界経済の成長に対するポジティブなシグナル 2019年の世界的な成長鈍化は、債券ラリーとディフェンシブ資産のアウトパフォーマンスの主要因でした。したがって、この下落がいつ反転するかのタイミングを見極めることは極めて重要です。反転はディフェンシブから景気循環性の資産へのリーダーシップの交代ももたらすからです。では、どのようにしてこれを行うか。以下に、過去に世界経済に関する信頼できる先行シグナルを提供してきた我々のお気に入りの指標を三つ挙げます。 キャリートレードのパフォーマンス：非常に高いキャリーを持つ新興国通貨の対円でのパフォーマンスは、世界成長の先行指標となる傾向があります（チャート 11, パネル1）。一般に、キャリートレードは資金が豊富だが利回りが低い国（日本のような）から、貯蓄不足でリスクは高いが見込み収益が高い国へ流動性を分配します。これらの通貨のポジティブなパフォーマンスは、世界的な流動性の改善を示す傾向があり、通常は世界成長を後押しします。 スウェーデンの在庫サイクル：スウェーデンの受注在庫比率は世界の製造業サイクルの先行指標です（パネル2）。なぜか。スウェーデンは小さな開放経済であり、世界成長のダイナミクスに非常に敏感です。さらに、スウェーデンの輸出は中間財に重心が置かれており、これはグローバルなサプライチェーンの早い段階に位置します。これによりスウェーデンの在庫サイクルは世界の製造業サイクルの良い早期のバロメーターとなります。 G3のマネタリートレンド：G3の実質的なマネーサプライ超過（マネーサプライ成長率と貸出成長率の差として測定）は、世界の工業生産の先行指標です（パネル3）。ベースマネーと預金が既存の貸出プールに対して銀行システム内でより豊富になると、商業銀行の流動性ポジションは改善します。これにより銀行はより多くの貸出成長を生み出す燃料を得られ、最終的に経済活動に追い風を提供します。 重要なのは、これらすべての先行指標が世界経済に対してポジティブなシグナルを送っていることです。これは、世界成長が強まるにつれて金利は上昇すべきだという我々の見解を裏付けます。したがって、投資家はポートフォリオで株式をオーバーウェイト、債券をアンダーウェイトのままにしておくべきです。   ユーロ圏の銀行を買う時期か？ 2018年12月のユーロ圏の銀行に関するスペシャルレポートでは、「歴史的に、相対P/Bディスカウントが下限バンドに達し、相対配当利回りが上限バンドに達したとき、相対リターンの反発が期待できる」と指摘しました。1 当時の我々の推奨は「長期投資家はこの地域の銀行を避けるべきだが、より戦術的な権限を持ち、機動的なスタイルの投資家は評価指標を利用して銀行への出入りを短期トレードとして『タイミング』できる」というものでした。 それ以降、銀行は市場全体を10％以上アウトパフォームできずに引き続きアンダーパフォームし、相対的な評価指標をさらに押し下げました。現在、相対P/Bと相対配当利回りはともに、歴史的に少なくとも短期的な反発を予告してきた極端な水準にあります。 ユーロ圏のPMIはまだ50を下回っていますが、ユーロ圏経済が今年後半に持ち直す兆候があり、これは銀行の相対的な収益にとってポジティブになるはずです。すでに、フォワードの1株当たり利益（EPS）成長は幅広い市場に対して安定化しています（チャート 12、パネル4）。 さらに、2018年12月当時の主要な懸念材料の二つはイタリア政府債務と量的緩和（QE）の巻き戻しでした。現在、イタリア債務はもはや危機的な状況にはなく、ECBはQEを再開しています。 したがって、戦術的な権限を持ち機動的に運用できる投資家はユーロ圏の銀行を買う（オーバーウェイト）べきです。長期投資家は構造的な問題が残っているため、依然としてこのような短期トレードは避けるべきです。 チャート 12戦術的にユーロ圏の銀行をアップグレード 戦術的にユーロ圏の銀行を格上げ 戦術的にユーロ圏の銀行を格上げ  金相場の上昇は終わったのか？ スポット金価格は年初来で17%上昇しており、その背景には世界的な成長鈍化、ハト派に傾いた中央銀行、そして高まる政治的緊張がある。投資家は今、金のエクスポージャーを削減すべきだろうか。常識的にはそうすべきだろう。しかし、今回は通常の時期ではない。 短期的には、テクニカル面での買われ過ぎと行き過ぎたポジティブなセンチメントのために一部利益確定が入り、金価格は下押しを受ける可能性がある（チャート13、パネル1）。さらに、今年の金価格の動きは中央銀行の緩和期待の高まりによるところが大きい（パネル2）。今後、市場は利下げが限定的にとどまることに失望する可能性があり、それが金の下落圧力となり得ると予想する。 他方で、現在世界の債務の約27%、すなわち14.9兆ドルがマイナス利回りであるため、投資家は次善の資産である利回りゼロの金へ引き続きシフトしていくだろう（パネル3）。中央銀行と投資家の双方によるここ数年の金保有増加（パネル4・5）からもこれが明らかである。投資家がマイナス利回りを回避し資本保全に重点を置く動きが続く限り、この傾向は持続すると見ている。 年初以来、地政学的緊張は強まっている：米中間の継続するが決定的でない貿易交渉、さらなる関税の実施、ブレグジットの不確実性、そして中東での最近の軍事攻撃（パネル6）。このような環境は金価格を押し上げ続けるはずだ。 我々は引き続き、今後12か月で加速すると見ているインフレに対するヘッジとして、また世界成長や地政学的状況のさらなる悪化に対するヘッジとして金を推奨する。 Chart 13Gold: Sell Or Hold? ゴールド：売却か保有か？ ゴールド：売却か保有か？ 楽観的シナリオへのリスクは高まっている。我々は依然として逆イールド曲線を懸念している。逆イールド曲線は第二次世界大戦以降のすべての景気後退を正確に予測してきた。 金利はどこまで下がり得るか？ ゼロ下限は過去のものだ。先月、デンマーク中央銀行は金利を-0.75%に引き下げ、スイスの10年国債は主要国として歴史的最低水準の-1.12%に達した。次の景気後退において、理論上金利はさらにどこまで下落し得るだろうか？ 個人にとって、紙幣の保管コストが現金金利の下限を制約する可能性がある。紙幣自体は利回りゼロだからだ（政府が現金を禁止する方法や年会費を課す方法を見出さない限り）。銀行の貸金庫は年間約300ドル、また100万ドルを保管するのに十分なプロ用金庫（100ドル札の山で31 x 55 cm、重さ約10kg）は設置費を含め約2,000ドルである。後者を10年で償却すれば、100万ドルの保管コストは年率約0.2%〜0.3%になる。スイスフラン紙幣（最高額面CHF1,000）は保管コストがより低くなるだろう。しかし、現物金の保管コストは年率約2%である。 金利がこれを下回っている場合、他の制約が存在するはずだ。個人が現金を保管することは危険であり、確実に非常に不便である（税金の支払いのために現金を銀行に運ばなければならないことを想像してみてほしい）。また、例えば10億ドル（重さ10トン）を保管する個人や企業のコストははるかに高くなるだろう。低金利国の歴史を踏まえると（チャート14、パネル1）、現金保有者が政府短期債の銀行預金の代替を模索し始める水準は概ね-1%前後だと我々は考えている。 Chart 14How Low Can They Go? どこまで下がるのか？ どこまで下がるのか？ Chart 15Yield Curves When Rates Are At Zero Or Below 金利がゼロ以下のときのイールドカーブ 金利がゼロ以下のときのイールドカーブ   長期側では、短期金利がゼロまたはマイナスのときにイールドカーブが大きく逆転することは通常ない（チャート15）。今年初めにスイスで観測された3か月/10年の最大逆イールドは-0.05%だった。 したがって、どこであれ10年債の絶対的な最低水準は、たとえ厳しい景気後退の只中であっても概ね-1.1%付近であろうという示唆になる。 これは資産配分担当者にとっての懸念材料だ。現在の水準（スイス-0.8%）からスイス国債が取り得る数学的最大上昇幅は3%であり、ドイツ国債（現-0.5%）では5%である。これはあまり有効なヘッジとは言えない。米国だけが相対的に有利に見える：10年物米国債利回りが0%に低下した場合、トータルリターンは18%になる。   世界経済 Chart 16U.S. Growth Remains Solid 米国の成長は堅調を維持 米国の成長は堅調を維持 概観：世界的に産業部門の成長は弱く、多くの国で製造業PMIが50を下回っている。しかし、消費とサービスはほぼすべての地域で持ち堪えており、製造業比重の高いユーロ圏でも例外ではない。製造業の底打ちの兆しが断続的に見られるが、本格的な回復は中国におけるさらなる金融緩和の規模に依存するだろう。中国当局は2016年に行ったほどの大規模な緩和を展開することには慎重な姿勢を崩していないようだ。 米国：米国の製造業は既に世界の他地域に続いて収縮局面に入っており、ISM製造業景況指数は8月に50を下回った（チャート16、パネル2）。しかし、消費とサービスは概ね好調を維持している。雇用は拡大を続けている（ただし昨年よりやや鈍いペースで、求職者不足が一因かもしれない）、解雇の増加は見られず、消費者信頼感は依然として歴史的高水準に近い（9月にわずかに低下した）。住宅は昨年の減速後に回復しており、最近の議会での予算合意により今後12か月は財政政策がやや拡張的になる見込みだ。設備投資（パネル5）のみが、貿易戦争を巡る不確実性のために企業が投資判断を先送りしている影響で鈍化している。コンセンサスは今年の米国実質GDP成長率を2.2%と見込んでおり、多くの潜在成長率の推定を上回っている。 ユーロ圏：製造業の比重が高いため、欧州の成長は米国より弱い。製造業PMIは2月以来50を下回り、8月にはさらに45.6に低下した。鉱工業生産は前年比で2%縮小している。イタリアは2四半期のマイナス成長を経験しており、ドイツも第3四半期にテクニカルリセッションに入る可能性がある（第2四半期はGDPが0.1%縮小した）。しかし、製造業の底打ちの兆候は断続的に見られる：例えば9月のZEW調査は上振れのサプライズとなった。また、米国同様に消費は強い。製造業比重の高いドイツでも雇用は増加を続け、7月の小売売上高は前年同月比で4.4%増だった。一方、英国ではブレグジットを巡る不確実性が企業の投資を損なっているが、雇用は堅調である。2 Chart 17First Signs Of A Rebound In The Rest Of The World? 世界のその他地域で反発の兆候が見え始めたか？ 世界のその他地域で反発の兆候が見え始めたか？ 日本：消費は既に低下しており、10月に予定された消費税率の引き上げ前でさえ落ち込んでいる。7月の小売売上高は前年比で2%減少し、賃金のマイナス成長と消費者センチメントの5年ぶりの低水準への低下が原因である。製造業は中国の減速と強い円（過去12か月で6%上昇）の影響を受け続けており、輸出は6%減、鉱工業生産は過去3か月で前年比2%減少している。消費税率引上げの影響は自動車税の軽減や高校教育の無償化といった政府の措置により緩和される可能性があるし、中国成長の回復が輸出を押し上げるだろう。しかし、活動の底打ちの兆候はまだ乏しい。 新興市場：中国の成長は安定化しているように見え、製造業・非製造業の両PMIが50を上回っている（チャート17、パネル3）。しかし、景況感は脆弱で、小売売上高の伸びは20年ぶりの低水準に鈍化し、自動車販売は8月に7%減少した。これは新排出基準適合車の導入にもかかわらずである。当局は追加の緩和策（9月の預金準備率の追加引き下げを含む）で対応したが、2016年のような本格的な金融刺激を再度実施することには消極的なようだ。他の新興国では、構造的な問題を抱える国で成長が鈍化している（アルゼンチンの最新の前年比実質GDP成長率は-5.7%、トルコは-1.5%、メキシコは-0.8%）が、他方で比較的堅調なのはインド5%、インドネシア5%、ポーランド4.2%、コロンビア3.4%である。 金利：ほぼすべての中央銀行がハト派に転じており、FRBは2回目の利下げを行い、ECBは資産買入れを再開し、日銀は10月に緩和を示唆した。しかし、さらなる金融緩和は市場の期待よりも小幅にとどまる可能性が高い。FRBは今回の利下げを中間的な修正に過ぎないと示し、追加緩和は考えにくいと示唆した。ECBと日銀には利用可能な手段がほとんど残っていない。成長の底打ちの兆しと、中央銀行のハト派転換が終盤に差し掛かっているという市場の理解を踏まえ、既に米国で1.45%から9月に1.72%へと上昇している長期金利はさらに上昇する可能性が高い。投資家はまた、米国のインフレに注意深く注視すべきである。基調の強さを示す兆候があり、コアCPIは8月に前年比2.4%上昇している（過去3か月の年率換算では最大3.4%に達する）。   世界株式 Chart 18Has Earnings Growth Bottomed? 利益の伸びは底を打ったか？ 利益の伸びは底を打ったか？ 依然として慎重だが、上方リスクに対するヘッジを追加：地政学的リスクや弱まる経済指標といったヘッドラインリスクにもかかわらず、グローバル株式は第3四半期に8ベーシスポイントの小幅な損失にとどまった（チャート18）。総じて、我々のディフェンシブな国別配分は第3四半期によく機能した。先進国（DM）株式は新興国（EM）を4.5%上回り、米国はユーロ圏を2.8%上回った。 ただしセクター配分は期待通りにはいかなかった。ユーティリティーと生活必需品のアンダーウェイト、および資本財、エネルギー、ヘルスケアのオーバーウェイトがすべて逆方向に動いたためである。とはいえマテリアルのアンダーウェイトが損失の一部を相殺するのに寄与した。 四半期の間、債券利回りの大きな変動に合わせて、グローバル株式の世界ではセクターおよび国別のローテーションが明確に見られた。9月には先進国／新興国、米国／ユーロ圏、景気循環株／ディフェンシブ株で一部の反転が確認された。 今後について、BCAのハウスビューは世界経済成長がここ数か月のうちに回復し始めるという見方を維持しているが、以前に予想したよりやや遅れると予想している。したがって、我々のディフェンシブな国別配分は依然として適切だ。4月にユーロ圏と新興国株をアップグレード監視リストに入れたが、世界的な回復の遅れはまだその判断を発動する時ではないことを示している。3 我々は債券利回りが底を打ったとの見方を持っているため4、グローバルのセクター配分で1つ調整を行い、金融セクターをニュートラルからオーバーウェイトへ格上げする。資金はヘルスケアのダブルオーバーウェイトを半分にしてオーバーウェイトに削減することで賄う（詳細は次ページ参照）。この調整は、1) ユーロ圏が米国をアウトパフォームする場合、2) 今後の米国大統領選でエリザベス・ウォーレンが勝利する場合、という二つの可能性に対するヘッジにもなる。5  グローバル金融株をニュートラルからオーバーウェイトへ格上げ Chart 19Upgrade Global Financials グローバル・ファイナンシャルズをアップグレード グローバル・ファイナンシャルズをアップグレード グローバルの金融株の総株式市場に対する相対パフォーマンスは、グローバル債券利回りの動きに大きく影響を受けてきた（Chart 19、パネル1）。9月に債券利回りが急反転したのに伴い、金融株の相対パフォーマンスも反転した。ただし、近年にわたり金融株が幅広い市場に対して大きくアンダーパフォームしてきたことから、チャート上ではほとんど見えない。 債券利回りの急反転がどの程度持続するかは明確ではないが、BCAのハウスビューでは今後9～12か月で債券利回りは上昇すると見ている。したがって、以下の追加的な理由により金融株をニュートラルからオーバーウェイトへ格上げする。 バリュエーションはパネル2に示されているように非常に魅力的である。さらに重要なのは、相対バリュエーションが現在、歴史的に金融株の相対パフォーマンスの反発を予告してきた極端な水準にあることである。 ローンの質が改善している。米国の不良債権（NPL）比率は世界金融危機（GFC）前に達した底に近づいている。スペインやイタリアにおいてもNPL比率は大幅に低下しているが、GFC前の水準よりは依然高いままである（パネル3）。 米国の消費は堅調で、住宅は回復し、ローン需要は強まっている（パネル4）。シティ・エコノミック・サプライズ・インデックスなどのデータと一致しており、経済指標が底入れした可能性を示唆している。 この格上げを資金繰りするため、ヘルスケアのダブル・オーバーウェイトをオーバーウェイトに引き下げた。これは、来年の米大統領選でエリザベス・ウォーレンが勝利し医薬品価格規制を厳格化するリスクへのヘッジである。 国債 デュレーションはややアンダーウェイトを維持。 第3四半期の最初の2か月間、我々のベンチマーク比デュレーション縮小の判断はグローバル債券市場によって大きく試された。米国の10年物国債利回りは9月3日に1.43%を付けたが、これは米国のISM製造業指数が予想を下回ったことを受けたもので、前四半期末の水準より57ベーシスポイント低く、2016年7月6日に記録した歴史的低水準1.32%をわずかに上回る水準だった。ただし、9月5日以降の債券利回りの反発は、米中貿易政策の起伏だけでなく、Chart 20に示される通り経済指標のサプライズがポジティブだったことにも牽引されている。 BCAのグローバル・デュレーション・インジケーターは、当社のグローバル・フィクスト・インカム・ストラテジーチームが複数の先行経済指標を用いて構築したもので、今後世界的に利回り上昇を示唆している。投資家は今後9～12か月間、デュレーションをややアンダーウェイトで維持すべきである。 名目債よりインフレ連動債を優先。 グローバルのインフレ期待も、四半期の最初の2か月間に続いた下降トレンドの後に反発している。これは主に8月にコアCPI、コアPCE、平均時給といった実現インフレ指標が加速したことを反映している。加えて、歴史的に原油価格の変化はインフレ期待と良好な相関を持つ傾向がある。サウジアラビアの石油生産施設への攻撃を受けて原油価格は一時20%急騰した。中東の地政学的緊張がどのように進展するかは不透明だが、サウジ側が主張するように失われた生産の70%を復旧できると仮定すると、OPECの余剰生産能力（日量約180万バレル）が市場の均衡を保ち、残る失われた生産をカバーできるはずである。年末まで原油価格が横ばいで推移するという保守的な前提でも、インフレ期待ははるかに高まる方向にあり、これが名目債よりインフレ連動債を支持する根拠となる。日本およびオーストラリアにおいても、それぞれの名目債よりインフレ連動債を好む（Chart 21）。 Chart 20Bond Yields Have Hit Bottom 債券利回りは底を打った 債券利回りは底を打った Chart 21Favor Inflation Linkers リンク債を選好 リンク債を選好 より大胆な中国の景気刺激が実現した場合に恩恵を受ける、景気循環性の高い市場への参入機会を引き続き探している。 社債 我々がフィクスト・インカム・ポートフォリオ内で景気循環的にクレジットをオーバーウェイトに転じて以来、投資適格社債とハイイールド債は、それぞれデュレーションを合わせた国債に対して220および73ベーシスポイントの超過リターンを生み出している。 我々は今後12か月のクレジット見通しに対して引き続き強気である。年末までにグローバル成長が加速すると予想しているからである。歴史的に見ると、グローバル成長の改善はクレジットが国債に対して持続的にアウトパフォームすることをもたらしてきた。さらに、貸出基準が緩和を続けていることを踏まえれば、デフォルト率は今後1年にわたり抑制されると見られる（Chart 22、パネル1）。 どのくらいの期間クレジットをオーバーウェイトにするのか。米国企業債市場における高いレバレッジ水準、利息支払能力（interest coverage ratio）の低下、およびBaa格付け債の比率の高さは、構造的にクレジットをリスクの高い選択肢にしている。しかし、インフレ期待が依然として非常に低いため、FRBは金融政策を緩和的に保つインセンティブが強い。このハト派的な金融政策は金利コストを抑え、クレジットが今後1年でアウトパフォームするのを助けるだろう。 とはいえ、魅力的なクレジットのカテゴリーには差があると我々は考えている。具体的には、Baa格付けとハイイールド証券を優先することを推奨する。これらのクレジット・バケットにはさらなるスプレッド圧縮の余地が残されているためである（パネル2およびパネル3）。一方で、最上位の信用カテゴリーはもはやバリューを提供していないため避けるべきである（パネル4）。 Chart 22Baa-rated And High-Yield Credit Offer The Most Value Baa格付けおよびハイイールド・クレジットは最も高い価値を提供する Baa格付けおよびハイイールド・クレジットは最も高い価値を提供する   コモディティ Chart 23No Supply Shock In The Oil Market 四半期ポートフォリオ見通し：全方位でのヘッジ 四半期ポートフォリオ見通し：全方位でのヘッジ エネルギー（オーバーウェイト）：9月のドローン攻撃はサウジの原油施設に対する供給懸念を引き起こし、攻撃直後の数日間で原油価格は最大で約20%上昇したが、その後攻撃前の水準まで下落した。初期の推計では供給障害は日量約570万バレル、つまり世界供給量の約5.5%に相当し、史上最大の原油供給停止となった。ただし、サウジが主張するように失われた生産の70%を復旧できると仮定すれば、OPECの予備能力である日量約180万バレルが市場を均衡させ、残る失われた生産をカバーできるはずである。より長期的には、経済成長の回復に伴う世界的な原油需要の伸びと供給の緊張が原油価格を押し上げる見込みで、ブレントは今年70ドルに達し、2020年は平均74ドルになると予想される（Chart 23、パネル1およびパネル2）。 工業用金属（ニュートラル）：年初来の中国当局による消極的な刺激策と2019年第2四半期・第3四半期の米ドル高が工業用金属のスポット価格を押し下げてきた。しかし、中国政府は9月に追加の刺激策を発表し、インフラ事業の資金調達のためのさらなる債券発行や金融緩和を行うと表明した（パネル3）。これにより、今後6～12か月で工業用金属価格に上振れ余地が出るはずである。 貴金属（ニュートラル）：年初来の力強いパフォーマンスを踏まえつつも、我々は金に対して依然としてポジティブである。金は景気後退、インフレ、地政学リスクに対する優れたヘッジと見なせるからである。金については第9ページのクライアントからの質問セクションで詳述している。銀も短期的には魅力的に見える。過去20年で銀の利用用途の性質は変化し、主に工業用素材としての側面から、安全資産としての貴金属的側面が強まっている。金と銀の価格の相関は世界金融危機前の平均0.5から危機後は0.8へと上昇している（パネル4およびパネル5）。グローバル成長と政治的不確実性が今後数か月で銀価格を支えるだろう。 通貨 米ドル：4月にニュートラルに転じて以来、貿易加重ドルは2.5%上昇している。利回りの急落は金融条件を緩和し、年末の第4四半期に世界成長を下支えする公算が大きい。米ドルは逆景気循環的な通貨であるため、世界的な成長の回復局面は歴史的にドルにとってネガティブであった。 ユーロ：4月に強気に転じて以来、EUR/USDは2.7%の下落となっている。全体として、我々は景気循環的な時間軸においてEUR/USDに対して引き続きポジティブである。ECBが金利を10ベーシスポイント引き下げ、追加の量的緩和を発表した後、ユーロ圏が米国に対してさらに緩和を続ける余地はあまり残っていない（Chart 24、パネル1）。加えて、ユーロ圏の利益成長見通しが米国に比べて改善することが期待されれば、資金フローは欧州へ向かい、それがEUR/USDを押し上げるだろう（パネル2）。 新興国通貨：当面の間、新興国通貨に対しては弱気の見方を維持する。ただし、年末に向けては格上げ監視中である。世界成長が反転しつつある兆候が複数みられ、これは歴史的に記録的に低い債券利回りがもたらす緩和的な金融環境の結果である。さらに、新興国成長の主要エンジンである中国における限界的な消費傾向（M1成長率とM2成長率の差で代理される）は、新興国通貨のさらなる上昇を示唆し続けている（パネル3）。 Chart 24Interest Rate And Profit Expectation Differentials Favor The Euro ユーロはまもなく急騰するかもしれない。金利と利益期待の差がユーロに有利だ。 ユーロはまもなく急騰するかもしれない。金利と利益期待の差がユーロに有利だ。     オルタナティブ Chart 25Favor Hedge Funds Untill Global Growth Bottoms グローバル成長が底打ちするまでヘッジファンドを推奨 グローバル成長が底打ちするまでヘッジファンドを推奨 リターン増強策：過去12か月にわたり、我々は投資家に対してプライベート・エクイティの配分を減らし、ヘッジファンド、特にマクロ・ヘッジファンドへの配分を増やすことを推奨してきた。これは、我々の判断として景気サイクルが後期にあるためである。成長が今後数か月で回復すると期待しているが、現時点のデータではまだ明確ではない（Chart 25、パネル1）。この不確実なマクロ環境は、特にマルチプルの上昇と買収競争の激化という環境下でプライベート・エクイティにとって厳しいものとなるだろう。グローバル・マクロ・ヘッジファンドは次の景気後退に先立つ最良のヘッジであると引き続き見ており、非流動性資産への配分を変更するには時間がかかるため、投資家には今のうちに資金を配分することを勧める。 インフレ・ヘッジ：現状では、TIPSは非流動性のオルタナティブ資産よりも優れたインフレ・ヘッジである可能性が高い。2019年5月のスペシャルレポート8は、インフレが上昇しているが依然として比較的低い（2.3%未満）局面では、TIPSが特に魅力的なリスク調整後リターンを生み出すことを示している。したがって、FRBがハト派を維持し、金利をもう一度引き下げるかもしれない一方でインフレの中程度の加速を容認するという我々の見通しの下では、TIPSは今後数か月の環境で良好に推移するはずである（パネル2）。 ボラティリティ抑制策：ストラクチャード・プロダクツ、主にモーゲージ担保証券（MBS）は、ポートフォリオのボラティリティを低減する点で優れた実績を持っている（パネル3）。それにもかかわらず、現在の評価は必ずしも魅力的ではないため、MBSへの配分はニュートラルを超えて推奨しない。今シーズンは長期金利が100ベーシスポイント以上低下し、借り換え活動が活発化しているにもかかわらず、名目ベースのMBSスプレッドは史上最低水準付近にとどまっている。ただし、国債利回りが底打ちするにつれて借り換えは減速し、スプレッドに下押し圧力がかかると予想している。当社見解に対するリスク 最も起こり得る上方リスクは、FRB（米連邦準備制度理事会）が過度にハト派になり、対応が遅れることである。米国の基調的なインフレ圧力は依然として強い（コア消費者物価指数は過去3か月で年率換算3.4％上昇）。2回の利下げ後、フェデラルファンド金利は現在中立金利を大きく下回っている：実質で0.1％、Laubach‑Williamsのr*は0.8％に対してである（チャート26）。マネー・マーケットのタイトさからFRBは再びバランスシートの拡大を開始している。来年に製造業の成長が加速し、賃金と利益が上昇し始めれば、1999年のような株式市場のメルトアップが起こり得る。しかし最終的には、インフレを抑えるためにFRBは利上げ（場合によっては急激な利上げ）を行う必要があり、それが次の景気後退を招く可能性がある。 下方リスクの範囲はより広い。 本四半期報告全体で論じた通り、景気後退の引き金になり得る要因は様々ある：特に中国が景気刺激に失敗することや、消費者の信頼の喪失などである。一部の景気後退モデルは今後12か月のリスクを最大30％と見積もっている（チャート27）。構造的に見て、最大のリスクはおそらく米国における企業債務の高水準である（チャート28）。昨年12月に短期間観測されたようなジャンク債市場の崩壊は、今後18か月で満期を迎える大量の債務を企業が借り換えできなくなる事態を招く可能性がある。 地政学的リスクも依然として高止まりしており、その性質上予測が困難である。ブレグジットの帰結は依然として非常に不確実であるが、合意なき離脱のリスクは低いと見ている。米中の貿易協議は包括的な合意なく長期化すると予想しており、明確な決裂はネガティブである。トランプ大統領の弾劾はおそらく市場にとって重大な出来事ではないが、市場心理を一時的に悪化させる可能性がある（特にそれがエリザベス・ウォーレンの当選可能性を高める場合）。イランとサウジ間の紛争がエスカレートする可能性もある。これらの脅威を織り込むためにリスクプレミアムは上昇する必要があるかもしれない。 チャート26FRBは過度にハト派になっているのか？ 米FRBはハト派に傾きすぎているのか？ 米FRBはハト派に傾きすぎているのか？ チャート27景気後退のリスクはどの程度か？ 景気後退のリスクは？ 景気後退のリスクは？ チャート28企業債務が最大のリスクか？ 企業債務は最大のリスクか？ 企業債務は最大のリスクか？   脚注 1詳細はグローバル・アセット・アロケーション・スペシャル・レポート、「ユーロ圏の銀行：バリュー・プレイかバリュー・トラップか？」2018年12月14日付、gaa.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 2詳細はフォーリン・エクスチェンジ・ストラテジー・スペシャル・レポート、「英国：循環的減速か構造的停滞か？」2019年9月20日付、fes.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 3詳細はグローバル・アセット・アロケーション・クォータリー、「クォータリー - 2019年4月」2019年4月1日付、gaa.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 4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、「債券利回りは底を打った,」2019年9月6日付、gis.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 5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、「エリザベス・ウォーレンと市場,」2019年9月13日付、gis.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 6Dmitry Zhdannikov and Alex Lawler “独占：サウジの石油生産、当初予想より速く回復へ－関係筋,” ロイター、2019年9月17日付。 7詳細はジオポリティカル・ストラテジー・スペシャル・アラート、「サウジの重要インフラへの攻撃は米国の対応に疑問を投げかける」2019年9月16日付、gps.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 8詳細はグローバル・アセット・アロケーション・スペシャル・レポート、「インフレ・ヘッジのための投資家ガイド：インフレ上昇時の投資方法」2019年5月22日付、gaa.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 GAA アセット・アロケーション

ハイライト コーポレート債：高い企業債務残高は次の景気後退期にコーポレート債投資家にとって問題となるが、インフレ圧力が高まり金融政策が引き締めに転じるまではスプレッドはそれに反応しない。米国債に対してコーポレート債をオーバーウェイトで保ちつつ、Baaおよびハイイールドのクレジット層を優先する。 MBS: エージェンシーMBSスプレッドは高格付け（Aaa、Aa、A）のコーポレート債と競合し、リスク調整後ではさらに魅力的に見える。ポートフォリオのAaa、Aa、A格付けのコーポレート債をエージェンシーMBSにスワップすることを推奨する。 ミュニシパル債: ミュニシパル／米国債イールド比の最近の戻りを踏まえ、ミュニシパル債の評価をニュートラルからオーバーウェイトに引き上げるべきである。ミュニシパルの中では、利回りが最も魅力的な長期のAaa格付け債を引き続き優先すべきである。 特集 先週、BCAの年次投資カンファレンスに参加した。イベントは常に専門家パネリストの話を聞き、クライアントが最も関心を寄せている課題を知る良い機会を提供する。何よりも、複数のプレゼンテーションや参加者との会話で2つのテーマが繰り返し浮かび上がった： 大きな企業債務残高 過小評価されたインフレリスク 私たちはこの2つの間に強い関連性を見ている。 企業債務について パネリストや参加者のコンセンサスは我々の見解と非常に一致していた：高レバレッジのバランスシートは次のデフォルトサイクルでコーポレート債投資家にとって問題になるが、それがいつ起きるかを決定する助けにはならない。 チャート1は、負債対利益比率が持続的に上昇しているにもかかわらず企業倒産は抑制されていることを示している。私たちは最近のレポートでこの乖離の理由を検討し、金融緩和的な金融政策が金利コストを低く抑え、銀行に満期を迎える債務をロールオーバーする自信を与えることでデフォルト率を抑えていると結論付けた。1 本質的には、FRBがより引き締め的な政策姿勢に転じるまでは銀行は企業のバランスシート悪化の兆候を見過ごすだろう。 チャート 1 企業のバランスシートは悪化しているが、デフォルトは低い Corporate Balance Sheets Are In Bad Shape, But Defaults Are Low Corporate Balance Sheets Are In Bad Shape, But Defaults Are Low インフレについて ここでインフレが重要になる。FRBは長年の低インフレにより投資家がインフレが再来しないと確信しているため、現在も緩和的な金融政策を運営している。その結果、10年物TIPSのブレークイーブン・インフレーション率はわずか1.53%であり、FRBのターゲットと整合する2.3% - 2.5%の範囲を大きく下回っている。 FRBはインフレ期待の再固定化という目標を達成するまで緩和的な政策姿勢を維持しなければならない。そうなって初めて金融政策は引き締めに転じ、企業のデフォルトサイクルのリスクが高まる。我々は以前より、10年物TIPSのブレークイーブン・インフレーション率が2.3%以上になればコーポレートクレジットに対してより慎重になるだろうと考えている。 コアインフレがFRBのターゲット付近で何ヶ月も連続して示されるまで、投資家がそれが永続すると思い始めるには時間がかかるかもしれない。 多くのカンファレンスパネリストはインフレリスクが現在過小評価されていると考えており、我々もフィリップス曲線の死を宣言するには時期尚早だという点では同意するが、インフレ期待が我々の目標レンジ2.3% - 2.5%に到達するまでにはまだ時間を要すると予想している。過去の研究で示したように、インフレ期待は実際のインフレデータの変化に対してゆっくりとしか順応しない。2  現時点で、我々の適応的期待モデルが示す10年物TIPSの公正価値水準はわずか1.94%（チャート 2）である。インフレが現在の水準付近で推移し続ければこの公正価値は上昇するだろうが、そのプロセスには時間がかかる。言い換えれば、コアインフレがFRBのターゲット付近で何ヶ月も出続けるまで、投資家がそれが永続すると信じ始めるには時間がかかるだろう。 チャート 2 適応的期待モデル Adaptive Expectations Model Adaptive Expectations Model チャート 3 インフレは目標からそれほど遠くない Inflation Not Far From Target Inflation Not Far From Target 適応プロセスには時間がかかるかもしれないが、インフレはすでにFRBの目標にかなり近いことに注意することが重要である。トレイリング12か月のトリム平均PCEインフレ率は8月時点で1.96%、年率ベースのコアPCEは1.77%であった（チャート 3）。トリム平均インフレは金融危機以降、他のインフレ指標よりも安定しており、コアPCEは時間をかけてトリム平均に近づく傾向がある。      企業債務とインフレについて 我々の見解では、高い企業債務と過小評価されたインフレリスクという2つのテーマは密接に結び付いている。景気回復に非常に長い時間を要したため、インフレは長期にわたり低位にあり、FRBは緩和的な政策姿勢を維持せざるを得なかった。その緩和的姿勢は銀行の貸し出しを促し、企業の債券発行を促進した。最終的にインフレ圧力が高まり、FRBの政策が引き締めに転じると、脆弱な企業バランスシートが露呈する。そうなって初めてコーポレートスプレッドは大幅に拡大するだろう。 それまでは、企業スプレッドがインフレ圧力が予想より早く出現するリスクに対して十分な補償を提供しているかが重要な問題となる。現時点では、リスク／リワードのトレードオフは下位クレジット層でより魅力的であるという但し書き付きで、十分な補償を提供していると考えている。 12か月のハイイールドのブレークイーブン・スプレッドは非常に魅力的で、歴史的中央値を大きく上回っている（チャート 4）。しかし投資適格内では、Baa格付け層のみが十分な補償を提供していると見ている（チャート 4、下段）。Aaa、Aa、A格付けのコーポレート債を保有するよりも良い代替案がある。次節で議論するように。 チャート 4 コーポレート債のバリュエーション Corporate Bond Valuation Corporate Bond Valuation 高格付けコーポレートクレジットよりエージェンシーMBSを推奨 チャート 5 MBSは高格付けのコーポレート債より魅力的 MBS More Attractive Than High-Rated Corporate Bonds MBS More Attractive Than High-Rated Corporate Bonds 前述の通り、A格以上の投資適格コーポレート債は現行のスプレッド水準ではあまり期待される補償を提供していない。実際、我々の以前の調査はそれらのスプレッドがすでに循環的なターゲットを下回っていることを指摘している。3 しかし好材料として、通常の30年エージェンシーMBSの平均オプション調整スプレッド（OAS）はここ数か月で拡大し、高格付けのコーポレートクレジットに対する魅力的な代替となっている。投資家は3つの理由からポートフォリオのAaa、Aa、A格付けコーポレートクレジットをエージェンシーMBSにシフトすることを推奨する。 1) 期待補償は競争力がある 通常の30年エージェンシーMBSの平均OASは現在52ベーシスポイントに達している。これはAa格付けコーポレート債の平均OASよりわずか6ベーシスポイント低く、A格付けよりは37ベーシスポイント低い（チャート 5 2) リスク調整後の補償は優れている MBSスプレッドはリスクプロファイルを考慮するとさらに魅力的に見える。具体的には、今年MBS指数の平均デュレーションが急低下した一方で、投資適格コーポレート債指数の平均デュレーションは上昇したことを考慮した場合である（チャート 5、パネル2）。実際、MBS指数の平均デュレーションはわずか2.9であるのに対し、A格コーポレート債は7.8である。これは、投資家が損失を被るにはMBSスプレッドが今後12か月で18ベーシスポイント拡大する必要があるのに対し、A格スプレッドはわずか11ベーシスポイント拡大すればよいことを意味する（チャート 5、下段）。 投資家はポートフォリオのAaa、Aa、A格付けコーポレートクレジットをエージェンシーMBSにシフトすることを推奨する。 MBSは負のコンベクシティを示すため、利回りが低下するとデュレーションが下がる。対照的に、ノンコーラブルの投資適格コーポレート債は正のコンベクシティを持ち、デュレーションが上昇している。これは、他の条件が同じであれば、利回りが大幅に低下した後に負のコンベクシティを持つ証券の方がリスク調整後の面で魅力的に見え始めることを意味する。これはまた、負のコンベクシティを持つハイイールドのコーポレート債が現在、投資適格コーポレート債よりもはるかに魅力的に見える主な理由でもある。4 興味深いことに、MBSの指数デュレーションが急低下した直近の2015/16年には、MBSはコーポレート債と比較してそれほど魅力的に見えなかった。それは当時コーポレート債スプレッドも拡大していたからである。今回は、MBS指数デュレーションが急落する間にコーポレート債スプレッドは安定している。米国債利回りにさらなる下値余地があると考えない限り、エージェンシーMBSは良い買いに見える。5 3) マクロリスクは低い 前述のとおり、我々はまだコーポレート債に対するマクロリスクを警鐘を鳴らす段階にはないが、エージェンシーMBSを取り巻くマクロリスクについてはさらに懸念が少ない。モーゲージの借り換え活動はMBSスプレッドの最も重要なマクロドライバーであり、長期にわたり比較的低位にとどまるはずである。現在のような低いモーゲージ金利では、ほとんどの住宅所有者がすでに借り換えの機会を得ているため、借り換えの消耗（refi burnout）は非常に高い。今年はモーゲージ金利が大きく低下したにもかかわらず借り換え活動は小幅のスパイクにとどまったことからも明らかである（チャート 6）。 チャート 6 抑制された借り換え活動は名目スプレッドを低位に保つ Muted Refi Activity Will Keep Nominal Spreads Low Muted Refi Activity Will Keep Nominal Spreads Low チャート 6はまた、名目MBSスプレッドが借り換え活動と高い相関を持ち、現在歴史的なタイト付近にあることを示している。このスプレッドはOAS（MBS投資家の期待リターンの代理）と前払（プレペイメント）活動によって失われると予想されるスプレッド部分の両方を含む。OASが歴史と比べてやや高めである一方で名目スプレッド全体が低位にあるということは、MBSが前払損失に対するバッファをほとんど織り込んでいないことを意味する。マクロの背景を考えると、これは妥当であるように思われる。 借り換えリスクに加えて、未償還モーゲージの信用クオリティが依然として非常に高いことにも注意する。新規モーゲージの中央値FICOスコアは金融危機以降ほとんど低下していない（チャート 7）。さらに、危機後期間の大部分でモーゲージ貸出基準は緩和されてきたが、FRBの7月のシニアローンオフィサー調査では、貸出基準が2005年以降平均より厳しいとする銀行が、基準が緩いとする銀行より多いと報告している。 住宅活動データの改善は一般にモーゲージ金利を押し上げ、それが借り換え活動を制約する。 最後に、住宅活動が大きく弱化する懸念はほとんどない。私たちが追跡する6つの主要な住宅活動データ系列はすべて、今年のモーゲージ金利低下以降で大きく回復している（チャート 8）。住宅活動データの改善は一般にモーゲージ金利を上昇させ、それが借り換え活動を制限する。 チャート 7 モーゲージ貸出基準はタイト Mortgage Lending Standards Are Tight Mortgage Lending Standards Are Tight チャート 8 住宅活動が回復 Housing Activity Hooking Up Housing Activity Hooking Up   結論: エージェンシーMBSスプレッドは高格付け（Aaa、Aa、A）のコーポレート債と競合し、リスク調整後ではさらに魅力的に見える。ポートフォリオのAaa、Aa、A格付けコーポレート債をエージェンシーMBSにスワップすることを推奨する。 ミュニシパル債の格上げ 7月23日、我々はミュニシパル債のエクスポージャーをオーバーウェイトからニュートラルに引き下げるよう投資家に助言した。6 理由は純粋にバリュエーションによるものである。即時のミュニシパル信用の悪化の兆候は見えなかったが、利回りが代替案に対して単純に低すぎると指摘した。 現在、同様に即時の信用悪化の兆候は見られない。実際、ミュニシパル債の格付けのアップグレードはダウングレードを上回り続け、当社のミュニシパルヘルスモニターは「健康改善」領域にあり、州および地方政府の利払い余力は強い（チャート 9）。7 チャート 9 ミュニシパルの信用クオリティは懸念事項ではない Muni Credit Quality Is Not A Concern Muni Credit Quality Is Not A Concern しかし違いは、イールド比が8月初旬以来劇的に回復し、ミュニシパル債が再び魅力的になったことである（チャート 10）。 チャート 10 ミュニシパル債が再び魅力的に Munis Attractive Once Again Munis Attractive Once Again 結論: ミュニシパル／米国債イールド比の最近の戻りを踏まえ、投資家はミュニシパル債をニュートラルからオーバーウェイトに格上げすべきである。ミュニシパルの中では、利回りが最も魅力的な長期のAaa格付け債を引き続き優先するべきである。   Ryan Swift, 米国債ストラテジスト rswift@bcaresearch.com 脚注 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 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, 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 ハイイールド債指数は大半のハイイールドクレジットが組み込まれたコールオプションを有しているため負のコンベクシティを持つ。投資適格コーポレート債はノンコーラブルである傾向がある。 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “What’s Up In U.S. Money Markets?”, dated September 24, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Message To The TIPS Market”, dated July 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on our Municipal Health Monitor please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle”, dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com フィクスト・インカム部門のパフォーマンス 推奨ポートフォリオ仕様

Highlights Chart 1Waiting For A Manufacturing Rebound The 2015/16 roadmap is holding. As in that period, the ISM Manufacturing PMI has fallen into recessionary territory, but the Services PMI remains strong (Chart 1). As is typically the case, bond yields have taken their cue from the manufacturing index. The resilient service sector and global shift toward easier monetary policy will support an eventual rebound in manufacturing, and the Fed will continue to play its part this month with another 25 basis point rate cut. As for the Treasury market, much stronger wage growth than in 2016 will prevent the Fed from cutting rates back to zero. This means that the 10-year yield will not re-visit its 2016 trough of 1.37% (Chart 1, bottom panel). Strategically, investors should maintain a benchmark duration stance for now, but stand ready to reduce duration once the global manufacturing data stabilize. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 105 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +323 bps. In remarks last week, Fed Chairman Powell noted that the Fed has lowered the market’s expected path of interest rates, and that he views this easing of financial conditions as providing important support for the economy.1  The July FOMC minutes echoed this sentiment, sending a strong signal that the Fed will do everything it can to prevent a significant tightening of financial conditions. The accommodative monetary environment is extremely positive for corporate spreads. In terms of valuation, Baa-rated securities offer the most value in the investment grade corporate bond space (Chart 2). Baa spreads remain 13 bps above our cyclical target (panel 2).2 Conversely, Aa and A-rated spreads are 2 bps and 1 bp below target, respectively (panel 3). Aaa spreads are 15 bps below target (not shown). The main risk to spreads comes from the relatively poor state of corporate balance sheets. Our measure of gross leverage – total debt over pre-tax profits – was already high, and was revised even higher after the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ annual GDP revision (panel 4). But for now, likely in large part due to accommodative Fed policy, loan officers aren’t inclined to cut off the flow of credit. C&I lending standards remain in “net easing” territory (bottom panel). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 114 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +551 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 22 bps on the month. At 385 bps, it is well above the cycle-low of 303 bps. We see more potential for spread tightening in high-yield than in investment grade. Within investment grade, only Baa-rated spreads appear cheap. However, in high-yield, Ba-rated spreads are 49 bps above our target (Chart 3), B-rated spreads are 151 bps above our target (panel 3) and Caa-rated spreads are 398 bps cheap (not shown).3   Junk spreads also offer reasonable value relative to expected default losses. The current Moody’s baseline forecast calls for a default rate of 3.2% over the next 12 months. This translates into 207 bps of excess spread in the High-Yield index after adjusting for expected default losses (panel 4). That 207 bps of excess spread is comfortably above zero, though it is below the historical average of 250 bps. As noted on page 3, C&I lending standards have now eased for two consecutive quarters and job cut announcements are off their highs (bottom panel). Both trends are supportive of lower default expectations in the future. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 63 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -31 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread widened 9 bps on the month, driven entirely by the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) held flat at 29 bps. At 51 bps, the OAS for conventional 30-year MBS has widened back close to its average pre-crisis level (Chart 4). However, value is less attractive when we look at the nominal MBS spread, which remains near its all-time lows.4 The nominal spread has also widened less than would have been expected in recent months, considering the jump in refi activity (panel 2). The mixed valuation picture means we are not yet inclined to augment MBS exposure. However, we are equally disinclined to downgrade MBS, given our view that Treasury yields are close to a trough. An increase in Treasury yields would cause refi activity to slow, putting downward pressure on MBS spreads. All in all, we expect the next big move in the MBS/Treasury basis will be a tightening, as global growth improves and mortgage rates rise. However, valuation is not sufficiently attractive to warrant more than a neutral allocation. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +152 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 45 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +442 bps. Local Authorities underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 31 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +212 bps. Meanwhile, Foreign Agencies underperformed by 11 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +141 bps. Domestic Agencies outperformed by 13 bps in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +44 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 3 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +39 bps. 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 still outperform in that scenario given the more attractive starting point for spreads. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to Sovereigns. Unlike the debt of most other countries, Mexican sovereign bonds continue to trade cheap 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: Neutral Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 104 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -46 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio rose 9% in August, and currently sits at 85% (Chart 6). The ratio is close to one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean, but slightly above the 81% average that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. We shifted our recommended stance on municipal bonds from overweight to neutral near the end of July.5 The reason for the downgrade was that the sector had become extremely expensive. Yield ratios have risen somewhat since then, but not yet by enough for us to re-initiate an overweight recommendation. We also continue to observe that the best value in the municipal bond space is found at the long-end of the Aaa curve. 2-year and 5-year M/T yield ratios remain below average pre-crisis levels, while yield ratios beyond the 10-year maturity point are above. 20-year and 30-year Aaa M/T yield ratios, in particular, are the most attractive (panel 2). Fundamentally, state & local government balance sheets remain in decent shape and a material increase in ratings downgrades is unlikely any time soon (bottom panel). Our recent shift to a more cautious stance was driven purely by valuation and not a concern for municipal bond credit quality. A further cheapening in the coming months would cause us to re-initiate an overweight stance.    Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened dramatically in August, as the global manufacturing recession continued to pull yields down. At present, the 2/10 Treasury slope is just above the zero line at 2 bps, 11 bps flatter than at the end of July. The 5/30 slope is currently 60 bps, 9 bps flatter than at the end of July. Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter is currently -98 bps (Chart 7). This means that the market is priced for almost four more 25 basis point rate cuts during the next year. While we have shifted to a tactically neutral duration stance because of uncertainty surrounding the timing of the next move higher in yields, four rate cuts on a 12-month horizon seems excessive given the underlying strength of the U.S. economy. For this reason, we are inclined to maintain a barbelled position across the Treasury curve, and also to stay short the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. The February 2020 contract is priced for three rate cuts over the next four FOMC meetings. One of those rate cuts will occur this month, but if the global manufacturing data recover, further cuts may not be needed. A short position in this contract continues to make sense. On the Treasury curve, our butterfly spread models continue to show that barbells look cheap relative to bullets (see Appendix B). Further, the 5-year and 7-year yields will rise the most when the market prices-in a more hawkish path for the policy rate. Investors should favor the long-end and short-end of the curve, while avoiding the belly (5-year and 7-year). TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 174 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -104 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 21 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.55% (Chart 8). The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate also fell 21 bps in August. It currently sits at 1.74%. As we have noted in recent research, FOMC members are monitoring long-dated inflation expectations and are committed to keeping policy easy enough to “re-anchor” them at levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% target.6 Eventually, this will support a return of long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates (both 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward) to our 2.3% - 2.5% target range. However, for breakevens to move higher, investors also need to see evidence that inflation will be sustained near 2%. On that note, recent trends are encouraging. Through July, trimmed mean PCE is running at 2.22% on a trailing 6-month basis (annualized) and at 1.99% on a trailing 12-month basis (bottom panel). As a result, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate looks very low relative to the reading from our Adaptive Expectations model, a model based on several different measures of inflation (panel 4).7 Supportive Fed policy and rising inflation should support wider TIPS breakevens in the coming months, remain overweight.  ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +74 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 4 bps on the month. It currently sits at 28 bps, below its minimum pre-crisis level of 34 bps (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 (see 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. 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 underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 16 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +218 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 6 bps on the month. It currently sits at 69 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 underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 31 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +88 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 7 bps on the month and currently sits at 56 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 98 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 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of September 6, 2019) 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 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of September 6, 2019) 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 +49 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 49 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) 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 September 6, 2019)     Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/06/watch-fed-chairman-jerome-powells-qa-in-zurich-live.html 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 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 4 The nominal spread is simply the difference between MBS index yield and the duration-matched Treasury yield. No adjustment is made for prepayment risk. 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Message To The TIPS Market”, dated July 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Message To The TIPS Market”, dated July 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on our Adaptive Expectations Model 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

Highlights Chart 1Keep Tracking The CRB / Gold Ratio The Fed cut rates by 25 basis points last week, a move that Chairman Powell described as an “insurance” cut meant to counter the risks from trade tensions and global growth weakness. Powell also described the move as a “mid-cycle adjustment to policy” and not “the beginning of a lengthy cutting cycle”. We agree with the Fed’s “mid-cycle” view of the U.S. economy and think an extended cutting cycle is unwarranted, but the market clearly disagrees. Long-end yields fell on Powell’s remarks and fell further as U.S. / China trade tensions re-escalated during the past few days. The 2015/16 period continues to be a good roadmap for the current environment, and we expect the next big move in Treasury yields will be higher. The timing of that move, however, is highly uncertain. Our political strategists expect an increase in saber-rattling between the U.S. and China in the coming months, and bond yields will not rise until either trade tensions ease and/or the global growth data recover. We recommend a tactical neutral allocation to portfolio duration, but expect to switch back to below-benchmark when those conditions are met. The CRB / Gold ratio will continue to be a good guide for the 10-year yield (Chart 1). Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 63 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +432 bps. Corporate spreads widened somewhat following Jerome Powell’s perceived hawkishness at last week’s FOMC meeting, but that spread widening will prove fleeting. The Fed remains committed to keeping monetary policy accommodative and that means doing everything it can to prevent a significant tightening of financial conditions.1 The soaring price of gold is the strongest indicator of the Fed’s dovishness, and it is also a buy signal for corporate credit (Chart 2). In terms of valuation, Baa-rated securities offer the most value in investment grade corporate bond space. Baa spreads remain 7 bps above our cyclical target.2 Conversely, Aa and A-rated spreads are 3 bps and 4 bps below target, respectively (panel 4). Aaa spreads are 16 bps below target (not shown). The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey for Q2, released yesterday, showed that commercial & industrial (C&I) lending standards eased for the second consecutive quarter. C&I loan demand continued to contract, but less aggressively than its recent pace (bottom panel). Easing lending standards usually coincide with spread tightening, and vice-versa.  High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 66 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +673 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 6 bps in July, then widened 26 bps in the first two days of August. At 397 bps, it is currently well above the cycle-low of 303 bps. We see more potential for spread tightening in high-yield than in investment grade. Within investment grade, only Baa-rated spreads appear cheap. However, in high-yield, Ba-rated spreads are 71 bps above our target (Chart 3), B-rated spreads are 142 bps above our target (panel 3) and Caa-rated spreads are 298 bps above our target (not shown).3 Junk spreads also offer reasonable value relative to expected default losses. The current Moody’s baseline forecast calls for a default rate of 2.9% over the next 12 months, not far from our own projection.4 This would translate into 238 bps of excess spread in the High-Yield index, after adjusting for default losses (panel 4). This is comfortably above zero, and only just below the historical average of 250 bps. As noted on page 3, C&I lending standards have now eased for two consecutive quarters and job cut announcements are off their highs (bottom panel). Both trends are supportive of lower default expectations in the future. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 43 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +32 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread tightened 10 bps on the month, consisting of a 9 bps tightening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS) and a 1 bp decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). Falling mortgage rates hurt MBS in the first half of this year, as lower rates led to an increase in refi activity that drove MBS spreads wider (Chart 4). In fact, the conventional 30-year index OAS moved all the way back to its pre-crisis mean, before tightening last month (panel 3). However, as we noted in a recent report, the nominal 30-year MBS spread remains very tight, at close to one standard deviation below its historical mean.5 The mixed valuation picture means we are not yet inclined to augment MBS exposure, especially given the recent downleg in Treasury yields that could spur another small jump in refis. However, we are equally disinclined to downgrade MBS, given our view that Treasury yields are close to a trough. All in all, we expect the next big move in the MBS/Treasury basis will be a tightening, as global growth improves and mortgage rates rise. However, valuation is not sufficiently attractive to warrant more than a neutral allocation.   Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 30 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +164 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 68 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +490 bps. Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 31 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +244 bps. Meanwhile, Foreign Agencies outperformed by 49 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +153 bps. Domestic Agencies outperformed by 6 bps in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +31 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 7 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +36 bps. 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 still outperform in that scenario given the more attractive starting point for spreads. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to Sovereigns. Unlike the debt of most other countries, Mexican sovereign bonds continue to trade cheap relative to U.S. corporates (bottom panel). While this remains an attractive option from a valuation perspective, the President’s on again/off again tariff threats make it a risky near-term proposition. Municipal Bonds: Neutral Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 102 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +58 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio fell 8% in July, and currently sits at 78% (Chart 6). The ratio is more than one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean, and even below the 81% average that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. We noted the strong outperformance of municipal bonds in our report two weeks ago, and recommended cutting exposure from overweight to neutral, based on how expensive the bonds have become.6 In that report we noted that Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratios for 2-year, 5-year and 10-year maturities were all more than one standard deviation below average pre-crisis levels. Only 20-year and 30-year Aaa-rated municipal bonds continue to look cheap, and we recommend that investors focus muni exposure on that segment of the market. Fundamentally, state & local government balance sheets remain in decent shape and a material increase in ratings downgrades is unlikely any time soon (bottom panel). Our shift to a more cautious stance is driven purely by valuation, and not any immediate concern for municipal bond credit quality. Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened in July, before undergoing a roughly parallel shift down of about 30 bps in the first two days of August, following the FOMC meeting and news about the escalation of the U.S./China trade war. As we go to press, the 2/10 Treasury slope stands at 16 bps, 9 bps flatter than at the end of June. The 5/30 slope is currently 76 bps, exactly equal to its end-of-June level. Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter is currently -78 bps (Chart 7). This means that the market is priced for roughly three more 25 basis point rate cuts during the next year. While we have shifted to a tactically neutral duration stance because of the uncertainty surrounding the timing of the next move higher in yields, three rate cuts on a 12-month horizon still seems excessive given the underlying strength of the U.S. economy. For this reason we are inclined to maintain a barbelled position across the Treasury curve, and also to stay short the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. The February 2020 contract is priced for three rate cuts spread over the next four FOMC meetings. A short position continues to make sense. On the yield curve, our butterfly spread models continue to show that barbells look cheap relative to bullets (see Appendix B). Further, the 5-year and 7-year yields will rise the most when the market prices-in a more hawkish path for the policy rate. Investors should favor the long-end and short-end of the curve, while avoiding the belly (5-year and 7-year). TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 43 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +71 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 8 bps in July to reach 1.77%, before falling back to 1.67% in the first few days of August (Chart 8). The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate followed a similar path and currently sits at 1.88%. As we have noted in recent research, FOMC members are monitoring long-dated inflation expectations and are committed to keeping policy easy enough to “re-anchor” them at levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% target.7 In the long-run, this will support a return of long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates (both 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward) to our 2.3% - 2.5% target range. However, for breakevens to move higher, investors will also need to see evidence that realized inflation can be sustained near 2%. On that note, the core PCE deflator grew at an annualized rate of 2.48% during the past three months. However, the 12-month rate of change remains at 1.5%. The 12-month trimmed mean PCE inflation rate is currently running at 2%, exactly equal to the Fed’s target. In a recent report we noted that 12-month core PCE inflation has a track record of converging toward the trimmed mean.8 We see continued upside in core inflation over the remainder of the year, and therefore recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries.  ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 8 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +59 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 3 bps on the month. It currently sits at 31 bps, well below the pre-crisis mean of 64 bps (Chart 9). In addition to poor valuation, the sector’s credit fundamentals are shifting in a negative direction. Household interest payments continue to trend up, suggesting a higher delinquency rate going forward (panel 3). Meanwhile, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey for Q2, released yesterday, showed a continued tightening in lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising delinquencies (bottom panel). On the bright side, stronger demand for both credit cards and auto loans was reported for the first time since the fourth quarter of 2016. 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 42 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +234 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 6 bps on the month. It currently sits at 64 bps, below average pre-crisis levels but above levels seen in 2018 (Chart 10). The macro outlook for commercial real estate looks somewhat unfavorable, with lenders tightening standards (panel 4) amidst falling demand (bottom panel). However, on a positive note, commercial real estate prices recently accelerated and are now much more consistent with current CMBS spreads (panel 3). Despite the mixed fundamental picture, CMBS still offer excellent compensation compared to other similarly-rated fixed income sectors.9 Agency CMBS: Overweight   Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 bps in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +119 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 3 bps on the month and currently sits at 47 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector remains appropriate. 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 78 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 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of August 2, 2019) 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 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of August 2, 2019) 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 +55 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 55 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) 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.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Got Your Back”, dated June 25, 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 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 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Assessing Corporate Default Risk”, dated March 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Long Awkward Middle Phase”, dated July 2, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Message To The TIPS Market”, dated July 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Message To The TIPS Market”, dated July 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Hedge Near-Term Credit Exposure”, dated May 28, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed’s message to markets is “lower for longer” until inflation expectations are re-anchored. But that guiding principle will manifest itself in only a 25 bps rate cut this month. Beyond that, we see a good chance that July’s 25 bps rate cut could be one and done. Stay short the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. TIPS: Stay overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasury securities. Our model shows that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 12 bps too low, and core inflation should gradually move higher in the second half of the year. Municipal Bonds: We downgrade our recommended allocation to municipal bonds from overweight to neutral, based on valuations that have become historically expensive. We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to 20-year and 30-year Aaa munis, where yields are more reasonable. Feature Chart 1Is “Lower For Longer” Working? If nothing else, the Fed is definitely staying on message. That message being that monetary policy will remain accommodative until the “re-anchoring” of inflation expectations is complete. Case in point, from the June FOMC minutes:1 Many participants further noted that longer-term inflation expectations could be somewhat below levels consistent with the Committee’s 2 percent inflation objective, or that continued weakness in inflation could prompt expectations to slip further. These developments might make it more difficult to achieve their inflation objective on a sustained basis. And last week, from a speech delivered by New York Fed President John Williams:2 Investors are increasingly viewing these low inflation readings not as an aberration, but rather a new normal. This is evidenced by a broad-based decline in market-based measures of longer-run inflation expectations … According to Williams, the solution to the low inflation expectations problem is: First, take swift action when faced with adverse economic conditions. Second, keep interest rates lower for longer. And third, adapt monetary policy strategies to succeed in the context of low r-star and the ZLB (zero-lower bound). “Lower for longer” until inflation expectations are re-anchored. That’s the Fed’s message to markets and policymakers are going out of their way to deliver it aggressively – sometimes too aggressively (see Box on page 3). The upshot is that there is some indication it might be working. BOX July Rate Cut Will Be 25 bps, And Could Be One And Done Chart B1Short The February 2020 Fed Funds Futures Contract An interesting series of events unfolded last Thursday when New York Fed President John Williams delivered a speech titled “Living Life Near the ZLB”. The speech focused on how, when interest rates are close to the zero bound, the Fed should “act quickly to lower rates at the first sign of economic distress”. Investors interpreted this dovish speech as a signal that the Fed might be gearing up for a 50 bps rate cut this month, and prices of interest rate futures rose sharply. But within a couple hours, the New York Fed released a statement saying that Williams’ comments were made in the context of an academic speech, and had nothing to do with upcoming policy actions. The New York Fed’s clarification almost certainly means that the Fed intends to cut rates by only 25 bps in July. In fact, based on the June Summary of Economic Projections where 9 out of 17 participants saw no need for rate cuts this year and nobody called for more than 50 bps of cuts in 2019, it seems unlikely that the board could achieve consensus on more than a 25 bps cut this month. Beyond this month, if global growth improves in the second half of this year as we expect, we see high odds that the Fed might only deliver a single 25 bps rate cut in July. With that in mind we continue to recommend a short position in the February 2020 fed funds futures contract (Chart B1). That position will earn 52 bps in the event of only one rate cut over the next five FOMC meetings, 26 bps in the event of two rate cuts, and 1 bp in the event of three rate cuts. Chart 1 on page 1 shows that the 10-year Treasury yield’s recent jump was driven entirely by the compensation for inflation protection. The 10-year real yield, meanwhile, is barely off its lows. The divergence makes perfect sense. A recent spate of stronger-than-expected inflation data has lifted inflation expectations, but the Fed is signaling that it will not respond by running a tighter monetary policy. That dovish forward guidance is capping the upside in real yields. If recent history repeats itself, core PCE should gradually move higher, eventually re-converging with the trimmed mean. In this week’s report we consider the outlooks for inflation and TIPS over the remainder of the year. Inflation: Modest Upside In H2 2019 As noted above, core inflation has rebounded from the extremely low readings seen earlier in the year. In fact, month-over-month core PCE came in above the Fed’s 2% target in both April and May (Chart 2). We also continue to observe a wide divergence between year-over-year core and trimmed mean PCE measures (Chart 2, top panel). If recent history repeats itself, core PCE should gradually move higher, eventually re-converging with the trimmed mean. While we only have PCE inflation data up to May, the June core CPI print was also strong (Chart 2, bottom panel). However, a closer look reveals that the bulk of June’s increase was driven by the core good component (Chart 3). We should not expect core goods to be a major driver of U.S. inflation going forward. Imports make up a large portion of consumer goods, and import prices tend to lead fluctuations in the core goods CPI. Despite the federal government’s push toward protectionism, import prices are currently contracting. This means that any strength in the core goods CPI will be transitory. Chart 2A Rebound In Core Inflation Chart 3Core CPI Components   Chart 4Shelter CPI Still Has Upside On the flipside, shelter – the largest component of core CPI – also increased in June (Chart 3, top panel), and we expect further acceleration in the second half of the year. The apartment rental vacancy rate is the main driver of shelter inflation, and it remains at a very low level despite the fact that a lot of multi-family units have been built during the past few years (Chart 4). The depressed vacancy rate suggests that the rental market is still not oversupplied, a message confirmed by the most recent reading from the National Multifamily Housing Council’s Apartment Market Tightness index (Chart 4, panel 2). This index has been above 50 for the past two months. Readings above 50 usually coincide with a falling vacancy rate. Overall, we conclude that core inflation will rise modestly in the second half of the year and that core PCE will eventually re-converge with the trimmed mean. Stronger inflation will be driven by the shelter and core services components. Any near-term strength in core goods inflation should be faded. Stay Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals We noted above that 10-year nominal yield’s recent jump was driven by the cost of inflation protection, rather than the real component. We can gain a broader perspective on the breakdown between the real and inflation components of Treasury yields by looking at the TIPS beta (Chart 5). The 10-year TIPS beta is calculated by regressing monthly changes in the 10-year TIPS yield on monthly changes in the 10-year nominal yield. It has been close to 0.6 for the past few years, meaning that a 1% move in the 10-year nominal yield can be roughly split between a 60 bps move in the real yield and a 40 bps move in the cost of inflation protection. The 10-year TIPS beta has been close to 0.6 for the past few years, meaning that a 1% move in the 10-year nominal yield can be roughly split between a 60 bps move in the real yield and a 40 bps move in the cost of inflation protection. We expect the TIPS beta to remain at or below current levels for the next few months. The TIPS beta tends to be low when long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are well below target. This is because the Fed will usually deploy dovish forward guidance during these periods in an attempt to goose inflation. Dovish Fed guidance makes the market less likely to price-in future monetary tightening in response to better economic data. This means that a greater proportion of the change in nominal yields will be driven by inflation expectations. Eventually, once long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates move back into a “well-anchored” range between 2.3% and 2.5% (Chart 5, bottom two panels), the Fed will turn increasingly hawkish and the TIPS beta will rise. It will be some time before the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate returns to its 2.3% - 2.5% range. However, our Adaptive Expectations model suggests that the rate will move higher during the next few months (Chart 6).3 Our model considers the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate relative to the trailing 10-year rate of change in core CPI, the trailing 12-month rate of change in headline CPI and the New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge, with the trailing 10-year rate of change in core CPI being the most important variable. At present, our model pegs fair value for the 10-year breakeven at 1.93%, 12 bps above the current level. Chart 5Fed Guidance Keeps TIPS Beta Low Chart 6Adaptive Expectations Model   Chart 7Inflation & Commodities Further, every monthly core CPI print that comes in above 1.83% - the current trailing 10-year rate of change – puts slight upward pressure on our model’s fair value reading. In light of current inflation trends, further upside in the 10-year breakeven rate seems likely in the second half of the year. Finally, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has also taken cues from oil and commodity markets in recent years (Chart 7). Our preferred broad commodity index – the CRB Raw Industrials index – remains in a tailspin, but should recover in the second half of the year alongside global growth (see section titled “Monitoring The Manufacturing Recession” below). As for oil, our commodity strategists also see upside in the second half of the year, and hold a $70/bbl price target for Brent crude.4  Bottom Line: Stay overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasury securities. Our model shows that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 12 bps too low, and core inflation should gradually move higher in the second half of the year. Cut Municipal Bonds To Neutral Municipal / Treasury yield ratios have tightened dramatically during the past few weeks, and municipal debt now looks quite expensive. 2-year, 5-year and 10-year Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratios are all more than one standard deviation below average pre-crisis levels (Chart 8). Only 20-year and 30-year Aaa munis still look cheap, with yield ratios above average pre-crisis levels (Chart 8, bottom two panels). 2-year, 5-year and 10-year Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratios are all more than one standard deviation below average pre-crisis levels. Municipal debt looks even more expensive relative to corporate credit. Chart 9 shows the average yield from the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Corporate index and the yield of a Aaa muni bond with the same duration. The Muni / Corporate yield ratio is extremely stretched, and is actually close to levels that have preceded periods of strong corporate bond performance in the past. Chart 8Munis Look Expensive Chart 9Favor Corporate Credit Over Municipals   Bottom Line: We downgrade our recommended allocation to municipal bonds from overweight to neutral, based on valuations that have become historically expensive. We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to 20-year and 30-year Aaa munis, where yields are more reasonable. We may be seeing the first signs that manufacturing is rebounding as we head into the third quarter. We prefer corporate credit over municipals in this environment, and note that corporate bonds tend to perform well when they are as attractively valued relative to munis as they are now. Monitoring The Manufacturing Recession Chart 10Early Signs Of A Manufacturing Rebound? Much like in 2015/16, the ongoing global growth slowdown has taken its toll on the U.S. manufacturing sector. In fact, the National ISM Manufacturing PMI fell to 51.7 in June, from a 2018 peak of 60.7. We’ve noted in prior research that, as was the case in 2016, the global manufacturing data will likely rebound now that the Fed has adopted a more dovish policy stance and China has stepped up its rate of credit growth.5 In fact, as the Regional Fed Manufacturing PMIs have come in during the past two weeks, we may be seeing the first signs that manufacturing is rebounding as we head into the third quarter (Chart 10). The New York Fed’s PMI, released July 15, rose from -8.6 to 4.3, and three days later the Philadelphia Fed’s PMI jumped from 0.3 to 21.8. Release dates for the remaining four regional Fed surveys are shown in parentheses in Chart 10, and we will be monitoring these releases closely to see if the tentative rebound observed in the New York and Philadelphia manufacturing surveys is confirmed. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20190619.pdf 2 https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2019/wil190718 3 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Weak 1H19 Oil Demand Data Fuels Market Uncertainty”, dated July 18, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Got Your Back”, dated June 25, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com   Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification