BCA Indicators/Model

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The risk/reward tradeoff remains squarely to the downside and we are turning cyclically (3-12 month horizon) cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market. The Presidential cycle, UBER’s IPO, the SPX hitting all-time highs following the initial December 2018 yield curve inversion, and two additional yield curve inversions signal that this time is no different and a recession is likely upon us in the coming 18 months. The re-escalation of the U.S./China trade tussle along with the risk of an antitrust investigation into Apple, waning capital outlays, softening exports and deteriorating operating conditions warn that it does not pay to be overweight the S&P tech hardware storage & peripherals (THS&P) index. Our tech EPS model is flashing red on the back of sinking capex and an appreciating U.S. dollar, deteriorating operating metrics signal that tech margins are under attack and exports are also in a freefall, suggesting that the time is ripe to put the tech sector on downgrade alert. Recent Changes Downgrade the S&P THS&P index to neutral, today. Put the S&P tech sector on downgrade alert. Table 1 A Recession Thought Experiment A Recession Thought Experiment Feature The SPX appeared to crack early in the week, but dovish Fed President statements saved the day and stocks recovered smartly to end the week on a high note. Our tactically (0-3 month) cautious equity market stance has served us well and has run its course. We are currently leaning toward a cyclically (3-12 month) cautious stance as a slew of our cyclical indicators have rolled over decisively. At the current juncture the big call to make is on the longevity of the business cycle. Crudely put, can the Fed engineer a soft landing or is the looming easing cycle a precursor of recession (Chart 1)? We side with the latter. Chart 1What’s The Opposite Of Bond Vigilantes? What’s The Opposite Of Bond Vigilantes? What’s The Opposite Of Bond Vigilantes? This is U.S. Equity Strategy service’s view. BCA’s house view remains constructive on a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon. As a reminder, the ongoing expansion is officially the longest on record and BCA’s house view also calls for recession in late-2020/early-2021. Stan Druckenmiller once famously said “…you have to visualize the situation 18 months from now, and whatever that is, that's where the price will be, not where it is today." Thus, if BCA’s recession view is accurate then we need to start preparing the portfolio for a recessionary outcome. This week we conduct a simple thought experiment on where and why the SPX will be headed as the economy flirts with recession. But first, we rely on the message from our indicators to guide us in determining if the cycle is nearing an end. Last December parts of the yield curve slope inverted (Chart 2) and our simple insight was that the market almost always peaks following the yield curve inversion and we remained bullish on the prospects of the broad equity market and called for fresh all-time highs based on the results of our research.1 On May 1, 2019 we got confirmation as the SPX vaulted to new all-time highs, so that box is now checked. Chart 2The Yield Curve... The Yield Curve... The Yield Curve... Beyond the traditional yield curve inversion that forecasts that the Fed’s next move will be a cut and eventually the cycle ends, other yield curve type indicators have inverted and also foreshadow the end of the business cycle. Charts 3A & 3B show that the unemployment gap and another labor market yield curve type indicator have both inverted signaling that the business cycle is long in the tooth. Chart 3A...Is Always Right... ...Is Always Right... ...Is Always Right... Chart 3B...In Predicting Fed Cuts ...In Predicting Fed Cuts ...In Predicting Fed Cuts This time is no different and the business cycle will end. Why? Because the Fed has likely raised interest rates (as we first posited on November 19, 2018 and again on December 3, 2018) by enough to trigger a default cycle in the most indebted segment of the U.S. economy where the excesses are most prominent in the current expansion: the non-financial business sector (Chart 4A). Chart 4AMind The Corporate Debt Excesses Mind The Corporate Debt Excesses Mind The Corporate Debt Excesses Chart 4BDefault Cycle Looming Default Cycle Looming Default Cycle Looming Already, junk bond market spreads are widening and the yield curve is predicting that a default cycle is around the corner (yield curve shown on inverted scale, bottom panel, Chart 4B).  Another interesting indicator is the Presidential cycle. Chart 5 updates our work from last year showing years 2 & 3 of 17 Presidential cycles dating back to 1950. In the summer of year 3 the SPX typically peaks. Finally, the anecdote of the biggest unicorn, UBER, ipoing on May 10, 2019 also likely marks the ending of the cycle. Therefore if recession looms in the coming 18 months what is the typical magnitude of the SPX EPS drawdown and what multiple do investors pay for trough earnings? Chart 5Presidential Cycle Says Sell Presidential Cycle Says Sell Presidential Cycle Says Sell While the two most recent recessionary earnings contractions have been severe, we are conservative in estimating a garden variety recession causing a 20% EPS fall. S&P 500 2018 EPS ended near $162/share. This year $167/share is likely and we are now revising down our forecast for next year to $175/share from $181/share previously. A conservative 20% drawdown sets us back to $140/share in 2021. Dating back to the late 1970s when our IBES dataset on the forward P/E multiple commences, the trough forward P/E multiple during recessions averages out to 10x (Chart 6). Remaining on a conservative path we will use 13.5x, or the recent December 2018 trough multiple as our worst case multiple and a sideways move to 16.5x as the most optimistic case. This implies an SPX ending value of between 1890 and 2310 will be reached some time in 2020, with the former resetting the equity market back near the 2016 BREXIT lows. Chart 6Trough Recession Multiple Averages 10x Trough Recession Multiple Averages 10x Trough Recession Multiple Averages 10x As a result, we are not willing to play a 100-200 point advance for a potential 1000 point drawdown, the risk/reward tradeoff is to the downside. Can and has the Fed previously engineered soft landings that have caused big relief rallies in the equity market? Six times since the 1960s: once in each of the mid-1960s, early-1970s, mid-1970s, mid-1980s and mid-1990s and once in 1998 (top panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Six Mid-cycle Easing Attempts Six Mid-cycle Easing Attempts Six Mid-cycle Easing Attempts Three easing cycles were not forecast by a yield curve inversion, but the mid-1960s, the mid-1990s and in 1998 the yield curve cautioned investors that an easing cycle was looming (bottom panel, Chart 7). Specifically in 1998 the Fed only acted after the equity market fell by 20%. Another interesting observation is that ex-post five of these six iterations were truly mid cycle, one was very late cycle, but none took place in year 11 of an expansion as is currently the case. We are in uncharted territory. Chart 8 shows the mean profile of the S&P 500 six months prior to and one year post the initial Fed cut. Our assumption is that a cut in July may materialize, thus the vertical line in Chart 8 denotes t=0, which is in sync with the bond market that is pricing a greater than 75% chance of this occurrence. The subsequent market rallies were significant. Our insight from this research is that we already had the explosive rally as Chart 8 depicts, owing to the Fed’s completed pivot, with the stock market rallying from the 2018 Christmas Eve lows to the May 1, 2019 all-time highs by 26%. But, the jury is still out. The biggest risk to our call is indeed a continued rally in the S&P 500 on easy money. A way to mitigate this risk of missing out on a rally is by going long SPX LEAPS Calls once a greater than 10% correction takes root. Chart 8Is The Rally Already Behind Us? Is The Rally Already Behind Us? Is The Rally Already Behind Us? Keep in mind, that for the Fed to act and cut rates, stocks will likely have to breach the 2650 level, a point where a reflexive fall will further shake investor’s confidence in profit growth. In other words, the bond market is screaming that Fed cuts are looming, but it also means that stocks have ample room to fall before the Fed cuts rates, i.e. a riot point will force the Fed’s hand. Another big risk to this call is a swift positive resolution on the U.S./China trade dispute, and/or an unprecedented easing from the Chinese authorities which will put us offside as a euphoric rise will definitely ensue. Again SPX LEAPS Calls are an excellent way to position for such an outcome. Netting it all out, the risk/reward tradeoff remains squarely to the downside and we are turning cyclically (3-12 month horizon) cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market. The Presidential cycle, UBER’s IPO, the SPX hitting all-time highs following the initial December 2018 yield curve inversion, and two additional yield curve inversions signal that this time is no different and a recession is likely upon us in the coming 18 months. Thus, this week we are further de-risking the portfolio by downgrading a tech subindex to neutral, setting a tighter stop on a different long term tech subsector holding that has been the cornerstone of the equity bull market, and putting the overall tech sector on downgrade watch. Downgrade Tech Hardware Storage & Peripherals To Neutral In the context of further de-risking the portfolio we are downgrading the S&P tech hardware storage & peripherals index to a benchmark allocation and booking a small loss of 1.0% in relative terms since inception. Four reasons underpin our downgrade of this index that comprises almost 1/5 of the S&P tech market cap. First, index heavyweight Apple has 20% foreign sales exposure to the Greater China region. While we doubt the Chinese will directly retaliate to the U.S. restriction on Huawei by directly targeting Apple, it is still a risk. Moreover, recent news of the FTC and the DOJ targeting GOOGL and FB pose a risk to Apple, especially given its App Store dominance. Any negative news on either front would take a bite out of the sector’s profits. Second, capex has taken a bit hit. Chart 9 shows industry investment is almost nil and capex intentions from regional Fed surveys and from CEO confidence surveys signal more pain down the line. Third, the S&P THS&P index’s internationally sourced revenues are near the 60% mark, and computer exports are also flirting with the zero line. Worryingly, deflating EM Asian currencies are sapping consumer purchasing power and are weighing on industry exports (third panel, Chart 10). Chart 9Capex Blues Capex Blues Capex Blues Chart 10Exports... Exports... Exports... Similarly, global trade volumes have sunk into contractionary territory and to a level last seen during the Great Recession (not shown). With regard to export expectations the recently updated IFO World Economic Survey still points toward sustained global export ails (second panel, Chart 10). More specifically, tech laden Korean and Taiwanese exports are outright contracting at an accelerating pace and so are Chinese exports. Tack on the negative signal from the respective EM Asian stock market indices and the implication is that more profit pain looms for the S&P THS&P index (Chart 11). Finally, on the domestic front, new orders-to-inventories (NOI) have not only ground to a halt from the overall manufacturing sector, but also computer and electronic product NOI are not contracting on a short-term rate of change basis (bottom panel, Chart 10). Tracking domestic consumer outlays on computer and peripheral equipment reveals that they too have steeply decelerated from the cyclical peak reached in early 2018, painting a softening picture for industry sales growth prospects (Chart 12). Chart 11...Under Pressure ...Under Pressure ...Under Pressure Chart 12Soft Sales Backdrop Soft Sales Backdrop Soft Sales Backdrop  The re-escalation of the U.S./China trade tussle along with the risk of an antitrust investigation into Apple, waning capital outlays, softening exports and deteriorating operating conditions warn that it does not pay to be overweight the S&P THS&P index. Nevertheless, before getting too bearish there is a silver lining. This index has a net debt/EBITDA of 0.5x versus the non-financial broad market of 2x. On the valuation front this tech subindex trades at 28% discount to the non-financial broad market on an EV/EBITDA basis suggesting that most of bad news is already reflected in bombed out valuations (Chart 13). The re-escalation of the U.S./China trade tussle along with the risk of an antitrust investigation into Apple, waning capital outlays, softening exports and deteriorating operating conditions warn that it does not pay to be overweight the S&P THS&P index. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P THS&P index to neutral for a modest relative loss of 1.0% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CMPE – AAPL, HPQ, HPE, NTAP, STX, WDC, XRX. Chart 13But B/S Remains Pristine But B/S Remains Pristine But B/S Remains Pristine Put Tech On Downgrade Alert We are compelled to put the S&P tech sector on our downgrade watch list as President Trump’s hawkish trade talk and actions since May 5 warn that tech revenues (60% export exposure) and profits will likely remain under intense downward pressure. The way we will execute this tech sector downgrade to underweight will be via the S&P software index, the sector’s largest market cap weight. A downgrade to neutral in the S&P software index would push our S&P tech sector weight to a below benchmark allocation. Thus, we are initiating a stop near the 10% relative return mark on the S&P software high-conviction overweight call since the December 3, 2018 inception and also lift the stop to 27% from 17% relative return on the cyclical overweight we have on the S&P software index since the November 27, 2017 inception. Any near term stock market pullback will likely trigger these stops and push the tech sector to an underweight position. Stay tuned. With regard to the overall tech sector, our EPS model is on the verge of contraction on the back of sinking capex and a firming U.S. dollar (middle panel, Chart 14). In more detail, tech capex has recaptured market share swinging from below 6% to above 13% in the past decade and now has likely hit a wall similar to the late 1990s peak (second panel, Chart 15). On a rate of change basis tech capital outlays have all peaked and national data corroborate the message from stock market reported data (bottom panel, Chart 15). Chart 14Grim EPS Model Signal Grim EPS Model Signal Grim EPS Model Signal Chart 15Exhausted Capex? Exhausted Capex? Exhausted Capex? The San Francisco Fed’s Tech Pulse Index (comprising coincident indicators of activity in the U.S. information technology sector) is also closing in on the expansion/contraction line warning that tech stocks are in for a rough ride (bottom panel, Chart 14). Delving deeper into operating metrics, we encounter some profit margin trouble for tech stocks. Not only do industry selling prices continue to deflate, but also our tech sector wage bill gauge is picking up steam. Taken together, all-time high profit margins – double the broad market – appear unsustainable and something has to give (Chart 16). On the export relief valve front, the sector faces twin headwinds. First the trade war re-escalation suggests that an interruption/disruption of tech supply chains is a rising risk, and the firming greenback will continue to weigh on P&Ls as negative translation effects will hit Q2, Q3 and likely Q4 profits (Chart 17). Chart 16Margin Trouble Margin Trouble Margin Trouble Chart 17Rising Dollar Will Weigh On Revenues & Profits Rising Dollar Will Weigh On Revenues & Profits Rising Dollar Will Weigh On Revenues & Profits Netting it all out, our tech EPS model is flashing red on the back of sinking capex and an appreciating U.S. dollar, deteriorating operating metrics signal that tech margins are under attack and exports are also in a freefall, suggesting that the time is ripe to put the tech sector on downgrade alert. Nevertheless, there are two sizable offsets contrasting all the grim news. Tech stocks are effectively debt free with the net debt/EBITDA sitting on the zero line and valuations a far cry from the tech bubble era. Finally, the drop in interest rates via the 10-year yield and looming Fed cuts will underpin these growth stocks that thrive in a disinflationary backdrop (Chart 18). Netting it all out, our tech EPS model is flashing red on the back of sinking capex and an appreciating U.S. dollar, deteriorating operating metrics signal that tech margins are under attack and exports are also in a freefall, suggesting that the time is ripe to put the tech sector on downgrade alert. Bottom Line: We are compelled to put the tech sector on our downgrade watch list. We will execute the S&P tech sector downgrade to underweight when the S&P software index’s stops are triggered. This would push the S&P software index to neutral from currently overweight. Stay tuned. Chart 18But There Is An Offset: Melting Yields Help Growth Stocks But There Is An Offset: Melting Yields Help Growth Stocks But There Is An Offset: Melting Yields Help Growth Stocks   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Signal Vs. Noise” dated December 17, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Feature The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of May 31, 2019.  The quant model has not made significant changes in the major country allocations, but has further increased Australia’s overweight after the upgrade in the previous month, as shown in Table 1.  Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1,  2 and  3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 17 bps in May, largely from a 17 bps of outperformance from the Level 1 model, as the Level 2 model only eked out 1 bp of outperformance.  Directionally, five out of the 12 choices generated positive alpha. The largest contributions to the outperformance in May came from the overweight in Switzerland and Australia, as well as the underweight in the U.S.  Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 170 bps, with a 350 bps of outperformance by Level 2 model, and an 11bps of outperformance from Level 1. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1)   Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of May 31, 2019. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Table 3Model’s Performance (March 1, 2019 - Current) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Table 4Current Model Allocations GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates       The model’s relative tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. On the backdrop of weaker global growth, the model has become positive on Consumer Staples and upgraded the sector. This was driven by both the momentum and growth components. This in turn decreases the overweight allocations to Industrials and Utilities, the model’s two overweights, and increases the underweight allocation to the eight remaining sectors. The valuation component remains muted across all sectors. Our expectations are that global growth bottoms in the back end of the year. However, the hard data has not fully materialized yet. While escalated trade war tensions between the U.S. and China continue to put downward pressure on growth indicators, Chinese credit and fiscal stimulus, similar to that of 2009 and 2015, will more than likely put a floor under further downside. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model,” dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com

Highlights So What? U.S.-China relations are still in free fall as we go to press. Why? The trade war will elicit Chinese stimulus but downside risks to markets are front-loaded. The oil risk premium will remain elevated as Iran tensions will not abate any time soon. The odds of a no-deal Brexit are rising. Our GeoRisk Indicators show that Turkish and Brazilian risks have subsided, albeit only temporarily. Maintain safe-haven trades. Short the CNY-USD and go long non-Chinese rare earth providers. Feature The single-greatest reason for the increase in geopolitical risk remains the United States. The Democratic Primary race will heat up in June and President Trump, while favored in 2020 barring a recession, is currently lagging both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders in the head-to-head polling. Trump’s legislative initiatives are bogged down in gridlock and scandal. The remaining avenue for him to achieve policy victories is foreign policy – hence his increasing aggressiveness on both China and Iran. The result is negative for global risk assets on a tactical horizon and possibly also on a cyclical horizon. A positive catalyst is badly needed in the form of greater Chinese stimulus, which we expect, and progress toward a trade agreement. Brexit, Italy, and European risks pale by comparison to what we have called “Cold War 2.0” since 2012. Nevertheless, the odds of Brexit actually happening are increasing. The uncertainty will weigh on sentiment in Europe through October even if it does not ultimately conclude in a no-deal shock that prevents the European economy from bouncing back. Yet the risk of a no-deal shock is higher than it was just weeks ago. We discuss these three headline geopolitical risks below: China, Iran, and the U.K. No End In Sight For U.S.-China Trade Tensions U.S.-China negotiations are in free fall, with no date set for another round of talks. On March 6 we argued that a deal had a 50% chance of getting settled by the June 28-29 G20 summit in Japan, with a 30% chance talks would totally collapse. Since then, we have reduced the odds of a deal to 40%, with a collapse at 50%, and a further downgrade on the horizon if a positive intervention is not forthcoming producing trade talks in early or mid-June (Table 1). Table 1U.S.-China Trade War: Probabilities Of A Deal By End Of June 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 We illustrate the difficulties of agreeing to a deal through the concept of a “two-level game.” In a theoretical two-level game, each country strives to find overlap between its international interests and its rival’s interests and must also seek overlap in such a way that the agreement can be sold to a domestic audience at home. The reason why the “win-win scenario” is so remote in the U.S.-China trade conflict is because although China has a relatively large win set – it can easily sell a deal at home due to its authoritarian control – the U.S. win set is small (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Tiny Win-Win Scenario In U.S.-China Trade Conflict GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 The Democrats will attack any deal that Trump negotiates, making him look weak on his own pet issue of trade with China. This is especially the case if a stock market selloff forces Trump to accept small concessions. His international interest might overlap with China’s interest in minimizing concessions on foreign trade and investment access while maximizing technological acquisition from foreign companies. He would not be able to sell such a deal – focused on large-scale commodity purchases as a sop to farm states – on the campaign trail. Democrats will attack any deal that Trump negotiates. While it is still possible for both sides to reach an agreement, this Diagram highlights the limitations faced by both players. Meanwhile China is threatening to restrict exports of rare earths – minerals which are critical to the economy and national defense. China dominates global production and export markets (Chart 1), so this would be a serious disruption in the near term. Global sentiment would worsen, weighing on all risk assets, and tech companies and manufacturers that rely on rare earth inputs from China would face a hit to their bottom lines. Chart 1China Dominates Rare Earths Supply France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Over the long haul, this form of retaliation is self-defeating. First, China would presumably have to embargo all exports of rare earths to the world to prevent countries and companies from re-exporting to the United States. Second, rare earths are not actually rare in terms of quantity: they simply occur in low concentrations. As the world learned when China cut off rare earths to Japan for two months in 2010 over their conflict in the East China Sea, a rare earths ban will push up prices and incentivize production and processing in other regions. It will also create rapid substitution effects, recycling, and the use of stockpiles. Ultimately demand for Chinese rare earths exports would fall. Over the nine years since the Japan conflict, China’s share of global production has fallen by 19%, mostly at the expense of rising output from Australia. A survey of American companies suggests that they have diversified their sources more than import statistics suggest (Chart 2). Chart 2Import Stats May Be Overstating China’s Dominance U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator The risk of a rare earths embargo is high – it fits with our 30% scenario of a major escalation in the conflict. It would clearly be a negative catalyst for companies and share prices. But as with China’s implicit threat of selling U.S. Treasuries, it is not a threat that will cause Trump to halt the trade war. The costs of conflict are not prohibitive and there are some political gains. Bottome Line: The S&P 500 is down 3.4% since our Global Investment Strategists initiated their tactical short on May 10. This is nearly equal to the weighted average impact on the S&P 500 that they have estimated using our probabilities. Obviously the selloff can overshoot this target. As it does, the chances of the two sides attempting to contain the tensions will rise. If we do not witness a positive intervention in the coming weeks, it will be too late to salvage the G20 and the risk of a major escalation will go way up. We recommend going short CNY-USD as a strategic play despite China’s recent assurances that the currency can be adequately defended. Our negative structural view of China’s economy now coincides with our tactical view that escalation is more likely than de-escalation. We also recommend going long a basket of companies in the MVIS global rare earth and strategic metals index – specifically those companies not based in China that have seen share prices appreciate this year but have a P/E ratio under 35. U.S.-Iran: An Unintentional War With Unintentional Consequences? “I really believe that Iran would like to make a deal, and I think that’s very smart of them, and I think that’s a possibility to happen.” -President Donald Trump, May 27, 2019 … We currently see no prospect of negotiations with America ... Iran pays no attention to words; what matters to us is a change of approach and behavior.” -Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi, May 28, 2019 The U.S. decision not to extend sanction waivers on Iran multiplied geopolitical risks at a time of already heightened uncertainty. Elevated tensions surrounding major producers in the Middle East could impact oil production and flows. In energy markets, this is reflected in the elevated risk premium – represented by the residuals in the price decompositions that include both supply and demand factors (Chart 3). Chart 3The Risk Premium Is Rising In Brent Crude Oil Prices Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Tensions surrounding major oil producers ... are reflected in the elevated risk premium – represented by the residuals in the Brent price decomposition. Already Iranian exports are down 500k b/d in April relative to March – the U.S. is acting on its threat to bring Iran’s exports to zero and corporations are complying (Chart 4). Chart 4Iran Oil Exports Collapsing Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator What is more, the U.S. is taking a more hawkish military stance towards Iran – recently deploying a carrier strike group and bombers, partially evacuating American personnel from Iraq, and announcing plans to send 1,500 troops to the Middle East. The result of all these actions is not only to reduce Iranian oil exports, but also to imperil supplies of neighboring oil producers such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia which may become the victims of retaliation by an incandescent Iran. Our expectation of Iranian retaliation is already taking shape. The missile strike on Saudi facilities and the drone attack on four tankers near the UAE are just a preview of what is to come. Although Iran has not claimed responsibility for the acts, its location and extensive network of militant proxies affords it the ability to threaten oil supplies coming out of the region. Iran has also revived its doomsday threat of closing down the Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of global oil supplies transit – which becomes a much fatter tail-risk if Iran comes to believe that the U.S. is genuinely pursuing immediate regime change, since the first-mover advantage in the strait is critical. This will keep markets jittery. Current OPEC spare capacity would allow the coalition to raise production to offset losses from Venezuela and Iran. Yet any additional losses – potentially from already unstable regions such as Libya, Algeria, or Nigeria – will raise the probability that global supplies are unable to cover demand. Going into the OPEC meeting in Vienna in late June, our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects OPEC 2.0 to relax supply cuts implemented since the beginning of the year. They expect production to be raised by 0.9mm b/d in 2H2019 vs. 1H2019.1 Nevertheless, oil producers will likely adopt a cautious approach when bringing supplies back online, wary of letting prices fall too far. This was expressed at the May Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee meeting in Jeddah, which also highlighted the growing divergence of interests within the group. Russia is in support of raising production at a faster pace than Saudi Arabia, which favors a gradual increase (conditional on U.S. sanctions enforcement). Both the Iranians and Americans claim that they do not want the current standoff to escalate to war. On the American side, Trump is encouraging Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to try his hand as a mediator in a possible visit to Tehran in June. We would not dismiss this possibility since it could produce a badly needed “off ramp” for tensions to de-escalate when all other trends point toward a summer and fall of “fire and fury” between the U.S. and Iran. If forced to make a call, we think President Trump’s foreign policy priority will center on China, not Iran. But this does not mean that downside risks to oil prices will prevail. China will stimulate more aggressively in June and subsequent months. And regardless of Washington’s and Tehran’s intentions, a wrong move in an already heated part of the world can turn ugly very quickly. Bottom Line: President Trump’s foreign policy priority is China, not Iran. Nevertheless, a wrong move can trigger a nasty escalation in the current standoff, jeopardizing oil supplies coming out of the Gulf region. In response to this risk, OPEC 2.0 will likely move to cautiously raise production at the next meeting in late June. Meanwhile China’s stimulus overshoot in the midst of trade war will most likely shore up demand over the course of the year. Can A New Prime Minister Break The Deadlock In Westminster? “There is a limited appetite for change in the EU, and negotiating it won’t be easy.” - Outgoing U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May Prime Minister Theresa May’s resignation has hurled the Conservative Party into a scramble to select her successor. While the timeline for this process is straightforward,2 the impact on the Brexit process is not. The odds of a “no-deal Brexit” have increased but so has the prospect of parliament passing a soft Brexit prior to any new election or second referendum. The odds of a “no-deal Brexit” have increased. Eleven candidates have declared their entry to the race and the vast majority are “hard Brexiters” willing to sacrifice market access on the continent (Table 2). Prominent contenders such as Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab have stated that they are willing to exit the EU without a deal. Table 2“Hard Brexiters” Dominate The Tory Race GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 Given that the average Tory MP is more Euroskeptic than the average non-conservative voter or Brit, the final two contenders left standing at the end of June are likely to shift to a more aggressive Brexit stance. They will say they are willing to deliver Brexit at all costs and will avoid repeating Theresa May’s mistakes. This means at the very least the rhetoric will be negative for the pound in the coming months. A clear constraint on the U.K. in trying to negotiate a new withdrawal agreement is that the EU has the upper hand. It is the larger economy and less exposed to the ramifications of a no-deal exit (though still exposed). This puts it in a position of relative strength – exemplified by the European Commission’s insistence on keeping the current Withdrawal Agreement. Whoever the new prime minister is, it is unlikely that he or she will be able to negotiate a more palatable deal with the EU. Rather, the new leader will lead a fractured Conservative Party that still lacks a strong majority in parliament. The no-deal option is the default scenario if an agreement is not finalized by the Halloween deadline and no further extension is granted. However, Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow recently stated that the prime minister will be unable to deliver a no-deal Brexit without parliamentary support. This will likely manifest in the form of a bill to block a no-deal Brexit. Alternatively, an attempt to force a no-deal exit could prompt a vote of no confidence in the government, most likely resulting in a general election.3 Chart 5British Euroskeptics Made Gains In EP Election Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator While the Brexit Party amassed the largest number of seats in the European Parliament elections at the expense of the Labour, Conservative, and UKIP parties (Chart 5), the results do not suggest that British voters have generally shifted back toward Brexit. In fact, if we group parties according to their stance, the Bremain camp has a slight lead over the Brexit camp (Chart 6). Thus, it is not remotely apparent that a hard Brexiter can succeed in parliament; that a new election can be forestalled if a no-deal exit is attempted; or that a second referendum will repeat the earlier referendum’s outcome. Chart 6Bremain Camp Still Dominates Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Bottom Line: While the new Tory leader is likely to be more on the hard Brexit end of the spectrum than Theresa May, this does not change the position of either the European Commission or the British MPs and voters on Brexit. The median voter both within parliament and the British electorate remains tilted towards a softer exit or remaining in the EU. This imposes constraints on the likes of Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab if they take the helm of the Tory Party. These leaders may ultimately be forced to try to push through something a lot like Theresa May’s plan, or risk a total collapse of their party and control of government. Still, the odds of a no-deal exit – the default option if no agreement is reached by the October 31 deadline – have gone up. In the meantime, the GBP will stay weak, gilts will remain well-bid, and risk-off tendencies will be reinforced. GeoRisk Indicators Update – May 31, 2019 Last month BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy introduced ten indicators to measure geopolitical risk implied by the market. These indicators attempt to capture risk premiums priced into various currencies – except for Euro Area countries, where the risk is embedded in equity prices. A currency or bourse that falls faster than it should fall, as implied by key explanatory variables, indicates increasing geopolitical risk. All ten indicators can be found in the Appendix, with full annotation. We will continue to highlight key developments on a monthly basis. This month, our GeoRisk indicators are picking up the following developments: Trade war: Our Korean and Taiwanese risk indicators are currently the best proxies to measure geopolitical risk implications of the U.S.-China trade war, as they are both based on trade data. Both measures, as expected, have increased more than our other indicators over the past month on the back of a sharp spike in tensions between the U.S. and China. Currently, the moves are largely due to depreciation in currencies, as trade is only beginning to feel the impact. We believe that we will see trade decline in the upcoming months. Brexit: While it is still too early to see the full effect of Prime Minister May’s resignation captured in our U.K. indicator, it has increased in recent days. We expect risk to continue to increase as a leadership race is beginning among the Conservatives that will raise the odds of a “no-deal exit” relative to “no exit.” EU elections: The EU elections did not register as a risk on our indicators. In fact, risk decreased slightly in France and Germany during the past few weeks, while it has steadily fallen in Spain and Italy. Moreover, the results of the election were largely in line with expectations – there was not a surprising wave of Euroskepticism. The real risks will emerge as the election results feed back into political risks in certain European countries, namely the U.K., where the hardline Conservatives will be emboldened, and Italy, where the anti-establishment League will also be emboldened. In both countries a new election could drastically increase uncertainty, but even without new elections the respective clashes with Brussels over Brexit and Italian fiscal policy will increase geopolitical risk. Emerging Markets: The largest positive moves in geopolitical risk were in Brazil and Turkey, where our indicators plunged to their lowest levels since late 2017 and early 2018. Brazilian risk has been steadily declining since pension reform – the most important element of Bolsonaro’s reform agenda – cleared an initial hurdle in Congress. While we would expect Bolsonaro to face many more ups and downs in the process of getting his reform bill passed, we have a high conviction view that the decrease in our Turkish risk indicator is unwarranted. This decrease can be attributed to the fact that the lira’s depreciation in recent weeks is slowing, which our model picks up as a decrease in risk. Nonetheless, uncertainty will prevail as a result of deepening political divisions (e.g. the ruling party’s attempt to overturn the Istanbul election), poor governance, ongoing clashes with the West, and an inability to defend the lira while also pursuing populist monetary policy. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy roukayai@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   France: GeoRisk Indicator Image U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Image Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Image Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Image Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Image Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Image Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Image Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Image Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Image Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Image What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Image Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Policy Risk Sustains Oil’s Unstable Equilibrium,” dated May 23, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 The long list of candidates will be whittled down to two by the end of June through a series of votes by Tory MPs. Conservative Party members will then cast their votes via a postal ballot with the final result announced by the end of July, before the Parliament’s summer recess. 3 A vote of no confidence would trigger a 14-day period for someone else to form a government, otherwise it will result in a general election. Geopolitical Calendar

Please note that analysis on India is published below. Highlights This report reviews several financial market-based indicators and price signals from various corners of global markets that are pertinent to the global business cycle, and hence to EM risk assets. The overwhelming message from these indicators and price actions is that the global industrial cycle remains in the doldrums, and a recovery is not imminent. As such, global cyclical segments, commodities, and EM assets are all at risk of plunging. Beware of reigning complacency in EM sovereign and corporate credit markets. Various indicators point to wider EM credit spreads. Feature EM risk assets appear to be on the brink of a breakdown. This week we review various market-based indicators that are telegraphing a relapse in both EM risk assets and commodities. The relative performance of EM versus global stocks leads turning points in the global manufacturing cycle by about six months. As always, we monitor economic data extremely closely. However, one cannot rely solely on economic data to predict directional changes in financial markets. Turning points of economic indicators and data often lag those of financial markets. In fact, one can make reliable economic forecasts based on the performance of financial markets. For example, the relative performance of EM versus global stocks leads turning points in the global manufacturing cycle by about six months (Chart I-1). Chart I-1EM Stocks Signal No Improvement In Global Industrial Cycle EM Stocks Signal No Improvement In Global Industrial Cycle EM Stocks Signal No Improvement In Global Industrial Cycle Over the years, we have devised and tracked several market-based indicators that have a good track record of identifying trends in EM risk assets. In addition, we constantly monitor price signals from various corners of financial markets that are pertinent to the global business cycle, and hence to EM risk assets. The overwhelming message from these market-based indicators is that the global industrial cycle remains in the doldrums, and a recovery is not imminent. As such, global cyclical segments, commodities and EM are all at risk of plunging. Our Reflation Indicator Our Reflation Indicator is calculated as an equal-weighted average of the London Industrial Metals Price Index (LMEX), platinum prices and U.S. lumber prices. The LMEX index is used as a proxy for Chinese growth, while U.S. lumber prices reflect cyclical growth conditions in the American economy. We use platinum prices as a global reflation proxy; this semi-precious metal is sensitive to the global industrial cycle in addition to benefitting from easy U.S. dollar liquidity. The Reflation Indicator has failed to advance above its long-term moving average and has broken down. Chart I-2Our Reflation Indicator Presages No Reflation Our Reflation Indicator Presages No Reflation Our Reflation Indicator Presages No Reflation Chart I-2 illustrates that the Reflation Indicator has failed to advance above its long-term moving average and has broken down. Typically, such a technical profile is worrisome and is often followed by a significant drop. In addition, the Reflation Indicator rolled over at its previous highs last year, another bearish technical signal. Investors should heed signals from this indicator as it correlates well with EM share prices in U.S. dollar terms as well as EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads (Chart I-3). EM credit spreads are shown inverted in the middle and bottom panels. An examination of the individual components of the Reflation Indicator reveals the following: Industrial metals prices in general and copper prices in particular have formed a classic head-and-shoulders pattern (Chart I-4, top panel). As and when the neckline of this pattern is broken, a major downward gap is likely to ensue. Platinum prices have reverted from their key technical resistance levels (Chart I-4, middle panel). This constitutes a bearish technical configuration, and odds are that platinum prices will be in freefall. Finally, lumber prices have failed to punch above their 200-day moving average and have broken below their 3-year moving average (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart I-3Reflation Indicator And EM Reflation Indicator And EM Reflation Indicator And EM Chart I-4Beware Of Breakdowns In Commodities Prices Beware Of Breakdowns In Commodities Prices Beware Of Breakdowns In Commodities Prices These technical signals are in accordance with our qualitative assessment of global growth conditions. The global industrial cycle remains very weak, and a recovery is not yet imminent. Meanwhile, the U.S. is the least exposed to the ongoing global trade recession because manufacturing and exports each represent only about 12% of the U.S. economy. Remarkably, economic weakness in Asian export-dependent economies has so far been driven by retrenching demand in China – not the U.S. As Chart I-5 reveals, aggregate exports to China from Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore were still contracting at a 9% pace in April from a year ago, while their shipments to the U.S. grew at a respectable 7% rate. Chart I-5Asian Exports To China And To U.S Asian Exports To China And To U.S Asian Exports To China And To U.S Chart I-6Global Steel And Energy Stocks Are Breaking Down Global Steel And Energy Stocks Are Breaking Down Global Steel And Energy Stocks Are Breaking Down Commodities: Hanging By A Thread? Some commodity-related markets are also exhibiting configurations that are consistent with a breakdown. Specifically: Global steel stocks as well as oil and gas share prices have formed a head-and-shoulders pattern, and are breaking below their necklines (Chart I-6). Such a technical configuration foreshadows major downside. Shares of Glencore – a major player in the commodities space – have dropped below their three-year moving average which has served as a support a couple of times in recent years (Chart I-7). Crucially, this stock has also exhibited a head-and-shoulders formation, and has nose-dived below its neckline. Kennametal (KMT) – a high-beta U.S. industrial stock – leads U.S. manufacturing cycles, and has formed a similar configuration to Glencore’s (Chart I-8). This raises the odds that the U.S. manufacturing PMI will drop below the 50 line. Chart I-7A Head-And-Shoulders Pattern In Glencore Stock... A Head-And-Shoulders Pattern In Glencore Stock... A Head-And-Shoulders Pattern In Glencore Stock... Chart I-8...And In Kennametal (High-Beta U.S. Industrial Stock) ...And In Kennametal (High-Beta U.S. Industrial Stock) ...And In Kennametal (High-Beta U.S. Industrial Stock) Finally, three-year forward oil prices are breaking below their three-year moving averages (Chart I-9). A drop below this technical support will probably mark a major downleg in crude prices. Bottom Line: Commodities and related equity sectors appear vulnerable to the downside. Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar is exhibiting a bullish technical pattern and will likely grind higher, as we discussed in last week’s report titled, The RMB: Depreciation Time? (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Forward Oil Prices Are Much Weaker Than Spot Forward Oil Prices Are Much Weaker Than Spot Forward Oil Prices Are Much Weaker Than Spot Chart I-10The U.S. Dollar Is Heading Higher The U.S. Dollar Is Heading Higher The U.S. Dollar Is Heading Higher EM Equities: A Make-It-Or-Break-It Moment Chart I-11EM Stock Indexes: Sitting On Edge Of A Cliff EM Stock Indexes: Sitting On Edge Of A Cliff EM Stock Indexes: Sitting On Edge Of A Cliff The MSCI EM Overall Equity Index is at an important technical support level (Chart I-11, top panel). If this support is violated, a major downleg will likely ensue. In addition to the above indicators, the following observations also suggest that this support level will be broken and that a gap-down phase will transpire. Both the EM small-cap and equal-weighted equity indexes have been unable to advance above their respective three-year moving averages and are now breaking down (Chart I-11, middle and bottom panels). This could be a precursor for the overall EM stock index to tumble through defense lines, and drop well below its December lows. Our Risk-On/Safe-Haven Currency ratio also points to lower EM share prices (Chart I-12). This indicator is constructed using relative total returns of commodity related (cyclical) currencies such as the AUD, NZD, CAD, BRL, CLP and ZAR against safe-haven currencies such as the JPY and CHF. Importantly, as with EM stocks, this market-based indicator has failed to break above highs reached over the past 10 years. This is in spite of negative interest rates in both Japan and Switzerland that have eroded the latter’s total returns in local currency terms. This ratio has also formed a head-and-shoulders pattern, and may be on the edge of breaking below its neckline. A move lower will spell trouble for EM financial markets. EM corporate profits are shrinking in U.S. dollar terms, and the pace of contraction will continue to deepen through the end of the year. The U.S.-China confrontation is not the only reason behind the EM selloff. In fact, the EM equity rebound early this year was not supported by improving profits. Not surprisingly, the EM equity rebound has quickly faded as investor sentiment deteriorated in response to rising trade tensions. Global semiconductor share prices have made a double top and are falling sharply. Importantly, prices for semiconductors (DRAM and NAND) have not recovered since early this year. The ongoing downdraft in the global semiconductor industry will continue to weigh on the emerging Asian Equity Index. Finally, the relative performance of emerging Asian equities versus DM ones has retreated from its major resistance level (Chart I-13). Odds are that it will break below its recent lows. Chart I-12Risk-On/Safe-Haven Currency Ratio And EM Equities bca.ems_wr_2019_05_30_s1_c12 bca.ems_wr_2019_05_30_s1_c12 Chart I-13Emerging Asian Stocks Versus Developed Markets Emerging Asian Stocks Versus Developed Markets Emerging Asian Stocks Versus Developed Markets Bottom Line: EM share prices are sitting on the edge of a cliff. Further weakness will likely lead to investor capitulation and a major selloff. EM Credit Markets: Reigning Complacency? One asset class in the EM space that has so far held up relatively well is sovereign and especially corporate credit. EM sovereign bonds’ excess returns correlate with EM currencies and industrial metals prices, as shown in Chart I-14. So far, material EM currency depreciation and a drop in industrial metals prices have generated only a mild selloff in EM sovereign credit. Lower commodities prices, EM currency depreciation and weaker global growth are all negatives for cash flows of both sovereign and corporate issuers. Excess returns on EM corporate bonds track the global business cycle closely (Chart I-15). The current divergence between EM corporates’ excess returns and the global manufacturing PMI is unprecedented. Chart I-14EM Sovereign Credit Market Is Complacent... EM Sovereign Credit Market Is Complacent... EM Sovereign Credit Market Is Complacent... Chart I-15...As Is EM Corporate Credit Market ...As Is EM Corporate Credit Market ...As Is EM Corporate Credit Market Our expectation that EM credit spreads will widen is not contingent on a massive default cycle unravelling across the EM credit space. However, lower commodities prices, EM currency depreciation and weaker global growth are all negatives for cash flows of both sovereign and corporate issuers. Chart I-16 illustrates that swings in cash flow from operations (CFO) among EM ex-financials and technology companies correlate with other global business cycle indicators such as Germany’s IFO manufacturing index. Chart I-16EM Corporate Cash Flow Fluctuates With Global Manufacturing Cycle bca.ems_wr_2019_05_30_s1_c16 bca.ems_wr_2019_05_30_s1_c16 Chart I-17EM Corporate Spreads Are Too Narrow Given Their Financial Health EM Corporate Spreads Are Too Narrow Given Their Financial Health EM Corporate Spreads Are Too Narrow Given Their Financial Health The lingering weakness in the global business cycle will likely lead to shrinking CFOs among EM companies, and hence warrants wider corporate credit spreads. Concerning valuations, EM corporate bonds are not cheap at all when their fundamentals are taken into account. Chart I-17 demonstrates two vital debt-servicing ratios for EM ex-financials and technology companies: interest expense-to-CFO and net debt-to-CFO. Both measures have improved only marginally in recent years, yet corporate spreads are not far from their all-time lows (Chart I-17, bottom panel). We are aware that with DM bond yields at very low levels - and in many cases even negative - the appeal of EM credit markets has risen. We are also cognizant that some investors are expecting to hold these bonds to maturity and earn a reasonable yield. Such a strategy has largely paid off in recent years. Nevertheless, if the selloff in EM financial markets escalates – as we expect – EM credit markets will be hit hard as well. To this end, it makes sense to step aside and wait for a better entry point. For dedicated fixed-income portfolios, we continue to recommend underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit versus U.S. investment-grade credit. Finally, to identify relative value within EM sovereign credit spreads, we plot, each country’s foreign debt obligations as a share of annual exports on the X axis against sovereign spreads on the Y axis (Chart I-18). Chart I-18 This scatter plot reveals that Russia and Mexico offer the best relative value in the EM sovereign space. As such, we are reiterating our high-conviction overweight position in these sovereign credit markets as well as in Hungary, Poland, Chile and Colombia. South Africa and Brazil appear attractive as well, but we are underweight these two sovereign credits. The basis for our pessimistic outlook is due to the unsustainable public debt dynamics in these two countries, as we discussed in our Special Report from April 23. Other underweights within the EM sovereign credit space include Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Turkey and Argentina.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com     India: How Sustainable Is A 2.0 Modi Rally? Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and his party – the Bharatiya Janata Party – have won a strong majority in the Indian general election this month. Indian stocks surged in the past month as evidence was emerging that Modi was in the lead. Chart II-1Facing Resistance? Facing Resistance? Facing Resistance? Yet this Modi 2.0 rally is unlikely to last for too long. First, as EM stocks continue selling off, Indian share prices will not defy gravity and will fall in absolute terms. Interestingly, the Indian stock market has hit its previous highs – levels at which it failed to break above in the past 12 years (Chart II-1, top panel). We expect this resistance line to hold this time around too. Likewise, we are still reluctant to upgrade this bourse on a relative basis as it has reached its previous highs. This level will likely prove to be a hindrance, at least for the time being (Chart II-1, bottom panel). The basis for betting against a break out in Indian equity prices in both absolute terms and relative to the EM benchmark over the next couple of months is because of the following: Domestic Growth Weakness: India’s domestic growth has been decelerating sharply. The top two panels of Chart II-2 illustrate that manufacturing and intermediate goods production as well as capital goods production growth are all either contracting or on the verge of shrinking. Similarly, domestic orders-to-inventories ratio for businesses is pointing to a further growth slump according to a survey conducted by Dun & Bradstreet (Chart II-2, bottom panel). Furthermore, sales growth of all types of vehicles are either contracting or have stalled (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Business Cycle Is Weak Business Cycle Is Weak Business Cycle Is Weak Chart II-3Domestic Demand Is Fragile Domestic Demand Is Fragile Domestic Demand Is Fragile Regarding the financial sector, Indian banks – encouraged by a more permissive and forbearing central bank on the recognition of non-performing loans – have recently lowered provisions to boost their earnings (Chart II-4). Share prices should not normally react to such accounting changes. Banks either do carry these NPLs or do not. Therefore, the stock price of a bank should not fluctuate much if a central bank is forcing it to recognize those NPLs or if the latter is relaxing recognition and provisioning standards. Chart II-4Less Provisions = More Paper Profit Less Provisions = More Paper Profit Less Provisions = More Paper Profit Chart II-5Very Weak Equity Breadth Very Weak Equity Breadth Very Weak Equity Breadth In brief, we are skeptical about the sustainability of the current rally in bank share prices based on the relaxation of some accounting rules. Unfavorable Technicals & Valuations: Technicals for India’s stock market are precarious. Participation in this rally has been very slim. Indian small cap stocks have not rallied much, lagging dramatically behind large-cap stocks (Chart II-5, top panel). Our proxy for market breadth – the ratio of equal-weighted stocks to market-cap weighted stocks – has also been deteriorating and is sending a very bearish signal for the overall stock market (Chart II-5, bottom panel). Finally, the Indian stock market is overbought and vulnerable to a general selloff in EM stocks. Namely, foreign investors have rushed into Indian equities as of late. This raises the risk of a pullout as foreign investors become disappointed by India’s dismal corporate earnings and outflows from EM funds leads them to pare their holdings. As for valuations, the Indian stock market is still quite expensive both in absolute and relative terms. Oil Prices: Although oil prices will likely drop,1 Indian stocks could still underperform the EM equity benchmark in the near term. Chart II-6India Versus EM & Oil Prices India Versus EM & Oil Prices India Versus EM & Oil Prices The rationale for this is that Indian equities have brushed off the rise in oil prices since the beginning of the year and outperformed the majority of other EM bourses (Chart II-6). By extension, Indian equities could ignore lower oil prices for a while and underperform the EM benchmark in the near term. Beyond near term underperformance, however, India will likely resume its outperformance. First, sustainably lower oil prices will begin to help the Indian stock market later this year. Second, the growth impact of ongoing fiscal and monetary easing will become visible toward the end of this year. Meanwhile, food prices are starting to pickup and this will support rural income and spending. Finally, the Indian economy is much less vulnerable to a slowdown in global trade because Indian exports make only 13% of the country's GDP. Bottom Line: We are maintaining our underweight stance in Indian equities for tactical considerations, but are putting this bourse on an upgrade watch-list. Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes   1 The view on commodities of BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy service is different from BCA’s house view due to the difference on the view on the global business cycle and Chinese demand. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Falling Yields: There have been three main drivers of the latest decline in global bond yields: slower global growth, softer inflation expectations and increased safe-haven demand for bonds given the intensifying U.S.-China trade conflict. The first two are more than fully discounted in current yield levels, but the latter is likely to persist in the near-term with no resolution of the trade conflict in sight. Model Portfolio Adjustments: We are tactically reducing the sizes of the overall strategic tilts in our model bond portfolio – below-benchmark duration exposure and overweight global corporates vs. governments. There is a growing risk of deeper selloffs in global equity and credit markets if the June G-20 meeting produces no positive signals on ending the trade dispute. We do not yet see a case to position more defensively on a medium-term horizon, however, given the pickup in “early” global leading economic indicators. Feature Chart of the WeekYields Discount A Lot Of Bad News Yields Discount A Lot Of Bad News Yields Discount A Lot Of Bad News The investment backdrop at the moment – slowing global growth momentum, softening inflation expectations, an increasingly prolonged U.S.-China trade dispute with no immediate sign of resolution, and a strengthening U.S. dollar– is fairly bond bullish. Unsurprisingly, government bond yields in the developed markets have fallen to levels more consistent with a less certain macro environment. At one point last week, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield dipped as low as 2.30%, while the 10-year German Bund fell deeper into negative territory at -0.13%. There are now expectations of easier monetary policy discounted in yield curves of several countries, most notably the U.S. where markets are priced for 50bps of Fed rate cuts over the next year – despite no indication from the Fed that cuts are coming anytime soon. From a valuation perspective, bond yields are starting to look a bit stretched to the downside (Chart of the Week). The term premium component of yields has fallen to near post-crisis lows in the majority of countries, while the U.S. dollar has surged despite lower U.S. interest rate expectations – both indications of investors driving up the value of traditional safe-havens at a time of uncertainty. Looking purely at the growth side of the equation, the downward momentum in bond yields should start to fade with the global leading economic indicator now in the process of bottoming out. That does not mean, however, that yields could not fall further in the near-term if the trade headlines get worse and risk assets sell off more meaningfully – an outcome that grows increasingly likely as the two sides in the trade war seem to be digging in for a longer battle. The State Of The World Since The “TTT” Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy now believe that there is only a 40% chance of a U.S.-China trade deal by the end of June. This could trigger a deeper selloff in global equity and credit markets if investors begin to price in a larger and more prolonged hit to economic growth and corporate profits from the U.S. tariffs. This would trigger even greater safe-haven flows into government bonds, pushing yields lower through a more negative term premium. The much lower level of U.S. Treasury yields has helped limit the hit to risk asset prices from the elevated uncertainty over global trade. Since the “Trump Tariff Tweet” (TTT) of May 5, when the new round of tariffs on U.S. imports from China was announced which sparked the new leg of the trade war, the fall in benchmark 10-year government bond yields across the developed world can be fully explained by the fall in the term premium (Table 1). For example, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has fallen -14bps since the TTT, while our estimate of the term premium on the 10-year Treasury as decreased by -20bps. Over the same time period, 10-year U.S. inflation expectations have also fallen -11bps, but the market has only priced in an additional -5bps of Fed rate cuts over the next year according to our Fed Discounter. Table 1Decomposing 10-Year Government Bond Yield Changes Since The "Trump Tariff Tweet" The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields The big difference between last December and today is the much lower level of U.S. Treasury yields. Lower yields have helped mute the hit to risk asset prices from the elevated uncertainty over global trade since the TTT (Chart 2). The Fed’s more dovish pivot in the early months of 2019 has helped push Treasury yields lower as investors have moved from pricing in rate hikes to discounting rate cuts. Even traditional “risk-off” measures like the VIX, U.S. TED spreads, the price of gold and the Japanese yen have only risen modestly since the TTT compared to the big moves seen back in December when investors feared that the Fed would tighten right into a U.S. recession (Chart 3). Chart 2Risk Assets Remain Relatively Calm Risk Assets Remain Relatively Calm Risk Assets Remain Relatively Calm Chart 3Falling Bond Yields Helping Keep Vol Subdued Falling Bond Yields Helping Keep Vol Subdued Falling Bond Yields Helping Keep Vol Subdued Easier monetary policy, if delivered, can help underwrite a rebound in equity and credit markets. When looking across the array of financial market returns since the TTT (Table 2), the only developed economies that have seen equities appreciate are Australia and New Zealand – countries where rate cuts are being signaled by policymakers (or already delivered, in the case of New Zealand). Table 2Asset Returns By Country Since The "Trump Tariff Tweet" The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields In the case of the U.S., however, numerous Fed officials have stated recently that no changes to U.S. monetary policy are likely without decisive evidence that the new round of China tariffs and trade uncertainty was having a major negative impact on U.S. growth. On that front, forward-looking measures of U.S. economic activity, like the Conference Board leading economic indicator or our models for U.S. employment and capital spending, are not pointing to an imminent sharp slowing of U.S. growth (Chart 4). At the same time, leading indicators like our global LEI diffusion index and the China credit impulse are both signaling that global growth momentum may soon start surprising to the upside (Chart 5). Chart 4No U.S. Recession Signal Yet From These Indicators No U.S. Recession Signal Yet From These Indicators No U.S. Recession Signal Yet From These Indicators Chart 5Some Reasons For Optimism On Global Growth Some Reasons For Optimism On Global Growth Some Reasons For Optimism On Global Growth If the Fed does not see a case to deliver the rate cuts that are now discounted, or even to just signal to the markets that easier policy is coming soon, then there is a greater chance of a deeper pullback in U.S. equity and credit markets from any new negative news on trade. This suggests that the risk-aversion bid for U.S. Treasuries will result in an even more deeply negative U.S. term premium and lower bond yields. Easier monetary policy, if delivered, can help underwrite a rebound in equity and credit markets. Already, we are seeing such increasingly negative correlations between returns on equities and government bonds across the major developed markets. In Charts 6 & 7, we show the rolling 52-week correlation between local government bond and equity returns for the U.S., euro area, Japan, U.K., Canada and Australia. For each country, we also plot that correlation versus our estimate of the term premium on 10-year government bond yields. Chart 6Safe Haven Demand For Bonds ... Safe Haven Demand For Bonds... Safe Haven Demand For Bonds... Chart 7... Helping Drive Down Term Premia ...Helping Drive Down Term Premia ...Helping Drive Down Term Premia It is clear that there is a significant “risk-aversion bid” for government bonds right now, given the increasingly negative stock/bond correlations and falling term premia. One possible interpretation is that falling bond yields are being driven more by fears of a risk-off selloff in global equity and credit markets rather than rational pricing of future monetary policy or inflation expectations because of slowing growth. Interestingly, Australia – where the central bank has been signaling that rate cuts are imminent – is the only exception in this list of countries where the stock/bond correlation is not negative. There, the deeply negative term premium is more about weakening growth and low inflation expectations, which is forcing a dovish response from the Reserve Bank of Australia, rather than a risk aversion bid for safe assets from investors. It is clear that there is a significant “risk-aversion bid” for government bonds right now, given the increasingly negative stock/bond correlations and falling term premia. Net-net, while bond yields discount a lot of bad news and now look too low compared to tentative signs of improving global growth, it is hard to build a case for an imminent rebound in global bond yields without signs that U.S. and China are getting closer to a trade deal. Bottom Line: There have been three main drivers of the latest decline in global bond yields: slower global growth, softer inflation expectations and increased safe-haven demand for bonds given the intensifying U.S.-China trade conflict. The first two are more than fully discounted in current yield levels, but the latter is likely to persist in the near-term with no resolution of the trade conflict in sight. Tactical Risk-Reduction Adjustments To Our Model Bond Portfolio Chart 8Easier Monetary Policy Required In Europe & Australia Easier Monetary Policy Required In Europe & Australia Easier Monetary Policy Required In Europe & Australia Given the growing potential for a larger selloff in global risk assets if no U.S.-China trade deal comes out of next month’s G-20 meeting (where Presidents Trump and Xi will both be in attendance), we think it is prudent to make some tactical adjustments to the recommended weightings within our model bond portfolio. These moves will provide a partial hedge against any near-term widening of global credit spreads or further reduction in government bond yields in the event of a complete breakdown of the trade talks. Specifically, we are making the following changes: Duration Exposure: We are increasing the overall duration of the model bond portfolio by 0.5 years, which still leaves a duration position that is 0.5 years below the custom benchmark index of the portfolio. We are doing this by increasing allocations to the longer maturity buckets in the U.S., Japan and France. Credit Exposure: We are cutting the sizes of our recommended overweight tilts for U.S. corporates in half for both investment grade and high-yield. This is a combined reduction of nearly 4% of the portfolio that will be used to fund the increase in duration on the government bond side. We are making no other changes to our government bond country allocations, staying overweight in core Europe (Germany plus France), Japan and Australia where our Central Bank Monitors are calling for a need for easier monetary policy (Chart 8). We are also staying overweight U.K. Gilts, where yields continue to trade more off Brexit uncertainty than domestic economic growth or inflation pressures. We are not making any changes to the model bond portfolio exposure to euro area corporate debt or Italian governments, riskier spread products where we are already underweight. We are, however, maintaining our weightings for U.S. dollar denominated EM sovereign and corporate debt at neutral. EM debt has performed relatively well versus developed market equivalents since the May 5 “Trump Tariff Tweet” (TTT). We understand that not downgrading EM seems counterintuitive when we are trying to position more defensively in the model portfolio. We prefer to reduce exposure to U.S. credit, however, given that EM debt has performed relatively well versus developed market equivalents since the May 5 TTT (Table 3), and with EM spreads now at more attractive levels relative to U.S. investment grade (Chart 9). In addition, EM credit tends to perform better during periods when Chinese credit growth is accelerating, as is currently the case (bottom panel) – and which may continue if China’s policymakers eventually turn to more domestic stimulus measures to combat the effects of U.S. tariffs, as seems likely. Table 3Credit Market Performance Since The "Trump Tariff Tweet" The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields Chart 9EM Credit Offers Value Versus U.S. Corporates EM Credit Offers Value Versus U.S. Corporates EM Credit Offers Value Versus U.S. Corporates Importantly, these are all only tactical changes to our model portfolio to partially protect against the risk of U.S. credit spread widening in the event of more negative news on the U.S.-China trade front. We still have not changed our strategic (6-12 month) views on global bond yields (higher) and global corporates (outperforming government bonds) given the tentative signs of improving global growth from the leading indicators. Bottom Line: We are tactically reducing the sizes of the overall strategic tilts in our model bond portfolio – below-benchmark duration exposure and overweight global corporates vs. governments. There is a growing risk of deeper selloffs in global equity and credit markets if the June G20 meeting produces no positive signals on ending the trade dispute. We do not yet see a case to position more defensively on a medium-term horizon, however, given the pickup in “early” global leading economic indicators.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: We see current bond market behavior as very similar to mid-2016, when heightened political uncertainty obscured the economy’s true strength and kept bond yields lower for longer than was justified by the economic fundamentals. The correct strategy at that time was to sell into the bond market’s strength, and we advocate a similar strategy today. China: Any attempt by the Chinese government to retaliate in the trade war by selling U.S. Treasury securities would be either self-defeating or ineffective, depending on the exact strategy employed. In either case, U.S. Treasury yields will be unaffected. Fed: At least part of the Fed’s dovish turn might represent a desire to send the labor share of national income higher. We introduce a new data series for Fed Watchers to track. Feature The Trump Administration fired the latest salvo in the trade war two weeks ago, expanding tariffs to a broader swathe of Chinese imports. Then last week, the escalation of tensions spilled over to the bond market, sending global yields abruptly lower. Chart 1Flight To Safety Flight To Safety Flight To Safety The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield bounced off 2.35% last Thursday and has since settled at 2.39% (Chart 1). Meanwhile, the overnight index swap curve is now priced for 44 bps of Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months (Chart 1, bottom panel). It is possible, and even likely, that geopolitical tensions will keep yields low during the next month or two. In fact, our Geopolitical Strategy service places the odds of a complete breakdown in trade negotiations by the end of June at 50%.1  But we would encourage investors to sell into rallies, positioning for higher yields on a 6-12 month horizon. To see why, we return to a Weekly Report from early April where we walked through different factors that would be useful in the creation of a macroeconomic model for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield.2 We consider what has changed during the past six weeks and what those developments mean for bond yields going forward. Back In The Bond Kitchen In early April, we ran through four different factors that should be included in any bond model and suggested macroeconomic indicators that best capture the trends in each. The four factors are: Global Growth: Best proxied by the Global Manufacturing PMI and Bullish Dollar Sentiment Policy Uncertainty: Best proxied by the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index Output Gap: Best proxied by Average Hourly Earnings Sentiment: Best proxied by the U.S. Economic Surprise Index We consider each factor in turn. Global Growth Chart 2Monitoring Global Growth Monitoring Global Growth Monitoring Global Growth The Global Manufacturing PMI, our preferred series for tracking global growth, ticked down during the past month, continuing the free-fall that has been in place since the end of 2017 (Chart 2). At 50.3, it is now only slightly above the 50 boom/bust line and is close to where it was in mid-2016, when the 10-year yield hit its cyclical low. But on a positive note, several leading indicators have hooked up in recent months, suggesting that the Global PMI could soon trough and move higher in the second half of the year. Specifically, the ZEW survey of global economic sentiment is off its lows, as is the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI). Meanwhile, the Global LEI Diffusion Index has surged, indicating that 74% of the 23 countries in our sample are seeing improvement in their LEIs. Historically, the Global LEI Diffusion Index leads changes in both the Global LEI and the Global Manufacturing PMI (Chart 2, panel 3). Financial market prices that are highly geared to global growth had been singing a similar tune, but they rolled over as trade tensions flared during the past two weeks. For example, cyclical equity sectors recently started to underperform defensive sectors (Chart 2, bottom panel), and the important CRB Raw Industrials index took a nosedive. We place particular importance on the CRB Raw Industrials index as a timely indicator of global growth, because the ratio between the CRB index and gold correlates nicely with the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 3).3 Unsurprisingly, the ratio’s recent dip coincides with last week’s drop in the 10-year. Several leading indicators have hooked up in recent months, suggesting that the Global PMI could soon trough and move higher in the second half of the year.  In addition to the Global Manufacturing PMI, we recommend including a survey of bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar in any bond model. More bullish dollar sentiment coincides with lower Treasury yields, and vice-versa. Our preferred survey shows that dollar sentiment remains elevated, but hasn’t changed much since April (Chart 4). The dollar itself, however, has begun to appreciate during the past two weeks (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3A Falling CRB/Gold Ratio... A Falling CRB/Gold Ratio... A Falling CRB/Gold Ratio... Chart 4...And The Greenback Is On The Rise ...And The Greenback Is On The Rise ...And The Greenback Is On The Rise Bottom Line: The coincident global growth indicators that correlate best with bond yields – the Global Manufacturing PMI and Dollar Bullish Sentiment – are sending a similar message as in April. Meanwhile, leading economic indicators continue to suggest that we should expect improvement in the second half of the year. The biggest change from April is that global growth indicators derived from financial market prices – cyclical versus defensive equities, the CRB Raw Industrials index and the trade-weighted dollar – have responded negatively to heightened political risk. If this weakness persists and eventually infects the economic data, then it could prevent a second-half rebound in global growth, keeping Treasury yields low for even longer.   Policy Uncertainty Spikes in the monthly Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index often cause capital to seek out the safety of U.S. Treasuries, and we recommend including this index in any macroeconomic bond model (Chart 5A). Spikes in the monthly Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index often cause capital to seek out the safety of U.S. Treasuries. While there have been no updates to the monthly index since the trade war’s recent escalation, one of its components – a daily index that tracks the number of relevant news stories – has surged during the past two weeks (Chart 5B). This clearly illustrates that a sharp increase in political uncertainty has been the catalyst for the bond market rally. Investors are obviously concerned that an ongoing and intensifying trade war might derail the economic recovery, and they are seeking out Treasuries as a hedge. Chart 5AGlobal Uncertainty Set To Spike Global Uncertainty Set To Spike Global Uncertainty Set To Spike Chart 5BMarkets Are Concerned Markets Are Concerned Markets Are Concerned In such situations, the traditional playbook is to fade any purely uncertainty-driven rally, on the view that markets tend to overreact to headline risk. This strategy worked well following the mid-2016 Brexit vote. The uncertainty shock from the vote sent the 10-year quickly down to 1.37%, but it then increased in the second half of the year when it became apparent that the economic recovery would continue. While higher tariffs will certainly be a drag on growth going forward, accommodative Fed policy and a probable increase in Chinese economic stimulus will mitigate the impact, keeping the economic recovery intact.4 Output Gap Chart 6Wages Are Headed Higher Wages Are Headed Higher Wages Are Headed Higher The output gap is a concept that represents where the economy is operating relative to its peak capacity, and its progress during the past three years is the main reason why bond yields will not re-test 2016 lows. We have found that wage growth is the most reliable way to measure the output gap: higher wage growth signals less spare capacity, and less spare capacity coincides with higher bond yields. We recommend Average Hourly Earnings as the best wage measure to include in any bond model. Since April, average hourly earnings growth has been roughly flat, but leading indicators suggest that further acceleration is highly likely in the coming months (Chart 6). While the Fed is keen to let wage growth accelerate, rising wage growth also makes a rate cut difficult to justify. The combination of rising wage growth and an on-hold Fed should put a rising floor under long-maturity bond yields. Sentiment The final factor that should be included in any bond model is sentiment. In April, we suggested that the U.S. Economic Surprise Index is the best measure of sentiment. When the surprise index has been deeply negative for a long time, it usually means that investors are downbeat on the economy and that the bar for a positive surprise is low. This has actually been the case in recent months, and our simple auto-regressive model suggests that the surprise index is biased higher (Chart 7). Positioning data confirm this message, and in fact show that investors are taking as much duration risk as they were when yields troughed in mid-2016 (Chart 8). Chart 7Low Bar For Positive Surprises Low Bar For Positive Surprises Low Bar For Positive Surprises Chart 8Similar Positioning As In Mid-2016 Similar Positioning As In Mid-2016 Similar Positioning As In Mid-2016 The overall message is that bond investors have a very dim view of the economy, and it will not take much positive news to send yields higher. Investment Strategy We see current bond market behavior as very similar to mid-2016, when heightened political uncertainty obscured the economy’s true strength and kept bond yields lower for longer than was justified by the economic fundamentals. The correct strategy at that time was to sell into the bond market’s strength, and we advocate a similar strategy today. Timing when the next move higher in bond yields will occur is difficult, but we take some comfort in the fact that the flatness of the yield curve makes it less costly than usual to carry below-benchmark duration positions. In fact, the average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index is 7 bps higher than the average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index. Bond investors have a very dim view of the economy, and it will not take much positive news to send yields higher. To further mitigate the cost of keeping duration low, we advocate taking duration-neutral positions that are short the belly (5-year & 7-year) part of the yield curve and long the very long and very short ends of the curve. Such trades are also provide a positive yield pick-up, and will earn capital gains when Treasury yields move higher.5 A Quick Note On China’s Treasury Purchases Chart 9Do Not Expect Treasuries To Be Used As A Weapon In This War Do Not Expect Treasuries To Be Used As A Weapon In This War Do Not Expect Treasuries To Be Used As A Weapon In This War The trade war’s recent escalation has led some to speculate that China could retaliate against higher tariffs by dumping U.S. Treasury securities onto the open market. The speculation only increased when the TIC data revealed that Chinese net Treasury purchases totaled -$24 billion in March, the most deeply negative figure since October 2016 (Chart 9).   We see low odds that China will employ this tactic in the trade war, and no meaningful impact on Treasury yields in any case. To see why, let’s consider two possible scenarios. In the first scenario, China sells a large amount of U.S. Treasury securities and keeps the proceeds from the sales in its domestic currency. Assuming the amounts in question are sufficiently large, these transactions would cause the RMB to appreciate and lead to a tightening of Chinese monetary conditions. Tighter monetary conditions are exactly what the Chinese government does not want as it seeks to counteract the negative economic impact from tariffs. In fact, China is much more likely to engineer a further easing of monetary conditions, much like in 2015/16 (Chart 9, bottom panel). In the second scenario, China could sell U.S. Treasuries and purchase other foreign bonds (German bunds, for example). This would nullify any impact on Chinese monetary conditions, but it would not have much impact on U.S. Treasury yields. With Chinese money still flowing into global bond markets, the re-balancing would only push other investors out of non-U.S. bond markets and into U.S. Treasuries. Without changing the overall demand for global bonds, it is difficult to envision much of an impact on U.S. yields. Bottom Line: Any attempt by the Chinese government to retaliate in the trade war by selling U.S. Treasury securities would be either self-defeating or ineffective, depending on the exact strategy employed. In either case, U.S. Treasury yields will be unaffected. A New Data Series For Fed Watchers: Rich’s Ratio A number of recent Fed speeches have referred to the time series plotted in Chart 10: The share of national income going to labor, as opposed to corporate profits. Chart 10Introducing Rich's Ratio Introducing Rich's Ratio Introducing Rich's Ratio Vice-Chair Richard Clarida brought this analysis to the Fed, and the data series was actually once dubbed “Rich’s Ratio” by Clarida’s old PIMCO colleague Paul McCulley. The idea behind Rich’s Ratio is that while some late-cycle wage gains are passed through to prices, a portion also eat into corporate profits. Notice in Chart 10 that Rich’s Ratio has a tendency to rise late in the economic recovery. Based on his past writings, we would not be surprised if at least part of the Fed’s recent dovish turn represents a desire to send Rich’s Ratio higher, even if that goal might entail a modest overshoot of the Fed's 2 percent inflation target. We will have more to say about Rich’s Ratio in the coming weeks. For now, we simply want to make Fed Watchers aware that they have a new series to track. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “How Trump Became A War President”, dated May 17, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 The rationale for why the CRB/Gold ratio tracks the 10-year Treasury yield is found in U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Tarrified”, dated May 16, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Feature In what has become a tradition, I met with Ms. Mea following client meetings in Europe last week. Ms. Mea is a long-term BCA client who has been following our Emerging Markets Strategy very closely over the years. It was our fourth meet-up in the past 18 months. Ms. Mea keeps our meetings interesting by always challenging our views and questioning the nuances of our analysis. The timing of our most recent meeting was particularly notable, as we had just received news that the latest U.S.-China trade talks had not produced an agreement. In light of this, Ms. Mea started our conversation with a question on the link between geopolitics and financial markets: Ms. Mea: Why have the U.S. and China failed to reach a trade accord when it is clear that without one, both global financial markets and business sentiment will be hurt? Answer: The U.S. and China are intertwined in a geopolitical confrontation that will endure for decades. Their strategic national interests are not aligned at all. Therefore, any accord on trade and other geopolitical disputes will not be lasting. It is impossible to accurately forecast and time all turns of the negotiation process and the associated event risks. Therefore, an investment process should be informed and guided by a thematic approach. The U.S. and China are intertwined in a geopolitical confrontation that will endure for decades. Our theme has been, and remains, that China and the U.S. are in a long-term geopolitical confrontation that epitomizes a rivalry between an existing and a rising superpower. This suggests that the demands of one side will be unacceptable to the other. That makes any agreement unsustainable over the long run. In brief, there was a structural regime shift in the U.S.-China relationship last year. Yet global equity markets rallied this year on rising expectations of a major trade deal. Notably, most of the gains in EM equities since late December occurred on days when there was positive news on the progress of trade talks. Hence, the EM rally can largely be attributed to expectations of a trade deal. Not surprisingly, the failure to conclude a trade accord has quickly pushed EM share prices back down to their mid-January levels (Chart I-1). As such, the majority of investors who have bought the EM equity index since early this year lost a substantial part of their gains in the recent selloff.  Chart I-1EM Equity Index: Between Support And Resistance EM Equity Index: Between Support And Resistance EM Equity Index: Between Support And Resistance Given that these two nations are embroiled in a long-term geopolitical rivalry, it will be difficult to find solutions on trade and geopolitical disputes that can simultaneously satisfy both sides. Even so, this does not imply that global risk assets will be in freefall forever. Financial markets currently need to price in both (1) a geopolitical risk premium on a structural basis; and (2) the impact of trade tariffs on global business activity on a cyclical basis. Once these two components have been priced in, markets will become less sensitive to the ebbs and flows of tensions between the U.S. and China. Finally, China’s exports to the U.S. constitute only 3.5% of mainland GDP (Chart I-2). This is considerably smaller than capital spending, which makes up 42% of China’s GDP. Further, most of the investment outlays over the past 10 years have not been in productive capacity to supply goods to the American market. On the contrary, the overwhelming share of capital expenditures since 2008 have occurred in domestic segments of the economy rather than export industries. Certainly, the trade confrontation will weigh on consumer and business sentiment in China as well as reduce the flow of U.S. dollars to the Middle Kingdom, warranting RMB depreciation. Still, there are other predicaments unrelated to the U.S. import tariffs that Chinese policymakers are facing. These include the credit, money and property bubbles that we have written about extensively. China’s exports to the U.S. constitute only 3.5% of mainland GDP. Ms. Mea: With no trade deal, the odds appear to be rising that the Chinese authorities will ramp up both credit and fiscal stimulus. Should investors not be looking through the near-term volatility and be buying EM risk assets and China-plays – because this stimulus will produce a cyclical recovery in the mainland economy? Answer: It is a safe bet that the Chinese authorities will encourage more credit creation and ramp up fiscal spending. The difficulty for investors is in gauging two unknowns: What is the lead time between the stimulus and economic growth, and what will be the multiplier effect of these stimuli. Lead time: Chart I-3 portends our aggregate credit and fiscal spending impulse. Based on the past relationship between turning points in this indicator and the business cycle in China, the latter is likely to bottom around August. Chart I-2Structure Of Chinese Economy Structure Of Chinese Economy Structure Of Chinese Economy Chart I-3China: Stimulus Works With A Time Lag China: Stimulus Works With A Time Lag China: Stimulus Works With A Time Lag   Chart I-4China's Stimulus And Financial Markets: 2012 Versus 2016 China's Stimulus And Financial Markets: 2012 Versus 2016 China's Stimulus And Financial Markets: 2012 Versus 2016 Multiplier effect: The impact of stimulus on the economy also depends on the multiplier effect. The latter is contingent on households’ and companies’ willingness to spend. If households and companies hasten the pace of spending, the economy can recover with little stimulus. If they reduce their expenditure growth, the economy may require much more stimulus. The majority of investors and commentators are comparing China’s current stimulus efforts with what occurred in 2016. However, our hunch is that the current Chinese business cycle might actually resemble the 2012-‘13 episode due to similarities in the multiplier effect. The size of credit and fiscal stimulus in 2012 was as large as in 2016. Nevertheless, the business cycle recovery in 2012-‘13 was very muted, as illustrated in Chart I-3 on page 3. Consistently, EM share prices and commodities did not stage a cyclical rally in 2012 as they did in 2016-‘17 (Chart I-4). Ms. Mea: It seems you are implying that differences between the 2012 and 2016 economic and financial markets outcomes are due to the multiplier. How does one appraise the multiplier effect? Answer: In a word, yes. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to forecast consumers’ and businesses’ willingness to spend – particularly in the midst of a clash between the positive effects of stimulus and the negative sentiment stemming from the ongoing U.S.-China confrontation. We have constructed indicators that measure the willingness to spend among households and companies in China. Our proxies for their marginal propensity to spend (MPS) are currently in decline (Chart I-5A and I-5B). Chart I-5AChina: Households' Marginal Propensity To Spend China: Households' Marginal Propensity To Spend China: Households' Marginal Propensity To Spend Chart I-5BChina: Enterprises’ Marginal Propensity To Spend China: Enterprises' Marginal Propensity To Spend China: Enterprises' Marginal Propensity To Spend   MPS does not affect day-to-day expenditures, but rather captures consumer spending on large-ticket items such as housing, cars and durable goods, as well as investment expenditures by companies. Consistently, mainland companies’ MPS leads industrial metal prices by several months (Chart I-5B). Chart I-6 illustrates the critical difference between 2012 and 2016 in terms of the impact of credit and fiscal stimulus. In both episodes, the size of the stimulus was roughly the same, but the manufacturing PMI did not really recover in 2012-’13, gyrating in the 49-51 range. In contrast, it did stage a cyclical recovery in 2016-‘17 (Chart I-6, second panel). In brief, the difference between the 2012 and 2016 episodes was the MPS by companies and households (Chart I-6, third and fourth panels). There are other predicaments unrelated to the U.S. import tariffs that Chinese policymakers are facing. These include the credit, money and property bubbles that we have written about extensively. Provided the not-so-upbeat sentiment among Chinese households and businesses due to their high debt levels and the ongoing trade conflict, the odds are that their MPS will remain weak for now. As a result, the impact of credit and fiscal stimulus on China’s business cycle will be muted for now. As such, more stimulus and longer lead time may be required to engineer a cyclical recovery. Interestingly, the current profiles of both EM and developed equity markets closely resemble their 2012 trajectories – both in terms of direction and magnitude (Chart I-7). Chart I-6China's Stimulus In 2012 And 2016: Beware Of Multiplier Effect China's Stimulus In 2012 And 2016: Beware Of Multiplier Effect China's Stimulus In 2012 And 2016: Beware Of Multiplier Effect Chart I-7Is 2018-2019 Akin ##br##2011-2012? Is 2018-2019 Akin 2011-2012? Is 2018-2019 Akin 2011-2012? Ms. Mea: So, you are suggesting risks to China-related plays and EM financial markets are skewed to the downside. How should one assess how much downside there is, and what should investors look for to gauge turnings points in financial markets? Answer: We continuously assess the investment landscape, not only based on our fundamental analysis of the global/EM/China business cycles but also on various financial market valuations, positioning and technicals. Let’s review where we stand with respect to these metrics.   Equity Valuations: EM stocks are not cheap. Our favored measure of equity valuations is the composite indicator-based 20% trimmed means of the following multiples: trailing and forward P/E, price-to-cash earnings, price-to-book value and price-to-dividend ratios (Chart I-8). On these metrics, EM stocks appear fairly valued. Nevertheless, these valuations should be viewed in the context of structural decline in EM corporate profitability. The measures of return on equity and assets for non-financial companies in EM are on par with their 2008 lows (Chart I-8, middle and bottom panels). When valuations are neutral, the equity market’s direction is dictated by the profit outlook. The latter currently remains negative for EM and Chinese companies (Chart I-9). Chart I-8EM Equities Are Not Cheap bca.ems_wr_2019_05_16_s1_c8 bca.ems_wr_2019_05_16_s1_c8 Chart I-9Downside Profit Surprises In EM And China Downside Profit Surprises In EM And China Downside Profit Surprises In EM And China   Currency Valuations: The U.S. dollar is only moderately (one standard deviation) expensive, according to the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs (Chart I-10). The latter is our most favored currency valuation measure. The greenback has been in a major structural bull market since 2011. Secular bull/bear markets do not typically end before valuations reach 1.5-2 standard deviations. We reckon that the cyclical and structural backdrop remains favorable for the dollar, and odds are it will overshoot before a major top sets in. Going forward, most of the dollar’s additional gains will not occur versus the euro or the Japanese yen – which are already modestly undervalued (Chart I-10, middle and bottom panels) – but against other currencies. In particular, commodity currencies of developed economies have not yet cheapened enough (Chart I-11). Typically, a structural bear market in commodities does not end until these commodity currencies become cheap. Hence, the current valuation profile of these commodity currencies is consistent with the notion that the secular bear markets in commodities prices and EM are not yet over. Chart I-10The Euro Is Fairly Valued, The Yen Is Cheap G3 Currency Valuations The Euro Is Fairly Valued, The Yen Is Cheap G3 Currency Valuations The Euro Is Fairly Valued, The Yen Is Cheap G3 Currency Valuations Chart I-11Commodities Currencies ##br##Are Not Cheap Yet Commodities Currencies Are Not Cheap Yet Commodities Currencies Are Not Cheap Yet   Unfortunately, there are no data for unit labor cost-based real effective exchange rates for the majority of EMs. However, it is a safe bet to infer that long- and medium-term cycles in EM currencies coincide with those of DM commodity currencies because they are all pro-cyclical. If DM commodity currencies have not yet bottomed, EM currencies remain vulnerable. Relative to the global equity benchmark, global materials have broken down to new cyclical lows. This could be a harbinger of EM relative equity performance making new lows. Ms. Mea: But the positioning in the U.S. dollar is long. How consistent is this with your view of further dollar strength? Positioning: While investors are long the U.S. dollar versus several DM currencies, they are short the greenback versus EM currencies. Chart I-12 illustrates the aggregate net long positions of both leveraged funds and asset managers in the BRL, MXN, RUB and ZAR. As of May 10 (the last datapoint available), investors were as long these EM high-beta currencies as they were at their cyclical peak in early 2018. As to emerging Asian currencies, ongoing RMB depreciation will drag emerging Asian currencies down. Notably, the Korean won has already broken down from its tapering wedge pattern. Concerning EM equities, investor positioning and sentiment was still very elevated before last week’s market turmoil. Chart I-13 demonstrates the number of net long positions in EM ETFs (EEM) by leveraged funds and asset managers. The last datapoint is also as of May 10. Chart I-12Investors Have Been Long EM Currencies Investors Have Been Long EM Currencies Investors Have Been Long EM Currencies Chart I-13Investors Have Been Bullish On EM Stocks Investors Have Been Bullish On EM Stocks Investors Have Been Bullish On EM Stocks   In short, investor sentiment on EM was bullish and long positions in EM were extended before the U.S.-China trade confrontation escalated again. Tell-tale signs and technicals: Market profiles can sometimes help us gauge whether an asset class is in a bull or bear market, and what the next move is likely to be. We have the following observations: U.S. dollar volatility is close to its record lows (Chart I-14). Following the previous three low-volatility episodes, EM shares prices in dollar terms dropped substantially over the ensuing 18 months – 60% in 1997-1998, 65% in 2007-2008 and 30% in 2014-2015. The rationale is that very low global currency volatility indicates that investors do not foresee a major tectonic macro shift. When this does inevitably occur, currency markets move violently. The RMB depreciation could be a tectonic macro shift that global markets are not prepared for. The absolute and relative performances of EM stocks resemble that of global materials stocks. Global materials are breaking below their long-term moving averages (technical support lines) in absolute terms, raising the odds that the EM equity index will do the same. Relative to the global equity benchmark, global materials have broken down to new cyclical lows. This could be a harbinger of EM relative equity performance making new lows (Chart I-15). Chart I-14U.S. Dollar Volatility And ##br##EM Equity Returns U.S. Dollar Volatility And EM Equity Returns U.S. Dollar Volatility And EM Equity Returns Chart I-15EM And Global Materials: Relative To Global Index EM And Global Materials: Relative To Global Index EM And Global Materials: Relative To Global Index Consistently, industrial metals prices as well as our Risk-on/Safe-Haven Currency Index have potentially formed a head-and-shoulders pattern and may be entering a major down leg (Chart I-16). Further weakness in these variables would be consistent with a risk-off phase in EM financial markets.   Finally, the relative performance of the MSCI China All-Share Index – which includes all onshore- and offshore-listed stocks – has relapsed relative to the global equity benchmark, failing to break above its long-term moving average (Chart I-17). This is a negative tell-tale sign, and often warrants considerable downside. Chart I-16A Head-And-Shoulder Pattern In Global Cyclical Markets? bca.ems_wr_2019_05_16_s1_c16 bca.ems_wr_2019_05_16_s1_c16 Chart I-17China All-Share Index: Absolute And Relative Performance China All-Share Index: Absolute And Relative Performance China All-Share Index: Absolute And Relative Performance   Ms. Mea: It seems to me that the RMB holds the key. What are your thoughts on the Chinese currency? Answer: There are several reasons why the RMB will likely depreciate. First, yuan depreciation is needed to mitigate the impact of U.S. import tariffs on Chinese exporters’ profitability. Authorities could use the RMB depreciation to fight back against U.S. import tariffs – a response that U.S. President Donald Trump will certainly not like. Second, the ongoing cyclical downturn in China and rising deflationary pressures also warrant a cheaper currency. Third, there is a vast overhang of money supply in China: The broad money supply is equivalent to US$30 trillion. More stimulus will only make this oversupply of yuans larger. This, along with the desire of mainland households and businesses to diversify their deposits into foreign currencies/assets, is like “the sword of Damocles” on the yuan’s exchange rate. Finally, the sources of foreign currency that previously offset capital outflows in China are no longer available. The current account surplus has largely evaporated. In addition, the central bank seems to be reluctant to reduce its foreign exchange reserves to fund capital outflows. In fact, at US$3 trillion, its foreign currency reserves are equivalent to only 10% of local currency broad money supply. All in all, we are structurally short the RMB versus the dollar. Chart I-18China, Commodities, & EM: Identical Cycles China, Commodities, & EM: Identical Cycles China, Commodities, & EM: Identical Cycles Ms. Mea: What are the investment implications? Where are we in the EM/China investment cycle? Answer: Our investment themes since early this decade have been that EM share prices and currencies are in a bear market, the U.S. dollar is in a structural bull market, and commodities are in a structural downtrend (Chart I-18). With the exception of 2016-‘17, these themes have played out quite well. These structural moves have not yet been exhausted. At the moment, we do not foresee a 2016-’17-type cyclical rally either. The failure of EM equities to outperform DM stocks and the resilience of the U.S. dollar during the risk-on period since early this year, give us comfort in maintaining a negative stance on EM risk assets. Importantly, a decade-long poor EM performance is likely to end with a bang rather than a whimper, especially when investors by and large remain bullish on EM. On the whole, we recommend trading EM stocks on the short side and underweighting EM equities in a global equity portfolio. Within the EM equity universe, our overweights are Russia, central Europe, Thailand, non-tech Korean stocks, Mexico, Chile, the UAE and Vietnam. Our underweights are Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Peru, Indonesia, India, and the Philippines. Fixed-income investors should also position for higher volatility and weaker EM currencies, favoring low-beta versus high-beta markets. Russian and Mexican markets are our favored local currency and U.S. dollar bonds. Finally, we continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: ZAR, CLP, IDR, MYR, PHP and KRW. Our currency overweights are MXN, RUB, SGD and the THB as well as central European currencies. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Feature GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of April 30, 2019.  The quant model has not made significant changes in the major country allocations, but has upgraded Australia to slight overweight from underweight and downgraded Sweden to slight underweight from overweight, as shown in Table 1.  Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 43 bps in April, with 113 bps of outperformance from the Level 2 model, offset by 11 bps of underperformance from Level 1.  Directionally, 8 out of the 12 choices generated positive alpha. The largest contributions to the outperformance in April came from the overweight in Germany and Netherlands, as well as the underweight in Japan and the U.K. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 152 bps, with 365 bps of outperformance by the Level 2 model, offset by a slight underperformance from Level 1. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1)     Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2)     GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of April 30, 2019. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Table 3Model’s Performance (March 1, 2019 - Current) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Table 4Current Model Allocations GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates         The model’s relative tilts within cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. The model has turned more cautious on Materials and cut it from overweight to underweight due to a weakness in its momentum component. This in turn increases the overweight allocations to Industrials and Utilities, the model’s two overweights, and decreases the underweight allocation to the nine remaining sectors. While global growth is set to bottom, the hard data has not fully materialized yet, therefore preventing the model from being outright bullish on cyclicals. The valuation component remains muted across all sectors. The model is still overweight Utilities due to positive inputs from its growth and liquidity components. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model,” dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com.   Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com

Highlights So what? Quantifying geopolitical risk just got easier. Why?   In this report we introduce 10 proprietary, market-based indicators of country-level political and geopolitical risk. Featured countries include France, U.K., Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and Brazil. Other countries, and refinements to these beta-version indicators, will come in due time. We remain committed to qualitative, constraint-based analysis. Our GeoRisk Indicators will help us determine how the market is pricing key risks, so we can decide whether they are understated or overstated. Feature For the past three months we have been tracking a “Witches’ Brew” of political risks that threaten the late-cycle bull market. Some of these risks have abated for the time being: the Fed is on pause, China’s stimulus has surprised to the upside, and Brexit has been delayed. Other risks we have flagged, however, are heating up: Iran And Oil Market Volatility: Surprisingly the Trump administration has chosen not to extend oil sanction waivers on Iran from May 2, putting 1.3 million barrels per day of oil on schedule to be removed from international markets by an unspecified time.  It remains to be seen how rapidly and resolutely the administration will enforce the sanctions on specific allies and partners (Japan, India, Turkey) as well as rivals (China, others). Because the decision coincides with rising production risks from renewed fighting in Libya and regime failure in Venezuela, we expect President Trump to phase in the new enforcement over a period of months, particularly on China and India. But official rhetoric is draconian. Hence the potential for full and immediate enforcement is greater than we thought. In the short term, individual political leaders, and very powerful nations like the United States, can ignore material economic and political constraints. Since the Trump administration’s decision exemplifies this point, geopolitical tail risks will get fatter this year and next. Global oil price volatility and equity market volatility will increase with sanction enforcement actions and retaliation. We would think that Trump’s odds of reelection will marginally suffer, though for now still above 50%, as any full-fledged confrontation with Iran will raise the chances of an oil price-induced recession. U.S.-EU Trade War: Neither the Trump administration nor the U.S. has a compelling interest in imposing Section 232 tariffs on imports of autos and auto parts. Nevertheless the risk of some tariffs remains high – we put it at 35% – because President Trump is legally unconstrained. The decision is technically due by May 18 but Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow has said Trump may adjust the deadline and decide later. Later would make sense given the economic and financial risks of the administration’s decision to ramp up the pressure on Iran.1 But the risk that tariffs will pile onto a weak German and European economy will hang over investors’ heads. U.S.-China Talks Not A Game Changer: The ostensible demand that China cease Iranian oil imports immediately and the stalling of U.S. diplomacy with North Korea are not conducive to concluding a trade deal in May. We have highlighted many times that strategic tensions will persist even if Beijing and Washington quarantine these issues to agree to a short-term trade truce. The June 28-29 G20 meeting in Japan remains the likeliest date for a summit between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping, but even this timeframe could be too optimistic. Continued uncertainty or a weak deal will fail to satisfy financial markets expecting a very positive outcome.   With a 70% chance that U.S. tariffs on China will not increase this year and, contingent on a U.S.-China deal, only a 35% chance that the U.S. slaps tariffs on German cars, we sound optimistic to some clients. But the Trump administration’s decision on Iran is highly market-relevant and portends greater volatility. We expect to see a geopolitical risk premium creep higher into oil markets as well as a greater risk of “Black Swan” events in strategically critical or oil-producing parts of the Middle East. There is limited research devoted to quantifying geopolitical risk. We are late in the business cycle and President Trump has emphatically decided to increase rather than decrease geopolitical risk. Quantifying Geopolitical Risk Geopolitical analysis has taken a bigger role in investors’ decision-making over the last decade. Surveys show that geopolitical risks rank among global investors’ top concerns overall. In the oft-cited Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey, geopolitical and related issues have dominated the “top tail risk” responses for the past half-decade (Chart 1). In other surveys, the most worrisome short-term risks are mostly political or geopolitical in nature, ranking above socio-economic and environmental risks (Chart 2). Chart 1 Chart 2 Despite this high level of concern, there is limited research devoted to quantifying geopolitical risk. Isolating and measuring the range of risks under this umbrella term remains a challenge. As such, for many investors, geopolitics remains an ad hoc, exogenous factor that is often mentioned but rarely incorporated into portfolio construction. For the past four decades the predominant ways of measuring political or geopolitical risk have been qualitative or semi-qualitative. The Delphi technique, developed on the basis of low-quality data sets in social sciences, relies on pooled expert opinions.2 Independently selected experts are asked to provide risk assessments and their responses are then interpreted by analysts to create a measure of risk. Another semi-qualitative method of measuring geopolitical risk ranks countries according to a set of political and socio-economic variables. These variables – such as governance, political and social stability, corruption, law and order, or formal and informal policies – are extremely important but inherently difficult to quantify.3 These results are useful but suffer from dependency on expert opinion, data quality, and institutional biases. More importantly, these methods are slow to react to breaking events in a rapidly changing world. The same goes for bottom-up assessments using political intelligence. The weakness of these methods is that it is highly unlikely that they will produce statistically significant estimates of risk. The odds of getting a “silver bullet” insight from a “key insider” are decent for simple political systems, but not in the complex jurisdictions that host the vast majority of global, liquid investments. Quantitative approaches to measuring geopolitical risk have since become more widespread. The most prominent method is based on quantifying the occurrence of words related to political and geopolitical tensions that appear in international newspapers. These word-counts typically include terms like “terrorism,” “crisis,” “war,” “military action,” etc. As a result, the indices reflect incidents of physical violence or other “Black Swan” events that may not have direct relevance to financial markets. Moreover, while news-based indices accurately capture dramatic one-time peaks at the time of a crisis, they are largely flat aside from these, as they rely on popular topics rather than underlying structural trends (Chart 3). They fail to capture geopolitical developments associated with electoral cycles, protest movements, paradigm shifts in economic policy, or other policy changes.4 Notice, for instance, that the fall of the Soviet Union in late 1991 and the resulting chaos in Russia and many other parts of the emerging world hardly register in Chart 3. Chart 3News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments Introducing BCA’s GeoRisk Indicators The past 70 years have taught BCA Research to listen and respect the market. Why would we suddenly follow the media instead? Most quantitative geopolitical indicators begin with the premise that journalists and the news-reading public have accurately emphasized the most relevant risks and uncertainties. They proceed to quantify the terms of these assessments with increasingly sophisticated methods. This approach solves only part of the puzzle. News-based indices ... fail to capture geopolitical developments associated with underlying policy changes. At BCA Geopolitical Strategy, we aim to generate geopolitical alpha.5 This means identifying where financial media and markets overstate or understate geopolitical risks. We do not primarily aim to predict events or crises. As such, traditional news-based indicators that capture only major events, even those ex post facto, are of little relevance to our analysis. What is needed is a better way to quantify how the market is calculating risks. We start with a simple premise: the market is the greatest machine ever created for gauging the wisdom of the crowd. Furthermore, it puts its money where its predictions are, unlike other methods of geopolitical risk quantification which have no “value at risk.” Chart 4USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... To this end, we have introduced market-based indicators over the years that rely on currency movements, which are often the simplest and most immediate means of capturing the process of pricing risk. In 2015, for instance, we introduced an indicator that measures Russia’s geopolitical risk premium (Chart 4). It is constructed using the de-trended residual from a regression of USD/RUB against USD/NOK and Russian CPI relative to U.S. CPI. We can show empirically that it captures geopolitical risk priced into the ruble, as the indicator increases following critical incidents. These include the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine in 2014; the warnings that Russia aimed to stage a “spring offensive” in Ukraine in 2015; Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War later that year; and the poisoning of former intelligence agent Sergei Skripal in the U.K. in 2018 and subsequent tensions. Using similar methods, we created a proxy to capture geopolitical risk in Taiwan, based on USD/JPY and USD/KRW exchange rates and relative Taiwanese/American inflation (Chart 5). The indicator tracks well with previous cross-strait crises. It jumped upon Taiwan’s election of President Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence government in January 2016 – and this was well before any tensions actually flared. It even registered a small increase upon her controversial phone call congratulating Donald Trump upon winning the U.S. election. Chart 5...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan ...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan ...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan This year we have expanded on this work, constructing a set of ten standardized GeoRisk Indicators for five developed economies and five emerging economies: U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan. Indicators for the U.S., China, and others will be rolled out in a future report. These indicators attempt to capture risk premiums priced into the various currencies – except for Euro Area countries, where the risk is embedded in equity prices. In each case, we look at whether the relevant assets are decreasing in value at a faster rate than implied by key explanatory variables. The explanatory variables consist of (1) an asset that moves together with the dependent variable while not responding to domestic geopolitical risks, and (2) a variable to capture the state of the economy. This set of indicators differs from our earlier indicators in the following ways: We aim to create a simple methodology that we can apply consistently to all countries, both in the DM and EM universes. We therefore omitted using regression models that can prove to be quite whimsical. Instead, we simply looked at the deviation of the dependent variable from the explanatory variables, all in expanding standardized terms, to create the GeoRisk proxy. We wanted an indicator that would immediately respond to priced-in risks, so we opted for a daily frequency rather than the weekly frequency we used in our initial work. To get as accurate of a signal as possible, we use point-in-time data. Since economic data tends to be released with a one-to-two-month lag, we lagged the economic independent variable to correspond to its release date. All ten indicators are shown in the Appendix. Across all countries, they track well with both short-term events and long-term trends in geopolitical risk. In the case of France, for example, the indicator steadily climbs during the period of domestic tensions and protests in the early 2000s; as the European debt crisis flares up; again during the rise of the anti-establishment Front National and the Russian military intervention in Ukraine; and finally during the U.S. trade tariffs and Yellow Vest protests (Chart 6). Our GeoRisk indicators isolate risks that either originate internally or otherwise affect the country more so than others. Similarly, in Germany, there is a general increase in perceived risk as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder implements structural reforms in the early 2000s; another increase leading up to the leadership change as Angela Merkel is elected Chancellor; another during the global and European financial crises; another during the Ukraine invasion and refugee influx; and finally another with the U.S.-China trade war (Chart 7). Chart 6Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Chart 7Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War   We have annotated each country’s GeoRisk indicator heavily in the appendix so that readers can see for themselves the correspondence with political events. The indicators are affected by international developments – like the Great Recession – but we have done our best to isolate risks that either originate internally or otherwise affect the country more than other countries. (As a consequence, the Great Recession is muted in some cases.) What are the indicators telling us now? Most obviously, they highlight the extreme risk we have witnessed in the U.K. over the now-delayed March 29 Brexit deadline. We would bet against this risk as the political reality has demonstrated that a “hard Brexit” is very low probability: the U.K. has the ability to back off unilaterally while the EU is willing to extend for the sake of regional stability. In this sense the pound is a tactical buy, which our foreign exchange strategist Chester Ntonifor has highlighted.6 Our U.K. risk indicator has been fairly well correlated with the GBP/USD since the global financial crisis and it suggests that the pound has more room to rally (Chart 8). Chart 8Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Meanwhile, Spanish risks are overstated while Italy’s are understated. As for the emerging world, Turkish risks should be expected to spike yet again, as divisions emerge within the ruling coalition in the wake of critical losses in local elections and a failure to reassure investors over monetary policy and the currency. Brazilian risks will probably not match the crisis points of the impeachment and the 2018 election, at least not until controversial pension reforms reach a period of peak uncertainty over legislative passage. Both our new Russian indicator and its prototype are collapsing (see Chart 4 above). This captures the fact that we stand at a critical juncture in Russian affairs, where President Putin is attempting to shift focus to domestic stability even as the U.S. and the West maintain pressure on the economy to deter Russia from its aggressive foreign policy. Given that both Putin’s and the government’s approval ratings are low amid rising oil prices, the stage is set for Russia to take a provocative foreign policy action meant to distract the populace from its poor living conditions. Venezuela is the obvious candidate, but there are others. Moscow will want to test Ukraine’s newly elected, inexperienced president; it may also make a show of support for Iran. With Russia equities having rallied on a relative basis over the past year and a half, and with the Iranian waiver decision already boosting oil prices as we go to press, the window of opportunity to buy Russian stocks is starting to close. (We remain overweight relative to EM on a tactical horizon; our Emerging Markets Strategy is also overweight.) Going forward, we will update these risk indicators regularly as needed and publish the full appendix at the end of every month along with our long-running Geopolitical Calendar. We will also fine-tune the indicators as new information comes to light. In other words, here we present only the beta version. We hope that these indicators will help inform investors as to the direction, and even magnitude, of political risks as the market prices them. Our GeoRisk indicators are not predictive, as establishing a trend is not a prediction. The main purpose of this exercise is to answer the critical question, “What is already priced in?” How is the market currently calculating geopolitical risk for a country? After that, it is the geopolitical strategist’s job to unpack this question through qualitative, constraint-based analysis. It is when our qualitative assessments disagree with what is priced in that we can generate geopolitical alpha.    Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic Consulting Editor marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Sean Higgins, “Auto tariffs decision could be delayed, Kudlow says,” Washington Examiner, April 3, 2019, www.washingtonexaminer.com. 2      Norman C. Dalkey and Olaf Helmer-Hirschberg, “An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts,” Management Science, Vol. 9, Issue: 3 (April 1963) pp. 458- 467. 3      Darryl S. L. Jarvis, “Conceptualizing, Analyzing and Measuring Political Risk: The Evolution of Theory and Method,” Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Research Paper No. LKYSPP08-004 (July 2008).  William D. Coplin and Michael K. O'Leary, "Political Forecast For International Business," Planning Review, Vol. 11 Issue: 3 (1983) pp.14-23. The PRS Group, “Political Risk Services”™ (PRS) or the “Coplin-O’Leary Country Risk Rating System”™ Methodology. Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi, “The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430 (September 2010). 4      Scott R. Baker, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis, “Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 131, Issue 4, November 2016 (July 2016) pp.1593–1636. Dario Caldara and Matteo Iacoviello, “Measuring Geopolitical Risk,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, Working Paper (January 2018). 5      Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting,” dated July 9, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6      Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “Not Out Of The Woods Yet,” April 5, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com.   Appendix Appendix France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix U.K. U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator What’s On The Geopolitical Radar? Chart 19      Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Q1/2019 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -17bps in the first quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The underperformance came from the government side of the portfolio (-40bps), where our below-benchmark duration stance was mainly implemented through underweight positions in long-ends of government bond yield curves. On the other side was a solid outperformance from spread product allocations (+23bps) after our tactical upgrade to global corporates in January. Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: An improving global growth backdrop, and benign monetary policy backdrop, should help generate an outperformance of the model bond portfolio – mostly through credit, but also through moderate bear-steepening of government bond yield curves. Feature For fixed income markets, the start of 2019 has been categorized by three main trends: falling bond yields, narrowing credit spreads, and slower global growth. Central bankers have been forced to shift to a much more dovish stance on monetary policy, in response to heightened uncertainties over the global economy, helping trigger rallies in both government bonds and credit. In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the surprisingly eventful first quarter of 2019. We also present our updated scenario analysis, and total return projections, for the portfolio over the next six months. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q1/2019 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Overweight Credit Pays Off, Below-Benchmark Duration Does Not Chart of the WeekDuration Losses Offset Credit Gains In Q1/2019 Duration Losses Offset Credit Gains In Q1/2019 Duration Losses Offset Credit Gains In Q1/2019 Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2019 Overall Return Attribution Q1/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Credit Good, Duration Bad Q1/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Credit Good, Duration Bad   The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the first quarter was 3.1%, underperforming the custom benchmark index by -17bps (Chart of the Week).1 The bulk of the underperformance came from the government bond side of the portfolio (-40bps) - a function of both our below-benchmark duration tilt and underweight stance on sovereign bonds (Table 1). Of course, the flipside of that government bond underweight is a spread product overweight. The tactical upgrade to global corporate debt (favoring the U.S.) that we introduced back on January 15 helped boost the credit piece of the model bond portfolio, which outperformed the custom benchmark by +23bps. The tactical upgrade to global corporate debt (favoring the U.S.) that we introduced back on January 15 helped boost the credit piece of the model bond portfolio, which outperformed the custom benchmark by +23bps. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2 Chart 3 The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Overweight U.S. investment grade industrials (+11bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield Ba-rated (+10bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield B-rated (+8bps) Overweight U.S. investment grade financials (+5bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (+4bps) Biggest underperformers Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-17bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-12bps) Underweight France government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-8bps) Underweight Emerging Markets U.S. dollar denominated corporates (-7bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-4bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q1/2019. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q1/2019 (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4 It was a great quarter for global fixed income, as all countries and spread products generated positive total returns. Generally, our allocations did reasonably well. There were more blue bars than red bars on the left side of Chart 4 (i.e. more overweights than underweights where returns were higher), and vice versa on the right side (more underweights than overweights where returns were lower). Some of the hit to performance from below-benchmark duration is already starting to be recouped in the first weeks of Q2 as markets become more comfortable with early signs of improving global growth. The negative overall Q1/2019 result is obviously not satisfactory, but we are still pleased with the positive returns generated from the spread product side after we did our January upgrade. More importantly, some of the hit to performance from below-benchmark duration is already starting to be recouped in the first weeks of Q2 as markets become more comfortable with early signs of improving global growth, pushing bond yields higher. Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index in the first quarter of the year. The underperformance came from the government side of the portfolio, where our below-benchmark duration stance was mainly implemented through underweight positions on the long-ends of government bond yield curves. On the other side was a solid outperformance from spread product allocations after our tactical upgrade to global corporates in January. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Chart 5 Chart 6Overall Portfolio Duration: Below-Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Below-Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Below-Benchmark Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will benefit from two main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias and our overweight stance on global corporate debt (favoring the U.S.) versus government bonds. In terms of the specific high-level weightings in the model portfolio, we are maintaining our tactical overweight tilt, equal to seven percentage points, on spread product versus government debt (Chart 5). This reflects a more constructive view on global growth, which appears to be bottoming out after the sharp slowdown seen in 2018, to the benefit of corporate bond performance. That faster growth backdrop will also benefit our below-benchmark duration stance through a rebound in government bond yields. This should happen only slowly, however, as global central bankers are likely to keep their newly-dovish policy bias in place for some time until there are more decisive signs of accelerating growth AND inflation. We are maintaining our significant below-benchmark duration tilt (one year short of the custom benchmark), but we recognize that the underperformance from duration seen in Q1 will only be clawed back slowly over the next 3-6 months (Chart 6). As for country allocation, we continue to favor regions where tighter monetary policy is least likely (overweight Japan, the U.K., and Australia, neutral core Europe and Canada). We are staying underweight the U.S., however, as the market’s expectations for the Fed is too dovish, with -25bps of rate cuts now discounted over the next twelve months. We expect to make some changes to those country allocations over the next few months, however - most notably a potential downgrade in core Europe, and upgrade in Peripheral Europe, if the euro area stabilizes on the back of firmer global growth. We expect to make some changes to those country allocations over the next few months, however - most notably a potential downgrade in core Europe, and upgrade in Peripheral Europe, if the euro area stabilizes on the back of firmer global growth. The overall yield from the model bond portfolio is modestly above that of the benchmark (+7bps). That is admittedly a fairly small amount of positive carry (Chart 7) given the overweight credit position. It is a consequence of our below-benchmark duration stance, which is focused on underweights in longer, higher-yielding ends of government bond yield curves (i.e. we have a bear-steepening bias in the U.S., core Europe and even the very long-end in Japan). Chart 7Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Chart 8Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious   Even though we have decent-sized overall tilts on global duration and spread product allocation, our estimated tracking error (excess volatility of the portfolio versus its benchmark) remains low (Chart 8). This is a function of some of the offsetting country and sector tilts within the overall allocations (i.e. more Japan than Germany, more Spain than Italy, more U.S. corporates than EM corporates). We remain comfortable maintaining a tracking error target range of between 40-60bps, well below our self-imposed 100bps ceiling, as our internal weightings are helping keep overall portfolio volatility at a modest level. Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts Chart Chart In April 2018, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.2 For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis of projected returns for each asset class in the model bond portfolio by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. In Tables 3A & 3B, we present our three main scenarios for the next six months, defined by changes in the risk factors, and the expected performance of the model bond portfolio in each case. The scenarios, described below, are all driven by what we continue to believe will be the most important driver of market returns in 2019 – the path of U.S. monetary policy. Chart Chart Our Base Case: the Fed stays on hold, the U.S. dollar remains flat, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index hovers around 15, and there is a mild bear-steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is the case of a pickup in U.S. and global growth that is strong enough to support higher commodity prices, but not intense enough to rapidly boost U.S. core inflation, allowing the Fed to keep rates unchanged. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed does a surprise +25bps rate hike in June or September, the U.S. dollar rises by +3%, oil prices increase +10%, the VIX index climbs to 25 and there is a sharp bear-flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This would occur if the U.S. economy reaccelerates alongside improved global growth, U.S. core inflation and inflation expectations move higher, and market volatility increases from a surprisingly hawkish Fed. A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed cuts the funds rate by -25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by -3%, oil prices decline -15%, the VIX index increases to 35 and there is a sharp bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is a scenario where U.S./global growth momentum fades once again, leaving the Fed little choice but to ease monetary policy as market volatility surges alongside elevated recession risks. The scenario inputs for the four main risk factors (the fed funds rate, the price of oil, the U.S. dollar and the VIX index) are all unchanged from our late portfolio review in early January (Chart 9). The U.S. Treasury yield changes, however, are more moderate than what we used three months ago (Chart 10). That reflects the Fed’s dovish turn since then, which limits the upside for yields from multiple Fed hikes in 2019. Chart 9Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 10U.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis U.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis U.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis     The model bond portfolio is expected to outperform the custom benchmark index by +43bps in our Base Case scenario. This comes from the relative outperformance of credit versus government bonds in an environment of slowly rising bond yields (below-benchmark duration), and tighter credit spreads (overweighting U.S. corporates). In the Very Hawkish Fed scenario, our model portfolio is projected to outperform the benchmark by +29bps. This comes mostly from below-benchmark duration, with more muted credit performance as spreads widen and volatility increases due to the unexpected Fed rate hike. In the Very Dovish Fed scenario, the model bond portfolio is expected to lag the benchmark by -49bps. Performance would get hit from both credit and duration, as government bond yields fall and credit spreads widen sharply against a backdrop of even slower global growth. The overall expected excess return of our model bond portfolio over the benchmark is positive, given that the scenario analysis produces positive excess returns in the Base Case and Very Hawkish Fed scenarios. While we do not place probabilities on our scenarios in this analysis, if we did, the Very Dovish Fed scenario would be far less likely than the Very Hawkish Fed scenario (by definition, the Base Case is our most likely outcome). Global growth is much more likely to rebound than decelerate further over the rest of 2019. Thus, the overall expected excess return of our model bond portfolio over the benchmark is positive, given that the scenario analysis produces positive excess returns in the Base Case and Very Hawkish Fed scenarios. Bottom Line: An improving global growth backdrop, and benign monetary policy backdrop, should help generate an outperformance of the model bond portfolio – mostly through credit, but also through moderate bear-steepening of government bond yield curves.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start”, dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Q1/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Credit Good, Duration Bad Q1/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Credit Good, Duration Bad Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns