Economy

Our semi-annual virtual meeting with the long-standing client Ms. Mea took place on December 1. Given it is the end of the year, Ms. Mea inquired about our strategies for 2021 and reviewed the evolution of our views during 2020. Below is a transcript of our discussion, which we hope will help clients better grasp our views and analysis. Chart 1EM Relative Equity Performance And EM Currencies Versus DM ex-US Ms. Mea: Before we get to investment recommendations for next year, let’s review which of your views have worked in 2020 and which have not. Answer: From a big picture perspective, we went from being very negative on EM over the last decade to being neutral on EM risk assets in both absolute terms and relative to DM peers. Since April, we have been waiting for a pullback to go long and overweight EM, but a meaningful setback has not materialized. That said, although EM risk assets and currencies have rallied substantially in absolute terms, they have not outperformed their DM peers, as shown in Chart 1. Concerning the evolution of our strategy, as you might recall, we had to chase EM stocks higher late last year after the trade deal between the US and China created euphoria in financial markets, pushing EM assets higher. But even then, we did not change our bullish view on the US dollar and continued recommending an underweight allocation in EM versus DM in global equity and credit portfolios. In our January 23, 2020 report we contended that the risk premium in global markets was extremely low and that risk assets were extremely overbought. The following week, as news of the COVID-19 outbreak in China emerged, we recommended closing the long position in EM stocks. On February 20, we asserted that odds of a breakdown were substantial and recommended shorting EM stocks outright. We closed this position on March 19 with a substantial gain. On March 26, we argued that it was too late to sell but too early to buy. In retrospect, the latter part of this assessment was incorrect. Then, on April 23, we recommended going long duration in EM local currency bonds or buying domestic EM bonds while hedging currency risk. We recommended receiving 10-year swap rates in several EM countries. We changed our long-standing strategic bullish stance on the US dollar to bearish on July 9. Simultaneously, we closed our shorts in various EM currencies versus the greenback and recommended shorting many of these EM currencies versus an equal-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY (please refer to the bottom panel of Chart 1).   We upgraded EM credit from underweight to neutral on June 4 and lifted the allocation to EM stocks from underweight to neutral on July 30. EM relative equity performance versus DM has been in a broad trading range for the whole of 2020 (please refer to the top panel of Chart 1). Chart 2Facing Technical Resistance Ms. Mea: What is your EM outlook going into 2021? Answer: The odds of a major breakout in EM equities, currencies and fixed-income markets have risen, yet there could be a shakeout before the breakout. Both EM equity and the global ex-US equity indexes have risen to their previous highs which proved to be a formidable resistance level (Chart 2). The main reasons to expect a major breakout in EM and global ex-US share prices are as follows: First, the global economy could experience periodic setbacks, but things cannot be worse than they were during the pandemic-induced lockdowns in early 2020. The deployment of vaccines is likely to improve global economic conditions in 2021, especially in hard hit services sectors. Second, asset purchases by major central banks around the world have effectively removed many securities (mostly government bonds) from the marketplace while creating an enormous supply of money (Chart 3). The upshot is that too much money is chasing fewer assets. Chart 4 illustrates this phenomenon in the case of US dollar securities. Cash in both US institutional and retail money market funds is still elevated. As a share of market value of US dollar denominated equities and bonds, the amount in US money market funds has declined but it is still above its February lows. Provided that US money market rates are zero, one can make the case for more flows from money markets into both equities and bonds. Chart 3Booming Money Supply Worldwide Chart 4How Much Cash On-SidelinesIs There Left In The US?   Finally, odds that EM equities will break above the trading range they have been in over the last 10 years have increased. As we discussed in our previous reports, EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan have been facing hard budget constraints due to limited fiscal stimulus packages, a breakdown in their monetary transmission mechanism, and massive foreign capital outflows in early 2020. These harsh conditions have forced many companies to restructure to boost their efficiency. The banking system has been recognizing and provisioning for bad assets. Finally, some governments have adopted difficult structural reforms. These could be sowing seeds of structural transformation in these economies, in turn producing a secular bull market in their equities and currencies. As was discussed in a recent Country In-Depth report, India is one example where structural reforms stand to have a positive effect on its long-term outlook. Indonesia, Colombia, Mexico, and Brazil are other candidates that could undergo similar transformations. In a nutshell, unless the global economy craters – which has low odds – one can envision a scenario in which risk assets continue marching higher. Ms. Mea: However, you mentioned that there could be a shakeout before the breakout. What makes you say that? Answer: A potential shakeout before the breakout may occur due to the following three peaks: Peak investor sentiment: Investor sentiment is very elevated and risk assets are overbought. The ZEW global growth expectations index (a survey of analysts on DM economies) has rolled over after reaching an all-time high (Chart 5, top panel). The Sentix survey of investor future expectations has reached an apex (Chart 5, bottom panel). Importantly, net long positions in copper and net bullish sentiment on copper are at their previous highs (Chart 6). This is a plausible proxy for investor sentiment on both China and global growth. Chart 5Investor Expectations Are Elevated Edited Chart 6Investors Are Super Bullish On And Very Long Copper   Chart 7Investors Are Bullish On US Equities Finally, sentiment among US equity investors is also elevated (Chart 7). Peak stimulus: In China, both credit and fiscal stimulus will likely peak in Q4 2020, as demonstrated in Charts 8 and 9. The US and the euro area will experience a negative fiscal thrust in 2021 equal to 7.4% and 3.8% of GDP, respectively. A new fiscal package worth $1.5 trillion is needed in order for the US fiscal thrust to be neutral. As Republicans are likely to retain control of the Senate, even after Georgia’s Senate election vote on January 5, 2021, a new fiscal package larger than $500-750 billion is unlikely. On the whole, many countries in DM and EM are experiencing peak stimulus in 2020. Chart 8China: Peak Credit Stimulus Chart 9China: Peak Fiscal Stimulus   Peak manufacturing growth: We should differentiate between the top in a business cycle and an end in growth acceleration. As far as global manufacturing is concerned, we are likely currently experiencing growth acceleration at its height. Global manufacturing will continue to expand, but at a slower rate. Share prices could either rally or correct when growth begins to decelerate. The stock market reaction is contingent upon how overbought and how expensive equity prices are. The top panel of Chart 10 illustrates that the tops in the US ISM manufacturing new orders-to-inventory ratio have historically marked setbacks in global cyclical stocks. Similarly, EM share prices and industrial metals fluctuate with the EM and China manufacturing PMI (Chart 10, middle and bottom panels). Having risen sharply to very elevated levels, odds are that global and China manufacturing PMIs are probably topping out. Granted, these are diffusion indexes, and declines/rollovers in global manufacturing PMIs do not necessarily imply that a recession is on the horizon. Rather, they signal the end of the acceleration phase in a cycle. Bottom Line: Given how overbought and expensive they are, share prices might react negatively to peak stimulus. Ms. Mea: Your outlook on the Chinese economy has become more nuanced since the spring. How do you see China’s business cycle and financial markets evolving? Answer: We upgraded our view on the Chinese business cycle in late May after it had become apparent that China had again injected enormous credit and fiscal stimulus into the economy. On June 18, we upgraded Chinese stocks to overweight within an EM equity portfolio. We continue to expect decent growth numbers and reviving corporate profits in most of H1 2021. That said, authorities have been tightening monetary policy since May. Policymakers realize that China’s credit excesses have become even larger and they have been proactive in policy tightening to rein in leverage and speculative activities. The central bank has siphoned off banks’ excess reserves causing interbank rates to rise considerably (Chart 11). With a time lag, money/credit will decelerate and the business cycle will follow. We expect the Chinese business cycle to crest around the middle of 2021. Chart 10Cyclical Assets Fluctuate With Manufacturing PMIs Chart 11China: Liquidity Tightening Works With A Time Lag   The recent shakeout in the onshore corporate bond market will lead to a reduction in corporate bond issuance as investors now require higher yields to finance SOEs. In addition, banks and non-bank financial institutions have to comply with the asset management regulation by the end of 2021. This will restrict banks’ ability to expand their balance sheets and curb NBFI risk appetite. All in all, credit-sensitive sectors like capital spending and the property market will decelerate considerably in H2 2021. Provided that they make up a large share in the mainland economy, overall income growth will also slump. Concerning financial markets, if there is a selloff in Chinese stocks in the coming weeks or months, it will give way to another upleg later in H1 2021. Ms. Mea: Going forward, what will be the driving forces of EM risk assets and how will they shape up? Answer: EM risk assets – equities, credit markets and high-yielding domestic bonds – are by and large driven by three factors: (1) China’s import and commodities cycles (which often move in tandem); (2) domestic fundamentals in EM ex-China; and (3) sharp swings in US growth and the S&P500. (1) We elaborated on the intricacies of the Chinese business cycle above and will now offer a few insights on commodities prices. There has been a broad-based recovery in Chinese demand for commodities and various commodities prices have risen substantially. Nevertheless, the outlook for commodities prices is less certain going forward. Chart 12China's Booming Copper Imports Imply Inventory Accumulation In particular, copper prices have surged but the rally is only partially attributable to recovering real demand in China. Other forces, namely inventory restocking in China and financial (investor) demand, have been responsible for the massive rise in copper prices. The mainland’s imports of copper and copper products have boomed since spring, growing at a rate of 70-80% from a year ago. Meanwhile, the recovery in Chinese infrastructure investment in electricity, water, and gas – which are the largest consumers of copper – has been considerable but not extraordinary (Chart 12). This surge leads us to infer that a sizable inventory restocking cycle has been taking place in China since last spring. Such large inventory accumulation has likely been prompted by the easy availability of credit and rising copper prices. Besides, investors hold record net long positions in copper on the New York Mercantile Exchange (refer to Chart 6). In brief, as we discussed in detail in the Special Report from November 25, Chinese purchases of copper will decline even as its real demand for copper continues to expand. Oil prices are at risk of excess supply as many producers are reluctant to continue suppressing their crude output. Saudi Arabia has been trying hard to limit OPEC+ production. However, it will be increasingly difficult for it to do so. The basis is that many producers are naturally looking to maximize the net present value of cash flow from their oil reserves. Due to inflation, $45 today is worth more than $45 in five years. As and when oil producers accept that global demand for oil will stagnate as the world switches to more environmentally friendly sources of energy, they will have an incentive to produce and sell as much crude as possible at current prices. Chart 13EM Sovereign Credit Spreads (Shown Inverted) Fluctuate With Commodities Prices If Saudis lose control over output, they will ramp up their own production to increase their market share. Crude prices will plunge anew. The timing is uncertain, but we expect it to happen sooner rather than later. Overall, even though China’s business cycle recovery will continue in H1 2021, prices for certain important commodities like oil and copper will likely struggle. Setbacks in commodities prices will have ramifications for financial markets in resource-producing EM countries. EM currencies, as well as their sovereign spreads, correlate with commodities prices (Chart 13). (2) Domestic demand in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan will gradually improve but from a very low point. Many developing countries still face major hurdles, including banking systems that are struggling with non-performing loans, a looming fiscal drag, and a lack of control over the pandemic. Further, EM outside North Asia will lag behind advanced countries in procuring and deploying COVID-19 vaccines. Consequently, consumer and business confidence will be slow to recover in these countries, and their business cycle revival will continue to trail that of North Asia (China, Korea and Taiwan) and advanced economies. (3) Finally, any shakeout in the S&P500 will reverberate through EM. Having rallied considerably, North Asian equity and currency markets have already priced in a great deal of good news. In EM ex-North Asia, the level of economic activity, albeit reviving, remains low. This makes these EM ex-North Asian financial markets very sensitive to fluctuations in global/US financial markets. Chart 14EM Equities Have Been A Low-Beta Play On The S&P500 The resilience of US equity and credit markets in recent months in the face of numerous challenges has surprised us. US share prices and credit markets have not corrected meaningfully despite (1) the third wave of COVID-19 which has resulted in partial lockdowns and a deterioration in consumer sentiment; (2) the lack of a second fiscal stimulus package and (3) uncertainty surrounding the presidential elections. In retrospect, investors have been willing to buy any small dip. Interestingly, in the past three years, EM share prices outperformed DM share prices when the S&P500 sold off and underperformed when US stocks rallied (Chart 14). EM versus DM relative share prices are shown inverted on this chart. This reveals that EM stocks are not a high beta on the S&P 500 and rising US equity markets do not guarantee that EM share prices will outperform their DM peers. Overall, the outlook for EM risk assets is convoluted, warranting a neutral stance for now both in absolute terms and relative to DM. Chart 15The US Dollar Is Oversold Ms. Mea:  Where and how does the US dollar enter your analysis? Answer: The dynamics between EM and the US dollar is push-pull in nature, i.e., the causality runs both ways. EM fundamentals – that could be broadly defined as return on capital in these economies – drive their exchange rates’ trends versus the US dollar. Further, US dollar trends are also shaped by several global macro forces, including the global business cycle. The US fiscal position and monetary policy stance also drive fluctuations in the value of the greenback. Over the next several years, the US dollar will likely be in a bear market because US inflation will rise and the Federal Reserve will fall behind the inflation curve. US real rates will remain negative, which will continue to undermine the dollar’s value. All that said, the US dollar has become very oversold and investor sentiment is bearish on the greenback (Chart 15). From a contrarian perspective, the dollar might be set up for a countertrend rebound. Interestingly, after the 2016 US elections, the US dollar rallied strongly for several weeks before selling off violently. It seems that the broad trade-weighted dollar is now following a reverse pattern (Chart 16).  The US dollar in 2016 is shown inverted in this chart. The greenback was selling off before the 2020 US elections and has continued weakening since. If this reverse pattern were to play out, the US dollar will near its bottom soon and then stage a playable rebound. Chart 16The US Dollar Before And After 2016 And 2020 Presidential Elections Chart 17EM Stocks Are Cheap If The Structural EPS Trend Is Up In short, a long-term bear market but near-term rebound in the US dollar is consistent with our view of a shakeout before a breakout for EM equities and risk assets. Ms. Mea: What about EM equity and currency valuations? Are they not still cheap despite their recent rally? Answer: From a secular perspective, EM equities appear modestly cheap as illustrated by our cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio (Chart 17). However, it is vital to realize that this CAPE valuation model assumes that EPS (earnings per share) in real (inflation-adjusted) US dollar terms will revert to its long-term trend sooner rather than later (Chart 17, bottom panel). There is a lot of uncertainty regarding the structural trend in EM EPS. For the past decade – and therefore well before the pandemic – EM EPS in nominal US dollar terms has been fluctuating in a wide range (Chart 18). Not surprisingly, EM share prices have been flat for the past ten years. Further, EM EPS has massively underperformed US EPS in local currency terms for the past ten years (Chart 19). Consistently, EM share prices have underperformed the S&P 500 even in local currency terms. Chart 18EM EPS: No Growth For 10 years Chart 19EM Versus US: Relative Stock Prices And Relative EPS   As for EM currencies, the aggregate real effective exchange rate of EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan currencies suggests that they are cheap (Chart 20). Overall, to argue that EM stocks are cheap, one should be confident that EM EPS in real (inflation-adjusted) USD terms will be expanding in the years to come (Chart 17, bottom panel). While some EM economies have undertaken some restructuring, there is currently no strong evidence to suggest that EM EPS will be in a structural uptrend. From a cyclical perspective, EM EPS will certainly be recovering in 2021 (Chart 21). However, a notable chunk of this profit recovery has already been largely priced in. Chart 20EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan: Currency Valuations Chart 21EM Profits Will Recover In 2021   To sum up, a bet on EM share prices breaking out above their decade-long trading range implies betting on EM EPS entering a period of structural growth. Over the past ten years, EM companies have not delivered the secular growth needed to warrant higher equity multiples. We are open to the idea that structural reforms carried out in several nations will allow for higher productivity, income and profit growth. However, it is still too early to jump to that conclusion. Chart 22Will Asian Markets Finally Break Out? Ms. Mea: Where in your analysis and strategy might you be wrong? Answer: The key risks to our view are twofold: First, FOMO (fear of missing out) on the part of investors continues to propel EM risk assets higher while either their fundamentals remain mediocre or they are already very expensive. As we have shown in Chart 4, there is still a lot of US dollar cash sitting in US money market funds and these could feed the EM rally, preventing the materialization of a shakeout. Second, we might be late to recognize structural shifts in certain EM economies and, might therefore miss breakouts in those bourses. Notably, there is no single EM equity market that has clearly broken above its previous highs (Chart 22). Ms. Mea: What are your overweights and underweights for equity, currency and fixed-income portfolios? Answer: For an EM equity portfolio, our strong conviction overweights have been and remain China, Korea and Mexico. Chart 23 shows the performance of our fully-invested EM equity portfolio based on our recommended country allocation. It has outperformed the EM MSCI equity benchmark by 3.7% in 2020 and by 74% since its initiation in May 2008. The latter translates into a 4.7% CAGR outperformance versus the EM MSCI equity benchmark in 10.5 years. Critically, this outperformance has been achieved with very low volatility and small drawdowns. Chart 23Performance Of Our EM Equity Country Allocation Portfolio (Country Recommendations) As for EM local bonds, we continue to recommend receiving ten-year swap rates in Korea, Malaysia, Russia, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, China and India. We are looking for a setback in their currencies to switch to holding cash bonds, i.e., without hedging currency risk. Among EM currencies, our short basket consists of BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY and IDR while our favored ones have been MXN, RUB, CZK, INR THB and SGD. All these country recommendations and positions as well as the one in the EM sovereign credit space (US dollar bonds) are always presented at the end of our reports (please refer to the following pages). Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Don’t trust market inflation expectations or real interest rates. When inflation is near-zero, think in nominal terms not in real terms. New structural recommendation: Underweight inflation protected bonds versus conventional bonds. For the time being stay overweight stocks versus bonds, but sell stocks if the 10-year T-bond yield rises by 0.3 percent. We address four concerns about inflation raised by clients. Fractal trade: short copper versus gold. Don’t Trust Market Inflation Expectations Or Real Interest Rates Are the markets any good at predicting inflation? No, they are not (Chart of the Week). Both the inflation forwards market and the breakeven inflation rate implied in inflation protected bonds have been lousy predictors of inflation.1 We can forgive that. What we cannot forgive is how these markets derive their inflation forecasts. Chart of the Week AThe Markets Are Lousy At Predicting Inflation Chart of the Week BThe Markets Are Lousy At Predicting Inflation Expected inflation in the UK just tracks the commodity price index (Chart I-2), and expected inflation in the US just tracks the oil price (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). This link between expected inflation and the level of commodity prices is absurd, for three reasons: Chart I-2UK Bond Markets' Expected Inflation Just Tracks Commodity Prices Chart I-3US Bond Markets' Expected Inflation Just Tracks The Oil Price Chart I-4US Inflation Swaps' Expected Inflation Just Tracks The Oil Price Inflation measures a change in a price. Therefore, inflation expectations should not track the price level of anything. Even if expected inflation is incorrectly tracking a price level, a lower price today will increase the scope for future inflation, and vice-versa. Hence, any relationship with the current price level should be an inverse relationship, not a positive relationship. Most absurd of all, how can the level of commodity prices today conceivably forecast the inflation rate five years ahead through 2026-31, as the inflation forwards seem to be suggesting? There are two important takeaways from the absurdity of inflation expectations. First, it follows that the market’s estimates of the real interest rate must also be lousy, and taken with a huge dose of salt. The market’s estimates of the real interest rate must be taken with a huge dose of salt. Second, as the market’s inflation expectations just track commodity prices, the relative performance of UK index-linked gilts versus conventional gilts just tracks commodity prices too (Chart I-5); and the performance of US TIPS versus T-bonds just tracks the oil price. Nothing more and nothing less (Chart I-6). As we expect the structural bear market in commodities has much further to run, the structural recommendation for bond investors is: Chart I-5UK Index-Linked Gilts Vs. Conventional Gilts = Commodity Prices Chart I-6US TIPS Vs. T-Bonds = The Oil Price Underweight inflation protected bonds versus conventional bonds. When Inflation Is Near-Zero, Think In Nominal Terms Not In Real Terms If the market is lousy at predicting long-term inflation, then it might also be lousy at predicting the long-term nominal return on equities. After all, shouldn’t prospective inflation impact the prospective 10-year nominal return on equities? The surprising answer is no. The prospective 10-year nominal return on the stock market depends only on the stock market’s starting valuation. The 10-year nominal return on the stock market does not depend on prospective inflation, it depends only on the stock market’s starting valuation. The same relationship between the stock market’s starting valuation and prospective nominal return applied in the high-inflation 1970s and 1980s as it did in the low-inflation 2000s (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Stock Market's Starting Valuation Establishes The Prospective Nominal Return, Irrespective Of The Inflation Backdrop The reason is that the stock market’s 10-year nominal return has two components: the income through the 10 years, and the terminal value at the end of the 10 years. When inflation is high, the income component is larger, but the terminal value component is smaller – because in an inflationary environment the market will demand a higher subsequent return, requiring a lower price. When inflation is low, the opposite is true: lower income, but higher terminal value. These effects cancel out, so the result is a prospective nominal return that is independent of prospective inflation. Crucially, the required prospective return on equities in excess of bonds is also established in nominal terms. This is because the bond yield’s lower limit is nominal, at say -1 percent. Proximity to this nominal yield limit makes bonds very risky because there is no longer any upside to price, only downside. Witness Swiss bonds this year. As the riskiness of equities and bonds converges, the required prospective nominal return on equities collapses towards the ultra-low bond yields. The upshot is that both the prospective return on equities and the required prospective return on equities should always be calculated in nominal terms, never in real terms. Right now, the high valuation of the aggregate stock market means a very low prospective nominal return, and this valuation is hypersensitive to ultra-low bond yields (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8The Stock Market Is Priced To Generate A Feeble Long-Term Return Chart I-9AUltra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Chart I-9BUltra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time For the time being stay overweight stocks versus bonds, but as we warned two weeks ago, Sell Stocks If The Bond Yield Rises By 0.3 Percent. Four Concerns About Inflation Raised By Clients In this section, which is in question and answer format, we will address four concerns about long-term inflation that our clients have raised. 1, Isn’t the unprecedent fiscal stimulus in 2020 setting us up for inflation down the road? No, not in itself. Understand that the unprecedented stimulus is in response to unprecedented shocks to incomes that have come from the rolling waves of the pandemic. As incomes disappeared, governments provided income-substitution. As and when incomes reappear, governments will withdraw the income-substitution. Indeed, the UK government tried to withdraw its income-substitution (furlough) scheme prematurely and had to backtrack when the virus resurged. This illustrates that the unprecedented fiscal stimulus is a much-needed stabiliser of the economy, rather than a source of inflation. 2. But if governments want a bit of inflation, they can get it, can’t they?  No. Understand that inflation is a non-linear system with two states, price stability and price instability. You can shift between these two states, but you cannot get a ‘little bit of inflation’ in a controlled fashion, or hit an arbitrary inflation target like 2 percent, 3 percent, or 5 percent. This is something that we have been arguing for years, and it is comforting that some great thinkers – like (the late) Paul Volker and William White – fully support our non-linear system thesis. You cannot get a ‘little bit of inflation’ in a controlled fashion. Any government can take its economy into the state of price instability if it so chooses. Witness Turkey and Argentina. But price stability is the much better state to be in. Given that developed economies have expended decades of blood, sweat, and tears to reach the state of price stability, we think that it would be a monumental policy error to embark on the road to price instability (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Inflation Is A Non-Linear System With Two States, Price Stability And Price Instability 3. But doesn’t rampant Argentina-type inflation bail out the heavily indebted? No, not necessarily. It will only bail you out if your debt is a one-off lump sum payment in the distant future. If your debt requires ongoing refinancing, then inflation will not bail you out, because the refinancing interest rate could rise in line with, or even faster than, the inflation rate. Therefore, those highly indebted governments, firms, and households that need to refinance their debts would not benefit from rampant inflation. 4. In which case, isn’t the solution to let inflation rip while keeping interest rates depressed – so-called ‘financial repression?’ No. While it is conceivable that a government could corner its government bond market and thereby repress it, it would be near-impossible to repress the much larger asset-classes of equities and real estate. Once these large and privately priced markets sniffed out the government’s nefarious plan, the required prospective nominal return would surge as a compensation for the higher inflation. The result being an almighty crash in stock and real estate markets. Given that the near $500 trillion combined worth of such markets dwarfs the $90 trillion global economy, the impact of such a crash would make this year’s pandemic feel like a waltz in the park. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is short copper versus gold, given that the spectacular relative outperformance is showing fragility in both its 65-day and 130-day fractal structures. The profit target and symmetrical stop-loss is set at 10 percent. Chart I-11Copper Vs. Gold In other trades, long RUB/CZK reached the end of its holding period with a marginal partial loss. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 53 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated   December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Europe and the US have deep and liquid markets in 5-year 5-year inflation swaps (or forwards), which price the expected 5-year inflation rate 5 years ahead. The current swap measures the annual inflation rate expected through 2026-31. The UK and the US also have deep and liquid markets in inflation-protected government bonds: UK index-linked gilts, and US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). The yield offered on such a security is real, which means in excess of inflation. The yield offered on a similar-maturity conventional bond is nominal. This means that the difference between the two yields equates to the market’s expectation for inflation over the maturity, known as the ‘breakeven inflation rate.’ Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

The strength in China’s post-pandemic policy support likely peaked in October. Interbank rates have normalized to their pre-pandemic levels and bond yields have risen sharply since May. The renewed emphasis on financial de-risking is evident in China’s recent anti-trust regulations against domestic leading online retail and lending providers, rising corporate bond defaults and readouts from recent PBoC meetings. In the near term, US President-elect Joe Biden will focus on reviving the economy and this may restore some balance to the Sino-US trade relationship. Additionally, China’s economic recovery is on track. The odds are rising that next year the Chinese leadership will accelerate structural reforms and the de-risking campaign, which began in 2017 but was delayed due to the US-China trade war and the COVID pandemic. These policy actions will improve China’s productivity growth and industrial competitiveness in the medium to long term, but they will create short-term headwinds to the economic recovery and the stock market’s performance. The uptrend in China’s business cycle will likely be maintained for another two quarters, propelled by the momentum from this year's massive stimulus. Historically, turning points in China’s business activities lag credit cycles by six to nine months. Given that China’s policy support apexed in Q4 this year, a peak in the country’s business cycle will probably be reached by mid-2021. Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com     Below is a set of market relevant charts along with our observations: Monetary policy has tightened, but fiscal spending by local governments should pick up in the next two quarters to support the ongoing business cycle expansion into H1 2021. Fiscal spending has been constrained due to shortfalls in revenues this year, despite record sales of special-purpose bonds.1 Government expenditures will gain strength as local governments’ tax revenues start to improve and the proceeds from bond sales are distributed. Chart 1Credit Impulse Has Peaked... Chart 3Business Cycle Expansion To Continue In 1H21 Chart 2...But Fiscal Spending Should Pick Up Part of the buildup in this year’s industrial inventory is due to the solid recovery in domestic demand and proactive restocking by manufacturers. However, the pace of inventory pileup this year has been the highest since 2014, while infrastructure investment and industrial output growth have barely recovered to pre-pandemic levels. The rapid expansion in industrial inventory may be the result of cheap credit and commodity prices and could lead to a period of destocking and slower imports of raw materials in Q1 2021.   Chart 4Industrial Inventory Has Run Ahead Of Economic Recovery... Chart 5...Propelled By Solid Recovery And Cheap Credit   Core CPI has reached its weakest level in more than a decade, while the PPI remains in negative territory. A delayed recovery in the household consumption and services sector has been disinflationary to core CPI along with the PPI’s consumer goods price subcomponent.2 Historically, when the growth rate in the PPI outpaces that in the CPI, industrial output and profits tend to improve even if the PPI is in contraction. However, a deflationary PPI is the result of depressed demand for both industrial products and household goods. Hence, neither the widening gap between the PPI and CPI nor the improvement in industrial profits can be sustained on the back of falling consumer prices.  Credit impulse tends to lead an increase in both the PPI and CPI by six to nine months.  Improving service sector activities and rebounding energy and commodity prices will also be reflationary to both the CPI and the PPI. Meanwhile, the peaking credit impulse coupled with tighter domestic monetary policy and a rapidly rising RMB will limit the upside in both the consumer and producer price indexes.  Chart 6Rising Deflation Risks Chart 7PPI Has Been Dragged Down By Its Consumer Goods Price Component Chart 8Improvement In Industrial Profits Is Unsustainable In A Deflationary Environment Chart 9While The Economic Recovery Should Support Prices... Chart 10...A Rapidly Rising RMB Will Limit The Upside In Producer Prices Next Year   Retail sales growth further strengthened in October. However, despite a sharp rebound in auto sales, other consumption segments, such as catering, tourism and consumer durable goods, remain sluggish. Household disposable income and employment have improved from troughs earlier this year, but both continue to lag behind the recovery in the industrial sector. The sluggish household sector has prompted Chinese leaders to take actions. In a State Council executive meeting on November 18, Primer Li Keqiang pledged to promote the consumption of home appliances, catering, and automobiles.3 Stocks of consumer goods and automakers rallied following the pro-consumption stimulus announcement. We continue to favor consumer discretionary stocks in both onshore and offshore markets. Even though the valuations in both sectors are elevated compared with the broad market, their earnings outlook also shows a notable improvement. In the next 6 months, targeted pro-consumption stimulus policies should further boost investors’ sentiment as well as profits in these sectors. Chart 11The Ex-Auto Retail Sales Remain Sluggish Chart 12Improving Household Income And Employment Will Support Consumption Chart 13Policy Support Will Continue Boosting Auto Sales... Chart 14...And Promote NEV Sales Chart 15Auto Sector's Outperformance Should Continue Chart 16Consumer Discretionary Sector Will Also Benefit From More Policy Support   Chart 17Housing Demand In Second- And Third-Tier Cities Has Already Rolled Over In the past four weeks, the high-frequency data show that momentum in housing demand in second- and third-tier cities has quickly abated. Moreover, bank lending to property developers has rolled over, reflecting tighter financing regulations and pressure to deleverage in the property sector.   Growth has flattened in medium- and long-term consumer loans while the propensity for home purchase has ticked up slightly. This divergence may be a sign that demand for real estate has not softened, but that home buyers are waiting for more discounts from property developers. As such, the rebound in floor space started in October should be short-lived as property developers’ profit margins continue to narrow and their financing remains constrained. We expect aggregate home sales growth to decelerate slightly in 1H21 from the past six months. However, real estate developers need to complete their existing projects, which will support construction activities into H1 next year. Chart 18Home Buyers May Be Expecting More Home Price Discounts Ahead Chart 19Financing Constrains Will Limit Investments In New Building Projects   This year’s strong outperformance in China’s offshore equity prices has been driven by the TMT sector’s stocks (Information Technology, Media & Entertainment, and Internet & Direct Marketing Retail). Since October, however, Chinese stocks excluding the TMT sector have also started to outperform the global benchmarks. Moreover, domestic cyclicals, which do not feature some of China’s leading tech companies such as Alibaba and Tencent, have outpaced onshore defensive stocks. These developments indicate that as the upswing in China’s business cycle continues to strengthen, the outperformance in China’s ex-TMT stocks will likely be sustained into early 2021. Within cyclical sectors, we continue to favor the materials and consumer discretionary sectors aimed at policy dividends and a rebound in commodity prices. Chart 20China's Ex-TMT Stocks Starting To Outperform Global Chart 21Domestic Cyclicals Are Now Breaking Out Relative To Defensives Chart 22Accelerating Economic Recovery Will Continue To Support Chinese Cyclical Stocks Chart 23Rebounding Commodity Prices Will Bode Well For Material Stocks   Recent bond payment defaults by several SOEs have led to a spike in onshore corporate bond yields. Nonetheless, the ripple effect on China’s financial markets has been limited outside of the corporate bond market; onshore stocks were little changed by news of the defaults. Moreover, the PBoC’s recent liquidity injections helped to stabilize the interbank rate. Historically, corporate bond defaults and rising bond yields have not had an imminent negative impact on China’s domestic stock market performance; none of the defaults in 2015, 2016 or 2019 led to selloffs in the equity market. However, during a business cycle upswing and following a large-scale stimulus, increasing corporate defaults typically mark the onset of tightening in financial regulations and the monetary cycle. We expect the upswing in the business cycle to begin losing momentum as the tightening policy cycle gains further traction in 2021.  Prices in the forward-looking equity market will likely peak sooner on the expectation that the rate of economic and corporate earnings growth will slow in 2H21.  Chart 24Stress In Chinese Onshore Corporate Bond Market Chart 25Stress In Chinese Onshore Corporate Bond Market Chart 26But So Far Negative Impacts On The Stock Market Are Limited   Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Footnotes 1Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China Macro And Market Review," dated October 7, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2Headline PPI is comprised of producer and consumer goods. The weights of producer and consumer goods are roughly 75% and 25%, respectively. As for producer goods by industry, the weight of the manufacturing sector is around 50%, followed by 20% for the raw material sector; the mining sector accounts for only around 5%.   3Pro-auto consumption plans include: providing subsidies to encourage urban car owners to replace older and higher-emission models with newer environmentally friendly ones; encouraging automobile sales and upgrades in rural areas; and promoting New Energy Vehicle (NEV) sales. The plan will also loosen some existing restrictions on auto sales and increase the permits for vehicle license plates. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Inflation Breakeven Trades: We are taking profits on our recommended inflation breakeven widening trades in Italy and Canada, as breakevens in both countries are no longer below the fair values implied by our models. We are initiating a new trade this week, going long French 10-year inflation-linked bonds versus French nominal OATs, as French breakevens remain below fair value. Yield Curve Butterfly Trades: We are closing three of our four outstanding government bond yield curve trade recommendations, taking profits in France and Italy and realizing a loss in the UK. We are maintaining our US 5/7/10 butterfly trade, which is the cheapest way to position for an expected steepening of the Treasury curve based on our valuation models. Cross-Country Spread Trades: We are cutting our losses in our New Zealand-UK government bond spread trade, with the odds of the RBNZ shifting to a negative interest rate policy severely curtailed by political pressure over surging New Zealand house prices. We are maintaining our US-Germany spread widening trade, as the spread is too narrow based on our fair value model and we see more scope for US Treasury yields to drift higher in the coming months. Feature Dear Client, Next week, we will be jointly publishing our semi-annual Central Bank Monitor Chartbook along with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy. You will receive that report a few days later than usual on Friday, December 11. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Tuesday, December 15 with our 2021 Key Views report outlining our main investment themes and ideas for the upcoming year. Best Regards, Rob Robis As we enter the final weeks of an incredibly eventful and (unfortunately) all too memorable 2020, our attention now turns to investment ideas for the coming New Year. This week, all BCA Research clients will receive the 2021 Outlook report, detailing the key themes and recommendations from all our strategists. We will follow that up with our own 2021 Global Fixed Income Strategy outlook report later this month. The waning days of the year also offer a good time to review our more short-term trade recommendations currently in our Tactical Overlay portfolio. In addition, the waning days of the year also offer a good time to review our more short-term trade recommendations currently in our Tactical Overlay portfolio (Table 1). Several of our suggested trades have generated a solid profit (like inflation breakeven wideners) but have now outlived their original rationale. Others, like some of our yield curve trades in Europe, have not gone as we expected and should therefore be closed out. Table 1Changes To Our Tactical Overlay Portfolio As a reminder to our regular readers, our Tactical Overlay is a portfolio of individual trade ideas within the global fixed income space with an investment horizon of six months or less. These differ from our more typical strategic (6-12 month) recommendations that also populate our model bond portfolio. Ideas for our Tactical Overlay trades often stem from our fair value models, but can also be plays on events that we expect will be market relevant on a near-term basis, like central bank meetings. All recommended trades are implemented using specific securities, rather than generic Bloomberg tickers or bond indices. This allows for a more transparent process where clients can follow along with the performance of our trades. Evaluating Our Tactical Inflation-Linked Breakeven Trades We currently have two open tactical trade recommendations involving inflation-linked bonds: Long 10-year Italian inflation-linked bonds vs short 10-year Italian bond futures Long 10-year Canadian inflation-linked bonds vs short 10-year Canadian bond futures We initiated both of these trades back in June of this year, as well as an additional trade involving US TIPS, based on the output of our inflation breakeven fair value framework. In our models, we regress 10-year inflation breakevens on the annual rate of change of oil prices in local currency terms and a multi-year moving average of realized headline inflation.1 At the time of our mid-year report, inflation breakevens were too low on our models in the majority of developed market countries with inflation-linked bonds – a lingering after-effect of the COVID-19 shock to global growth in the second quarter of 2020 (Chart 1). Since then, 10-year inflation breakevens have caught up to fair value in the US, Germany, Italy and Canada, and have even moved above fair value in the UK and Australia. Chart 1A Big Shift In Inflation Breakeven Valuations In June, we also entered into a US 10-year TIPS breakeven widening trade, but we took profits on the trade once US breakevens returned back to our model fair value estimate in September. We now see a similar situation in Canada (Chart 2) and Italy (Chart 3) where breakevens have converged to our model-implied fair value. Chart 2Canadian 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model A move above fair value is possible, but could be harder to achieve with the Canadian dollar and euro steadily trending higher which could weigh on the market’s view on future inflation in Canada and Italy. We are taking profits on our Canada and Italy 10-year breakeven trades, realizing profits of 4.7% and 5.6% respectively.  Thus, we are taking profits on our Canada and Italy 10-year breakeven trades, realizing profits of 4.7% and 5.6% respectively. The Italian returns were boosted considerably by the long side of this trade, as we entered the position when the 10-year real yield was +1.05% and which has since collapsed to -0.05% on the back of the massive rally in Italian bonds. One place where breakevens still look attractively cheap, trading close to one standard deviation below our model fair value, is in France (Chart 4). This contrasts with the breakevens in Italy and Germany that have fully converged to fair value. Thus, we are entering a new trade this week, going long the on-the-run 10yr French inflation-linked bond (OATi) and shorting French bond futures (Euro-OATs). The hedge ratio used for this trade to keep both legs duration matched, given the much shorter duration of the OATi relative to nominal French bonds, is 0.49 (see the Tactical Overlay table on page 17 for specific details on the securities used in the trade). Chart 3Italian 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart 4French 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Bottom Line: We are taking profits on our recommended inflation breakeven widening trades in Italy and Canada, while initiating a new breakeven widening position in France, based on the output of our breakeven fair value models. Evaluating Our Yield Curve/Butterfly Spread Trades Back in July, we initiated a series of yield curve butterfly spread trades in the US, UK, Italy and France.2 Butterfly spreads compare the yield of a single bond (bullets) to that of a duration-neutral combination of bonds with shorter and longer maturities relative to the bullet (barbells). Our valuation models produce fair value estimates of various butterfly combinations based on the relation of the butterfly spreads to the slope of the yield curve. We then combine those valuations with our own macro views on the future slope of yield curves to come up with potential value-based curve trades.3 We now evaluate our four existing curve trades in turn. Long UK 3/20 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet Our original rationale for entering this trade was two-fold. Firstly, this position was the most attractive butterfly combination in terms of the standardized deviation of the spread from its model-implied fair value. Secondly, there was a relatively low correlation between nominal UK bond yields and inflation breakevens--meaning that we could see a rise in long-dated inflation expectations that did not also push up nominal bond yields by a proportional amount. This made the trade consistent with our overall macro view back in July that the Gilt curve would flatten (the same rationale applies to the other two long barbell versus short bullet trades, or “flatteners”, in France and Italy that we discuss below). Unfortunately, our rationale did not play out as expected (Chart 5). Instead of reverting to fair value, the butterfly spread was mostly flat while the bullet grew more expensive relative to the barbell, driven by a rise in the model fair value. This in turn was due to significant steepening in the underlying 3/20 curve, contrary to our expectations. We also saw a significant overall upward shift in the overall UK Gilt curve, which generated losses on our long barbell position (which has a higher interest rate convexity) that overwhelmed the profits on our short bullet position. Going forward, there are good technical and strategic reasons to exit this trade. The butterfly spread is not yet at levels where it tends to mean-revert (second panel). In addition, Joe Biden’s US election victory has also increased the odds of a Brexit deal, which would put bear-steepening pressure on the UK Gilt curve. With that in mind, we are closing our Long UK 3/20 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet for a loss of -0.17%. Long France 2/30 Barbell vs. 5-Year Bullet Our rationale for entering this flattener was the same as in the UK. However, we fared quite a bit better here. The underlying 2/30 curve did flatten, as we expected, however, the butterfly spread itself moved further away from fair value, with the bullet component becoming relatively more expensive (Chart 6). So, as with the UK, the returns on this trade can be largely explained by the relative outperformance of the barbell component due to its higher convexity. In France, however, the effect worked to our favor as the yield curve shifted downwards significantly. The positive returns on the long French 30-year OAT component, where yields have been nearly slashed in half since July, dominated the other parts of the trade - even with the 30-year bond only being a small piece (11%) of the duration-weighted barbell Chart 5UK 3/10/20 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 6France 2/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Although we did make profits on the flattener, it turned into a convexity bet that was not our original intention. Seeing as our underlying logic did not work out as expected, we are not comfortable remaining in this position. Thus, we are closing our France butterfly trade for a profit of 0.56%. Long Italy 5/30 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet As with the UK and France, we entered this trade based on its attractive model-based valuation and the relatively low correlation between inflation breakevens and nominal yields in France. Our expectation of flattening in the underlying 5/30 curve did not bear out as it remained mostly flat (Chart 7). We did see some reversion in the butterfly spread towards our model-implied fair value, which helped us make profits on our trade. Again, we cannot ignore the effect of convexity when looking at the outperformance of the barbell component. Yields fell dramatically across the Italian curve in one of the clearest examples of the yield-chasing behavior we have been describing this year.4 As Italian yields continue their race to the bottom, supported by ECB asset purchases and perceptions of more fiscal co-operation between the countries of Europe, there is a chance that this trade will continue to perform by virtue of its exposure to the long end of the Italian curve. However, as our original bias towards curve flattening did not play out, we prefer to maintain our exposure to Italian government debt via an overweight allocation in our model bond portfolio instead. We therefore close our Long Italy 5/30 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet for a profit of 0.83% Long US 7-Year Bullet vs. 5/10 Barbell The US was the only region where we initiated a “steepener” trade, with a long bullet versus short barbell combination that does well when the yield curve steepens. We chose this particular 5/7/10 butterfly as it was the most attractive steepener available based on our model-implied valuation that also fit our fundamental macro bias back in July towards US Treasury curve steepening – a view that we still hold today. With signs pointing towards further bear steepening of the Treasury curve, we feel comfortable keeping this US 5/7/10 butterfly spread trade open. Our rationale for initiating the trade was borne out, with the underlying 5/10 Treasury curve steepening and the butterfly spread tightening towards fair value (Chart 8). Our trade was supported by a continued rebound in long-dated US inflation expectations as well as the US election result, the most bond-bearish event of the year. Chart 7Italy 5/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 8US 5/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Going forward, we see good reasons to maintain this trade. The butterfly spread, after briefly reaching expensive levels, is back to being attractively valued. Even if the residual were to dip back below zero, it would still have room to become more expensive, shoring up our trade. This trade also remains the most attractive of all the steepener trades on a model-implied valuation basis, removing any incentive to rotate towards another part of the curve. The odds favor more reflationary Treasury curve steepening after the US election. President-elect Biden has a stated goal of more fiscal stimulus, while his selection of Janet Yellen as Treasury Secretary signaling increased cooperation between monetary and fiscal authorities. With signs pointing towards further bear steepening of the Treasury curve, we feel comfortable keeping this US 5/7/10 butterfly spread trade open. Bottom Line: We are closing three of our four outstanding government bond yield curve trade recommendations, taking profits in France and Italy and realizing a loss in the UK. We are maintaining our US 5/7/10 butterfly trade, which is the cheapest way to position for an expected steepening of the Treasury curve based on our valuation models. Evaluating Our Cross-Country Yield Spread Trades We currently have two recommended trades involving plays on the spread between government bonds: Long 5-year New Zealand government bonds versus short 5-year UK Gilts, currency-hedged into GBP We initiated this trade on August 25, and to date the trade is severely underwater with a total return of -1.8%.5 That loss comes from the long New Zealand leg of the trade, as the 5-year NZ bond yield has increased by 34bps from our entry level. Chart 9A Rapid Shift Upward In NZ Rate Expectations The rationale for this trade was based on our assessment of the relative probability of the Bank of England (BoE) and Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) moving to a negative interest rate policy. Both central banks hinted strongly at such a move throughout the summer months as part of their efforts to support pandemic-stricken economies. Our view back in late August was that it was more likely that the RBNZ would choose negative rates, as New Zealand had far lower inflation expectations than the UK and, unlike the British pound, the New Zealand dollar was not undervalued. This trade was initially profitable, but all that changed rapidly during the month of November. The RBNZ disappointed investor expectations on a move to negative rates at the November 11 monetary policy meeting. The central bank elected instead to increase the size of its existing quantitative easing program, while giving no hint that negative rates were coming soon. The response was a sharp move higher in both New Zealand bond yields and the New Zealand dollar (Chart 9). There was an even more violent adjustment in yields and the currency last week, after New Zealand Finance Minister Grant Robertson wrote a letter to RBNZ Governor Adrian Orr asking the central bank to change its policy remit to include controlling New Zealand house price inflation. Markets interpreted this blatant political pressure on the central bank as the end of any hopes of negative rates in New Zealand, with bond yields and the currency spiking higher once again. House prices have surged after the RBNZ aggressively cut interest rates earlier this year, with a rapidly rising share of new mortgages having higher loan-to-value ratios (Chart 10). House price inflation is now running at 19.8%, and Finance Minister Robertson did cite deteriorating housing affordability and inequality as the basis for his letter to the RBNZ. It is clear that a move to negative interest rates – which could further fuel the explosion in house prices – is now very difficult for the RBNZ to pull off without facing intense criticism. It is clear that a move to negative interest rates – which could further fuel the explosion in house prices – is now very difficult for the RBNZ to pull off without facing intense criticism. This shatters the underlying rationale for our long New Zealand/short UK yield spread trade (Chart 11). Chart 10RBNZ-Fueled Boom In House Prices Thus, we are choosing to cut our losses and close out our recommended trade. Long 10-year German Bunds versus short 10-year US Treasuries Chart 11Time To Cut Our Losses On The NZ-UK Trade We initiated this recommendation on October 27, and to date the trade is running a small loss of -0.17%.6 The rationale behind the trade was two-fold: Our valuation model for the 10-year UST-Bund yield spread showed that the spread was far below fair value; We turned more bearish on US Treasuries just before the US presidential election, downgrading our recommended allocation to underweight while also upgrading more defensive Germany – with its low yield-beta to US Treasuries - to overweight. The trade initially performed well, driven by faster growth and inflation in the US versus the euro area (Chart 12). The Treasury selloff has stalled of late, but we view this as more a consolidative pause than a near-term peak in yields. Chart 12Fundamentals Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread With our Treasury-Bund valuation model still showing that the spread is too tight, and with the spread not looking overly stretched versus its 200-day moving average (Chart 13), we are keeping our US versus Germany trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio. Chart 13Valuation & Momentum Point To A Wider UST-Bund Spread Bottom Line: We are cutting our losses in our New Zealand-UK government bond spread trade, with the odds of the RBNZ shifting to a negative interest rate policy severely curtailed by political pressure over surging New Zealand house prices. We are maintaining our US-Germany spread widening trade, as the spread is too narrow based on our fair value model and we see more scope for US Treasury yields to drift higher in the coming months   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, " How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations", dated June 23, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies", dated July 7, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Readers looking for more detailed background on butterfly trades and our yield curve modelling framework should refer to the July 7, 2020 Strategy Report where we initiated these trades. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "We’re All Yield Chasers Now", dated August 11, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Assessing The Leading Candidates To Join The Negative Rates Club", dated August 26, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields", dated October 27, 2020 available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns