Fixed Income

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights Duration: The Fed’s adoption of an Average Inflation Target and the emerging correlation between bond yields and a “blue sweep” election outcome were the two main catalysts that caused us to reduce our recommended portfolio duration stance last week. Monetary Policy: The Fed is unlikely to increase its pace of Treasury purchases, unless a selloff in risky assets (equities and credit) threatens the economic recovery. As long as the Fed sticks with its ultra-dovish interest rate guidance, a moderate bear-steepening of the Treasury curve will not cause such a selloff. Economy: Weekly claims data are consistent with a continued decline in the unemployment rate, due mostly to fewer temporarily unemployed workers. All in all, the US economy is recovering, but it remains very far from full employment. Feature Chart 1Real Yields Have Troughed Real Yields Have Troughed Real Yields Have Troughed After having advocated “at benchmark” portfolio duration since March, we officially lowered our recommended duration stance to “below benchmark” in last week’s Special Report.1 Two main catalysts led us to this decision. First, there was the Fed’s late-August adoption of an Average Inflation Target. This was an important bond-bearish catalyst because it signaled that the Fed’s reaction function has reached its maximum dovishness. Treasury yields stayed low throughout the summer even as the economy recovered because the Fed was simultaneously guiding the market toward a more dovish reaction function. As evidence for this dynamic, notice that between March and August the uptrend in the cost of inflation compensation was completely offset by falling real yields (Chart 1). But now, the Fed has officially adopted its new Average Inflation Targeting framework. In addition, it has promised not to lift rates at all until inflation is above its 2% target and is expected to overshoot that target for some time. To get more dovish from here, the Fed would probably need to actually increase its long-run inflation target from 2% to 3%, a step it is not prepared to take. For this reason, we expect that the Fed has exhausted its ability to push real yields lower as the economy recovers. With the Fed’s interest rate reaction function at maximum dovishness, only a negative economic growth shock can push yields lower. With the Fed’s interest rate reaction function at maximum dovishness, only a negative economic growth shock can push yields lower. Such a shock would cause investors to anticipate a slower return of inflation and thus push bond yields down, even if the market’s assessment of the Fed’s willingness to respond to inflationary pressures (aka its reaction function) remains constant. The failure of Congress to deliver additional fiscal stimulus after the expiry of the CARES act’s main income-supporting provisions is the sort of thing that could cause such a shock. However, September’s market action made it clear that investors are willing to look past the failure to deliver a bill if they can look forward to a larger fiscal stimulus in January. As we wrote last week, the most likely election outcome of the Democrats winning the House, Senate and White House would certainly deliver on that promise. Bottom Line: The Fed’s adoption of an Average Inflation Target and the emerging correlation between bond yields and a “blue sweep” election outcome were the two main catalysts that caused us to reduce our recommended portfolio duration stance last week. Will  The Fed Use Its Balance Sheet To Keep Bond Yields Low? Chart 2Fed Treasury Holdings Over Time Fed Treasury Holdings Over Time Fed Treasury Holdings Over Time One possible counterargument to our bond-bearish view is that, even if the Fed’s interest rate guidance is as dovish as it will get, the central bank will simply ramp up asset purchases to prevent any significant rise in long-maturity bond yields. Certainly, the Fed has not shied away from transacting in the Treasury market this year (Chart 2). In fact, the Fed took down more than 100% of gross note and bond issuance in the second quarter (Chart 3) and its current stated policy is to purchase at least $80 billion of Treasury securities per month. At present, the Fed holds more than 35% of all outstanding Treasuries with more than 10 years to maturity and about one quarter of the outstanding supply for all other maturities (Chart 4). This is a significant presence in the Treasury market, but not so large that the Fed would think twice about increasing its pace of Treasury purchases if such a policy was deemed necessary. But what would actually make the Fed increase its pace of asset purchases? Would a modest bear-steepening of the Treasury curve (our base case outlook) be enough? We doubt it. Chart 3Fed Purchases Peaked In Q2 Fed Purchases Won’t Stop Bond Yields From Rising Fed Purchases Won’t Stop Bond Yields From Rising Chart 4Fed Owns A Good Chunk ##br##Of The Market Fed Purchases Won’t Stop Bond Yields From Rising Fed Purchases Won’t Stop Bond Yields From Rising Chart 5Financial Conditions Are Highly Accommodative Financial Conditions Are Highly Accommodative Financial Conditions Are Highly Accommodative The Fed would be concerned if broad measures of financial conditions started to tighten, as that would indicate a looming period of slower economic growth. But that’s very different from long-maturity Treasury yields moving somewhat higher in response to an improving economic outlook. In fact, to get a meaningful tightening in broad measures of financial conditions, we would need to see significant credit spread widening and weaker equity prices (Chart 5). A bear-steepening Treasury curve, even if long-dated yields move 40-50 bps higher, will not prompt a selloff in credit markets or equities as long as the market believes that the Fed is committed to maintaining an accommodative monetary policy stance. Bottom Line: The Fed is unlikely to increase its pace of Treasury purchases, unless a selloff in risky assets (equities and credit) threatens the economic recovery. As long as the Fed sticks with its ultra-dovish interest rate guidance, a moderate bear-steepening of the Treasury curve will not cause such a selloff. Can  The Fed Use It’s Balance Sheet To Keep Bond Yields Low? Chart 6Fed Purchases Work Mainly Through Signaling Interest Rate Intentions Fed Purchases Work Mainly Through Signaling Interest Rate Intentions Fed Purchases Work Mainly Through Signaling Interest Rate Intentions Of course, in the extreme, the Fed could decide to set a cap on the 10-year Treasury yield and promise to purchase as many securities as necessary to maintain that cap. This sort of Yield Curve Control would effectively prevent long-maturity Treasury yields from rising, even as the economy recovered. As discussed above, we think the economic situation would have to turn quite dire for the Fed to pursue such a policy. A more relevant question is whether, in the absence of a stated yield cap, the Fed’s current pace of $80 billion of Treasury purchases per month (or even $100 billion per month) will prevent Treasury yields from rising. Our sense is that, without a stated yield cap, Fed Treasury purchases won’t stop bond yields from rising. In fact, we see very little evidence to support the notion that changes in Fed Treasury purchases influence the trend in bond yields, beyond what the purchase announcements signal to markets about the Fed’s intentions with regards to interest rate policy. Consider Chart 6, which shows the 10-year Treasury yield alongside the Global Manufacturing PMI and two different measures of Fed Treasury purchases. At first blush, between 2010 and 2012, there is a fairly strong relationship between a falling 10-year Treasury yield and an increase in Fed Treasury holdings greater than five years. However, the correlation between the 10-year Treasury yield and the Global Manufacturing PMI during this period is even stronger. This suggests an alternative explanation where the decline in bond yields is driven by the market shifting its rate hike expectations out into the future in response to slowing economic growth. Greater Fed purchases only served to reinforce the Fed’s increasingly dovish interest rate guidance during this time. Without a stated yield cap, Fed Treasury purchases won’t stop bond yields from rising. The key point from Chart 6 is that it is difficult to identify periods when the Fed’s balance sheet policy and interest rate guidance suggest opposite outcomes for bond yields. Typically, when the Fed is ramping up asset purchases it is also signaling to the market that it will shift toward a more dovish interest rate policy. Similarly, when the Fed is reducing its asset purchases, it tends to also be preparing the market for eventual rate hikes. This makes it impossible to say conclusively whether a given move in bond yields is driven by interest rate guidance or balance sheet actions. In our minds, this casts a lot of doubt on the notion that the Fed could maintain its current interest rate guidance during the next 6-12 months while also preventing a rise in Treasury yields by increasing asset purchases. The policy of increasing asset purchases would appear incoherent if it wasn’t also paired with increasingly dovish forward rate guidance, guidance that the Fed is likely unwilling to deliver. Bottom Line: Even if the Fed modestly increases its monthly pace of Treasury purchases, or shifts some purchases further out the curve as some FOMC participants have suggested, the impact on long-dated Treasury yields will be negligible without a concurrent shift in interest rate guidance. The Hedging Effectiveness of Treasuries Is Diminished, But Not Gone Completely One topic that has come up a lot recently in our client interactions is the idea that Treasury securities are no longer an effective hedge for equity portfolios. There are two possible reasons why this could be true. The first is that with Treasury yields so close to the zero-lower-bound there is very little scope for capital appreciation in bonds. The second is that Treasury yields may not respond to falling equity prices by declining, as they have in the past. We don’t currently see much evidence for the second reason. The only way that bond yields wouldn’t decline alongside a major equity sell-off is if that sell-off was driven by high and rising inflation and expectations that the Fed would aggressively hike rates to combat higher prices. Inflation is nowhere near high enough for this to be a concern. The first reason, however, could hold some water. To test it, we first looked at this year’s COVID-driven 34% drop in the S&P 500 that occurred between February 19th and March 23rd (Table 1). If an investor purchased a 5-year Treasury note on February 19th and sold it on March 23rd, they would have earned 5.21% on that trade, offsetting some portion of the equity decline. The same trade in a 30-year T-bond would have earned 16.65%. Long-maturity Treasuries still perform their role as hedging instruments for equity portfolios. But with starting bond yields much lower today, Treasuries may not offer the same protection. Table 2 shows how much an investor would earn if they bought a Treasury security today, held it for six months, and during that timeframe the entire spot yield curve fell to zero. We also show what returns would be earned if the yield curve shifted in the same way it did during the Feb 19th – Mar 23rd equity selloff, except we don’t let any yields fall into negative territory.2 Table 1Total Returns From Stock Market Peak (Feb. 19th) To Stock Market Through (Mar. 23rd) Fed Purchases Won’t Stop Bond Yields From Rising Fed Purchases Won’t Stop Bond Yields From Rising Table 2Treasury Total Returns Over A Hypothetical 6-Month Period Fed Purchases Won’t Stop Bond Yields From Rising Fed Purchases Won’t Stop Bond Yields From Rising Notice that projected returns for shorter maturities in Table 2 are significantly lower than the returns earned during the Feb 19th – Mar 23rd episode. A 5-year Treasury note will earn only 1.90% during the next six months if the entire yield curve falls to zero, this is well below the 5.21% earned in February and March. However, for maturities beyond 10 years, returns are similar between Table 1 and Table 2. This makes sense because, unlike the short-end, those long-dated yields are still fairly far from the zero bound. Bottom Line: Treasuries still perform their role as hedging instruments for equity portfolios, but investors now have to move further out the curve, and thus take more interest rate risk, to get the same protection they received from less-risky shorter-maturity notes in the past. US Economy: Digging Into Claims Chart 7Labor Market Update Labor Market Update Labor Market Update Initial unemployment claims spooked some investors when the weekly number jumped to +898k two weeks ago, even as the consensus was calling for a small decline.3 But that spike was completely reversed last week, and a good chunk of it was actually revised out of the data. A delay in California’s reporting was one reason for the big swing. The state had failed to report claims data for two consecutive weeks at the beginning of the month. This meant that the national claims number was based on an assumed figure for the state. California resumed reporting last week and the result was a big drop in overall claims, back down to +787k. Stepping back from the large swings of the past two weeks, a good portion of which are statistical artifacts stemming from California’s reporting delay, we see that overall employment trends haven’t changed much. Initial claims have flattened-off since late-August, but continuing claims are still falling rapidly (Chart 7). This suggests that the unemployment rate will drop again next week when October’s employment report is released. The big question in next week’s employment report will be whether the decline in the unemployment rate is once again driven by falling temporary unemployment, or whether the number of permanently unemployed workers will reverse its uptrend (Chart 7, bottom panel). All in all, the labor market data continue to paint a picture of an economy that is recovering but that still has a very large output gap. In other words, the economy is a long way from generating meaningful inflationary pressure. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 3Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Fed Purchases Won’t Stop Bond Yields From Rising Fed Purchases Won’t Stop Bond Yields From Rising   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep”, dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Blank cells in Table 2 mean that returns are the same as in the “Spot Curve Falls To 0%” scenario. 3 Please see BCA Daily Insights, “Slowing US Labor Market Momentum: Investors Should Not Have Been Surprised”, dated October 15, 2020, available at din.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Global Duration: US Treasury yields have started to creep higher and the move is likely to continue in the coming months regardless of who wins the White House. Reduce overall global duration exposure to below-benchmark, focused on the US. Country Allocation: Based on our view that US Treasury yields have more upside, we are making the following changes to our recommended country allocations in the government bond portion of our model bond portfolio: downgrading the US to underweight, downgrading higher-beta Canada and Australia to neutral, and raising lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and the UK to overweight. Treasury-Bund Spread: We introduce a new trade in our Tactical Overlay to capitalize on our expectation of higher US bond yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread: selling 10-year Treasury futures versus buying 10-year German bund futures. Feature In a Special Report jointly published last week with our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy, we laid out the case for why US Treasury yields have bottomed and should now begin to drift higher.1 We reached that conclusion for two reasons: 1) there will be a major US fiscal stimulus after the upcoming US election, especially so if Joe Biden becomes president and the Democrats take the Senate; and 2) the Fed’s shift to Average Inflation Targeting in late August represented the point of maximum Fed dovishness. The investment conclusions were to reduce duration exposure, while also downgrading our recommended allocation to US government bonds to underweight. We also advised cutting exposure to non-US government bond markets with relatively higher sensitivity to changes in US bond yields, while increasing allocations to countries with a lower “yield beta” to US Treasuries (Table 1). Table 1Updated GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields In this follow-up report, we will further discuss the implications of our changed view on US yields for non-US developed market government bonds. This includes specific adjustments to the recommended country allocations in our model bond portfolio, as well as a new tactical trade to profit from a move higher in US yields that will not to be matched in Europe. Our Recommended Overall Duration Stance: Now Below-Benchmark The case for a future cyclical bottoming of global yields has been building for the past few months, even as yields have remained range-bound at very low levels across the developed economies. Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of economic sentiment measures and leading economic indicators, bottomed back in March and has soared sharply since then (Chart of the Week). Given the usual lead time between peaks and troughs of the Indicator and global bond yields - around nine months, on average – that suggests yields should bottom out sometime before year-end. Chart of the WeekA Cyclical, US-Led Bottoming Of Global Bond Yields A Cyclical, US-Led Bottoming Of Global Bond Yields A Cyclical, US-Led Bottoming Of Global Bond Yields Chart 2UST Yields About To Break Out? UST Yields About To Break Out? UST Yields About To Break Out? In the US, we now think we are past that point, as we discussed last week. The 10-year US Treasury yield has been drifting higher during the month of October and is now bumping up against its 200-day moving average of 0.83% (Chart 2). This is only the first such attempt at a trend breakout in yields, and such a move is unlikely prior to US Election Day - or, more accurately, “US Election Is Decided Day” which may not be November 3! The case for a future cyclical bottoming of global yields has been building for the past few months, even as yields have remained range-bound. Outside the US, however, momentum of bond yields and potential trend breakouts paint a more mixed picture. German and French bond yields remain stable and generally trendless, with Italian and Spanish yields continuing to grind lower. At the same time, yields in the UK, Canada and Australia have started to perk up but remain just below their 200-day moving averages. Bond yields have not responded to the sharp cyclical rebound across the developed world, with large gaps between elevated manufacturing PMIs and stagnant bond yields (Chart 3). Low inflation, ample spare economic capacity and dovish monetary policies are all playing a role, with bond markets not expecting an imminent inflation surge that could drive up yields and fuel expectations of tighter monetary policy. By way of contrast, China - where domestic services sectors have improved at a rapid pace from the COVID-19 recession and where the central bank is not running an overly accommodative monetary policy – has seen a more typical positive correlation between government bond yields and the rising manufacturing PMI over the past several months (Chart 4). This suggests that developed market bond yields can begin to normalize if the domestic services side of those economies emerges more forcefully from the lockdown-induced downturn. Chart 3A Wide Gap Between Growth & Yields A Wide Gap Between Growth & Yields A Wide Gap Between Growth & Yields Chart 4Are Chinese Yields Sending A Message? Are Chinese Yields Sending A Message? Are Chinese Yields Sending A Message? The news on that front is more optimistic in the US compared in Europe. The Markit services PMIs for the euro area and UK have all weakened over the past few months, with headline inflation rates flirting with deflation (Chart 5). Similar data in the US has trended in the opposite direction, with stronger US services activity with rising inflation. Chart 5Deflation Risks In Europe, Not The US Deflation Risks In Europe, Not The US Deflation Risks In Europe, Not The US The pickup in new COVID-19 cases, and the degree of the response by governments to contain it, has been far stronger in Europe and the UK than in the US on a population-adjusted basis (Chart 6). Lockdowns have become more widespread across Europe to contain the second larger wave of the virus. The recent softer services PMI data in the euro area and UK are a reflection of those greater economic restrictions and weaker confidence. This gap between the US economy and non-US economies is only magnified by the fiscal stimulus measures proposed by both US presidential candidates.  In the US, governments have been far less willing to implement politically unpopular restrictions in an election year, while lockdown-weary consumers have been more willing to go about their lives rather than stay sheltered at home. The result is a healthier tone to the US data compared to other countries, even with the number of new US cases on the rise again. This gap between the US economy and non-US economies is only magnified by the fiscal stimulus measures proposed by both US presidential candidates. As we discussed in last week’s Special Report, both the Biden and Trump platforms are calling for major fiscal stimulus – between $5-6 trillion over the next decade, including tax changes – although the Biden plan has much more front-loaded direct government spending, only partially offset by tax increases, if fully implemented. This is the “Blue Sweep” scenario, with a Biden victory and Democratic Party control of the US Congress, that is most bearish for US Treasuries, as the outcome would eventually help reduce the expected 2021 US fiscal drag of -7.2% of GDP as estimated by the latest IMF Fiscal Monitor (Chart 7). Even a re-elected Trump, however, would also mean more US fiscal stimulus, although with a mix of tax cuts and spending increases. Chart 6The Latest COVID-19 Wave Is Hitting Europe Harder The Latest COVID-19 Wave Is Hitting Europe Harder The Latest COVID-19 Wave Is Hitting Europe Harder Combined with an improving services sector and rising inflation, this puts the US in a much different economic position than the major economies of Europe. Chart 7Post-Election US Stimulus Will Offset Fiscal Drag Post-Election US Stimulus Will Offset Fiscal Drag Post-Election US Stimulus Will Offset Fiscal Drag There, the IMF is also projecting some fiscal drag in 2021, but now with a much less healthy domestic economy due to the COVID-19 surge and where inflation is already near 0%. Our decision to reduce our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark is largely driven by trends in the US that are more bond-bearish than in the rest of the developed world. There will likely be another round of fiscal measures to help combat virus-stricken economies in Europe and elsewhere, but the US election is bringing the issue to the forefront more quickly. In other words, the US will get a more bond-bearish fiscal stimulus before Europe does. Bottom Line: US Treasury yields have started to creep higher and the move is likely to continue in the coming months regardless of who wins the White House. Reduce overall global duration exposure to below-benchmark, focused on the US. Our Recommended Country Allocation: Downgrade US, Upgrade Lower-Beta Countries Net-net, our decision to reduce our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark is largely driven by trends in the US that are more bond-bearish than in the rest of the developed world. This also has implications for our recommend country allocation in our model bond portfolio. First, are downgrading our recommended US Treasury allocation to underweight. We are also increasing our desired weighting in countries where government bond yields are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields – especially during periods when the latter are rising. We call this “upside yield beta”. The countries that have the highest such beta to US Treasuries are Canada, Australia and New Zealand, making them downgrade candidates (Chart 8). Similarly, lower upside beta countries like Germany, France, Japan and the UK are upgrade possibilities. Chart 8Favor Countries With Lower Yield Betas To USTs Favor Countries With Lower Yield Betas To USTs Favor Countries With Lower Yield Betas To USTs Already, we are seeing the widening of yield spreads between US Treasuries and non-US government markets – with more to come as US Treasuries grind higher over the next 6-12 months. We see the greatest upside for spreads between the US and the low upside yield beta countries – that means wider spreads for US-Germany, US-France, US-Japan and US-UK (Chart 9). Chart 9Expect More Underperformance From USTs Expect More Underperformance From USTs Expect More Underperformance From USTs Chart 10Fed QE Momentum Peaking, Unlike Other CBs Fed QE Momentum Peaking, Unlike Other CBs Fed QE Momentum Peaking, Unlike Other CBs Thus, this week are making significant changes to our strategic government bond country allocations (see page 15), as well as the country weightings in our model bond portfolio (see pages 13-14), based on our new view on US bond yields and non-US yield betas. Specifically, we are not only cutting our recommended US weighting to underweight, but we are also downgrading Canada and Australia from overweight to neutral. On the other side, we are upgrading UK Gilts to overweight from neutral, while also upgrading Germany, France and Japan to overweight. Importantly, we are maintaining our overweight stance on Italian and Spanish sovereign debt, as those markets are supported by greater European fiscal policy integration in the world of COVID-19 and, just as importantly, large-scale ECB asset purchases. More generally, the relative “aggressiveness” of central bank quantitative easing (QE) does play a role in our recommended country allocation. We expect the Fed to be more tolerant of higher Treasury yields if the move is driven by improving US growth and/or greater US fiscal stimulus – as long as the higher yields were not having a negative impact on equity or credit markets. We expect the Fed to be more tolerant of higher Treasury yields if the move is driven by improving US growth and/or greater US fiscal stimulus – as long as the higher yields were not having a negative impact on equity or credit markets. This means less expected QE buying of Treasuries by the Fed. Conversely, given how aggressive the Reserve Bank of Australia and Bank of Canada have been with expanding their balance sheet via QE (Chart 10), this makes us reluctant to shift to the underweight stance on those countries implied by their high beta to rising US Treasury yields. Therefore, we are only downgrading those two countries to neutral. Bottom Line: Based on our view that US Treasury yields have more upside, we are making the following changes to our recommended country allocations in the government bond portion of our model bond portfolio: downgrading the US to underweight, downgrading higher-beta Canada and Australia to neutral, and raising lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and the UK to overweight. A New Tactical Trade: A UST-Bund Spread Widener Using Futures This week, we are also introducing a new recommended trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 16 to take advantage of our view on US bond yields: a 10-year US-Germany spread widening trade using government bond futures. Chart 11A Tactical Opportunity For A Wider UST-Bund Spread A Tactical Opportunity For A Wider UST-Bund Spread A Tactical Opportunity For A Wider UST-Bund Spread This trade makes sense for several reasons: Germany has one of the lowest yield betas to US Treasuries during periods when the latter is rising, as shown earlier. Our US Treasury-German Bund fundamental fair value spread model – which uses relative policy interest rates, unemployment and inflation between the US and the euro area as inputs - suggests that the spread is now far too tight after the massive rally in US Treasuries in 2020 (Chart 11). The main reason why the spread looks so “expensive” is that the underlying fair value has risen with US inflation rising and euro area inflation falling (Chart 12, bottom panel). The UST-Bund yield differential is not stretched from a technical perspective, when looking at deviations of the spread from its 200-day moving average or the 26-week change in the spread; both measures suggest room for additional spread widening before reaching historical extremes (Chart 13). Also, duration positioning by US fixed income investors is only around neutral, according to the JP Morgan duration survey, suggesting scope to push yields higher if bond investors become more defensive. Chart 12Inflation Differentials Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread Inflation Differentials Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread Inflation Differentials Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread Chart 13Technical Trends Favor A Wider UST-Bund Spread Technical Trends Favor A Wider UST-Bund Spread Technical Trends Favor A Wider UST-Bund Spread As a reference, we are initiating this trade with the cash bond 10-year US-Germany spread at +138bps, with a target range of +170-190bps over the 0-6 month horizon we maintain for our Tactical Overlay positions. Bottom Line: We introduce a new trade in our Tactical Overlay to capitalize on our expectation of higher US bond yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread: selling 10-year Treasury futures versus buying 10-year German bund futures.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Special Report, "Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep", dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Under the newly released deleveraging policies, Chinese real estate developers have no choice but to deleverage. Over the next six months, the most likely scenario will be moderate growth in property sales, starts and completions, but a drop in land purchases. We expect Chinese onshore and offshore property stocks to continue underperforming their respective benchmarks. However, we recommend buying Chinese property developers’ offshore corporate bonds. Feature The country’s real estate sector has exhibited clear signs of improvement. As both commodity buildings’ floor space starts and sales showed four consecutive months of year-on-year growth, Chinese real estate investment has returned to its pre-pandemic annual rate of acceleration (Chart 1). In addition, our broad measures of Chinese real estate construction activity – the “building construction” floor area starts and completions – have also rebounded sharply (Chart 2). Chart 1Chinese Property Market: A Sustainable Recovery Ahead? Chinese Property Market: A Sustainable Recovery Ahead? Chinese Property Market: A Sustainable Recovery Ahead? Chart 2Sharp Rebound In Post-Pandemic Construction Activity Sharp Rebound In Post-Pandemic Construction Activity Sharp Rebound In Post-Pandemic Construction Activity One driving force behind the real estate sector’s recovery was that China loosened up its monetary policy and implemented fiscal stimulus earlier this year. However, since July, the government has implemented a flurry of restrictive policies to clamp down on flows of capital into the real estate sector, and has repeatedly stressed the mantra: “Houses are for living in, not for speculation.” Most importantly, in late August the government released a framework mandating Chinese property developers to deleverage. As Chinese homebuilders have no choice but to reduce their debt load, will the property market recovery continue? Chart 3Constrained Financing May Lead To A Drop In Land Sales Going Forward Constrained Financing May Lead To A Drop In Land Sales Going Forward Constrained Financing May Lead To A Drop In Land Sales Going Forward Over the next six months, we expect a 4-6% year-on-year growth in property sales. The government-set deleveraging mandate will likely result in considerable property sales promotion by real estate developers. In the meantime, faced with constrained financing, homebuilders may prioritize completion of already sold but unfinished buildings over land investment (Chart 3). This may result in a moderate pickup in construction activity, but a drop in profit margins and land sales. Beyond the next six months, property sales in China will likely struggle to grow, as price discounts may not be enough to outweigh demand headwinds. In turn, construction activity may falter, as the government-led deleveraging mandate and weakening sales will curtail the cash flow to homebuilders.  Mandated Deleveraging Chart 4Property Developers Will Have No Choice But To Deleverage Property Developers Will Have No Choice But To Deleverage Property Developers Will Have No Choice But To Deleverage The Chinese real estate sector is highly indebted. According to the National Bureau of Statistics of China, the sector’s total liability-to-asset ratio rose to 80%, and its debt-to-equity ratio was at 4.1 by the end of last year (Chart 4). Policymakers in Beijing well recognize that excesses in the property market in general, and leverage among property developers in particular, constitute a major risk to financial stability. As part of the strategy to establish a long-term, sustainable mechanism for the real estate sector, the Chinese central bank and the housing ministry issued a framework – essentially a deleveraging mandate for Chinese property developers. This framework includes Three Red Lines and Four Tiers. Three Red Lines There will be a 70% ceiling on liabilities to assets, excluding advanced payments from presold houses; The net debt-to-equity ratio needs to be less than 100%; Short-term borrowings cannot exceed cash reserves. Four Tiers Companies that exceed all three red lines are placed into the red tier, while those passing any two of the three red lines are in the orange tier and enterprises that cross one of the three lines are in the yellow tier. Firms with financials within the three red lines are classified in the green tier. The government is using these debt tiers to control which firms will have access to new financing and how much new financing they can apply for. Failing to meet all three “red lines” (i.e., the red tier) may result in them being cut off from access to new loans from banks. If a firm passes all three red lines (i.e., the green tier), it can increase its debt up to a maximum of 15% in the next year. If it is in the yellow or orange tier, it can increase its debt up to a maximum of 10% and 5% in the following year, respectively (Table 1). Table 1The Mandated Deleveraging Framework: Three Red Lines And Four Tiers China: The Implications Of Deleveraging By Property Developers China: The Implications Of Deleveraging By Property Developers Enterprises that break all three red lines are required to submit a report on their debt-reduction plan, listing their planned deleveraging measures to reduce the number of red-line breaches within one year, as well as the planned measures to reach the green tier within three years. Based on the 2020 mid-year data released by 100 major public-traded property-developing companies listed as either A-shares or H-shares, 86% of them are breaking at least one of the red lines, 22% of them are breaching all three red lines and only 14% of them are in the green tier. Bottom Line: Chinese home developers are set to embark on the deleveraging path due to the new regulation. This will limit their access to financing and has implications for their activity and, thereby, the overall economy. What Does This Mean? Property development is an asset-heavy and capital-intensive business, and this industry typically relies a lot on debt. Chart 5Chinese Real Estate Investment: A Breakdown Of Funding Source China: The Implications Of Deleveraging By Property Developers China: The Implications Of Deleveraging By Property Developers There are several ways for homebuilders to finance themselves. Chart 5 shows the breakdown of the source of Chinese real estate investment funding, with 15.5% of the total funding from domestic and foreign loans, 32% from a self-raising fund through issuances of bonds or equity, 33.2% from deposits and advanced payments, and 16.2% from homebuyers’ mortgages.  With limited financing from the loan and bond markets, the country’s real estate developers will have to seek more financing from deposits and advanced payments, homebuyers’ mortgages and equity issuances. Chart 6Property Developers Need To Boost Their Sales To Raise More Cash Property Developers Need To Boost Their Sales To Raise More Cash Property Developers Need To Boost Their Sales To Raise More Cash As equity issuance dilutes existing shareholders' profits and drives down share prices, developers often opt for presales to raise financing, i.e., they pre-sell more properties to increase their revenue from deposits and advanced payment, as well as mortgages (Chart 6).  Hence, in the short term, i.e., over the next six months, many property developers may need to cut home prices to boost their sales and shore up cash for their operations. For example, the country’s biggest real estate developer – Evergrande – falls short on all three metrics and lies in the red tier. The company announced in early September that it would do aggressive sales of properties by lowering the selling prices for all types of properties by 30% across the country during the period of September 7 to October 8. Indeed, the company’s sales reached a record high for this period. The aggressive sales promotion of properties will encourage demand. We expect the year-on-year growth of floor space sales to reach 4-6% over the next six months – an acceleration from 1.3% during the pre-pandemic period of 2H2019, but a moderation from the 6.4% growth in the post-pandemic months (Chart 7). Beyond the next six months, home sales may struggle to grow as the impact from price discounts diminishes and demand will face the following headwinds:  The authorities continued to show their determination to crack down on speculative housing demand. Stricter policies, including tighter restrictions on both first and second home purchases and mortgage applications, as well as raising the down payment ratio, have been implemented recently in cities experiencing a rapid rise in property prices, such as Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Tangshan, Zhengzhou and many other cities. The government also set new bank lending regulations to the real estate sector; new bank loans issued to the real estate sector, measured as a share of total new bank loans, should be kept under 30% of total banks’ loans (Chart 8). The ratio has declined to the current 25% from 30-50% in the past four years. We believe the ratio will remain below 30% over the next six to twelve months. Chart 7Chinese Property Sales, Starts And Completions Will Grow Moderately In Coming Months Chinese Property Sales, Starts And Completions Will Grow Moderately In Coming Months Chinese Property Sales, Starts And Completions Will Grow Moderately In Coming Months Chart 8Constrained Lending To Chinese Real Estate Sector From Banks Constrained Lending To Chinese Real Estate Sector From Banks Constrained Lending To Chinese Real Estate Sector From Banks Lending to the real estate sector includes housing mortgages and loans for real estate development. The capped bank loans to the property sector suggests that tighter lending standards will be applied to mortgage loans as well as property development loans. This will likely curb demand for housing. The authorities stopped the Pledged Supplementary Lending (PSL) program in 2020. The PSL was a driving force behind property demand in China during 2015-2018, but this time the government has refrained from PSL injections. The government-subsidized shantytown renovation program (e.g., adding elevators, building parking spots, painting interior and exterior walls, paving roads, etc.) will reduce demand for new properties. With improved living conditions, some households may not need to buy new properties. The government’s renovation project covers 7 million houses this year, of which 76.4% (5.4 million) were completed during the first eight months of this year. Moreover, a renovation project of a similar scale will be implemented next year.   The government’s active promotion of rental housing will also reduce the demand for new housing. Rental prices have been falling due to the pandemic, and that may delay home buyers from purchasing residential properties.    Chart 9Chinese Property Demand Faces Structural Headwinds Chinese Property Demand Faces Structural Headwinds Chinese Property Demand Faces Structural Headwinds The Chinese property market also faces strong structural headwinds. For example, property demand in China has already entered a saturation phase, and the working-age population (15-64 years of age) is shrinking (Chart 9). What about the outlook of property starts and completions? Constrained net borrowing will weigh on floor space starts and floor space completions. As such, we only expect moderate growth (i.e., smaller than 5%) in both property starts and completions over the next six months (Chart 7 on page 6). With constrained financing, homebuilders may have to allocate an increasing amount of funding to complete their unfinished projects instead of purchasing new land (Chart 3 on page 2). The pace of property completion has to catch up with both sales and starts. Property developers are currently under increased pressure to deliver units that were pre-sold about two years ago (Chart 10). Rising property sales will provide more financing for the developers to complete these projects under construction. The moderate growth in floor space starts and completions will lift construction activity slightly in the commodity buildings market (Chart 11). Chart 10Homebuilders Need To Deliver Their Unfinished Projects Homebuilders Need To Deliver Their Unfinished Projects Homebuilders Need To Deliver Their Unfinished Projects Chart 11Construction Activity In China: Moderate Increase Ahead Construction Activity In China: Moderate Increase Ahead Construction Activity In China: Moderate Increase Ahead That said, construction activity may relapse beyond the next six months. Both the enduring government-led deleveraging mandate and weakening sales will lead to funding shortages for Chinese homebuilders to carry on new construction projects. Bottom Line: Floor space sales, starts and completions will expand moderately despite the mandated deleveraging of developers in the next six months.  Investment Implications First, it is reasonable to expect a moderate pickup in real estate construction activity in China over the next six months. This will be marginally positive for construction-related commodities demand.  Chart 12Commodity Prices: Hold A Neutral Stance For Now Commodity Prices: Hold A Neutral Stance For Now Commodity Prices: Hold A Neutral Stance For Now However, commodity prices have already rebounded sharply since April, and China's infrastructure-related construction activities usually peak in October. Therefore, a marginal increase in commodity demand from the real estate sector is not a catalyst for further price increases in commodities such as steel, cement, and glass. For now, we prefer to hold a neutral stance on these commodities (Chart 12).  Beyond six months, the possibility of negative growth in home sales, starts and construction is rising, raising warning signs for construction-related commodities demand. Second, property developers may cut their land purchases in order to allocate more funds to completing unfinished homes. This heralds that a drop in the local government’s revenue may lie ahead. This will have ramifications for their spending in 2H2021. Third, regarding property stocks, they have been moving sideways in absolute terms this year, having significantly underperformed the benchmark (Charts 13 and 14). This reflects their poor profit growth prospects and weak financial fundamentals. We expect the Chinese property stocks to continue to underperform their benchmark, as the aggressive selling strategy will reduce companies’ profit margins. Chart 13Chinese Property Stocks: A Tapering Wedge In Absolute Terms, And… Chinese Property Stocks: A Tapering Wedge In Absolute Terms, And... Chinese Property Stocks: A Tapering Wedge In Absolute Terms, And... Chart 14…Continuing Underperformances Relative To Their Respective Benchmarks ...Continuing Underperformances Relative To Their Respective Benchmarks ...Continuing Underperformances Relative To Their Respective Benchmarks Lastly, we recommend buying Chinese offshore real estate bonds, as moderate growth recovery in the country’s real estate sector and deleveraging will lead to a narrowing of the sector’s corporate spread. In addition, the ongoing global search for yields will intensify the demand for high-yield bonds.   Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 80% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. Feature With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart 1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart 1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table 1).1 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Table 1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.2 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart 2). Chart 2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. The US output gap would close more rapidly under a President Biden, likely triggering a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance.  At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart 3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart 3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).3 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 45%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 30%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 20%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 5%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 80%, versus a 20% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 80%, 35 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market Chart 4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart 4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart 4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. A complete re-convergence to long-run fed funds rate estimates would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart 5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart 5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart 5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart 6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart 5How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? Chart 6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart 6, bottom panel).4 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart 7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart 8).5 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart 7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart 8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart 8, bottom panel).6 Two More Curve Trades Chart 9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart 9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. The Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. Chart 10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart 10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart 11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart 11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart 12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart 12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 2 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Our model suggests that more rate hikes are ahead in 2021; we project a less than 50bps increase in the PBoC policy rate from the current level. Chinese stock prices positively correlate with interest rates and bond yields. The relationship has strengthened since 2015. In the next six to nine months, Chinese stock prices will likely trend up alongside a rising policy rate and an accelerating economic growth. Feature China’s policy rate and bond yields have been rising sharply since May and are breaching their pre-COVID 19 levels. Meanwhile, Chinese stock prices have moved sideways since mid-July, despite a steady recovery in the domestic economy. While some commentators view higher interest rates as a harbinger of an impending equity market weakness, our research shows that the relationship between China’s stock prices and short-term rates has been positive since 2015. A rally in Chinese stocks and outperformance of cyclical stocks relative to defensives positively correlate with rising interest rates and bond yields (Chart 1A and 1B). Chart 1ARising Bond Yields Coincide With Ascending Chinese Stock Prices... Rising Bond Yields Coincide With Ascending Chinese Stock Prices... Rising Bond Yields Coincide With Ascending Chinese Stock Prices... Chart 1B...And Offshore Cyclicals ...And Offshore Cyclicals ...And Offshore Cyclicals Chart 2Massive Stimulus In 2020 Will Accelerate Economic Growth Into 1H21 Massive Stimulus In 2020 Will Accelerate Economic Growth Into 1H21 Massive Stimulus In 2020 Will Accelerate Economic Growth Into 1H21 China’s massive stimulus this year generated some self-sustaining momentum that will likely push the nation’s output higher in 1H21(Chart 2). The PBoC may raise the policy rate by as much as 50bps in 2021 from its current level, but strong domestic fundamentals should be able to drive up Chinese stock prices, in both absolute term and relative to global equities in the next six to nine months. PBoC Policy Hikes:Still More Ahead While the PBoC’s policy rate has rebounded sharply, it remains at its lowest level since the Global Financial Crisis. Looking forward, will the central bank bring the policy rate (e.g. 3-month SHIBOR) back to its pre-COVID 19 range of 3 – 3.5% or the pre-trade war level near 5%? The acceleration in China’s economic recovery is expected to continue and would boost China’s annual output growth in 1H21 to two to three percentage points above its trend. Based on these estimates, our interest rate model implies more than 200bps in rate increases in 2021 from the current level1 (Chart 3). Chart 3Rising Odds Of PBoC Rate Hikes In 2021 Rising Odds Of PBoC Rate Hikes In 2021 Rising Odds Of PBoC Rate Hikes In 2021 Historically, our model has successfully captured the major turning points in China's policy rate cycles. This time around, however, the pandemic and the subsequent economic recovery may have complicated the model's predictive power. The model suggests that, in 1H21 the policy rate will return to its pre-trade war range of 4-5%, but we think the rate increases will be capped within 50bps.  The model follows a modified version of "Taylor's Rule," in which we assume that the PBoC will target its short-term interest rate based on the deviation between actual and desired inflation rates and the deviation between real GDP growth and China’s trend GDP growth rate. The latest data shows across-the-board strengthening in the economy; most indicators have surprised to the upside, confirming our optimistic  assessment.2 However, Taylor's Rule is not able to account for sudden shocks in the economy, such as a pandemic-induced global recession. Thus, the model exaggerates the magnitude of interest rate bumps, based on an economic growth acceleration following a one-off economic shock.  In a report earlier this year, we noted that the PBoC has been proactive in normalizing its monetary policy following short-term shocks.3 This is contrary to economic downturns when the PBoC has been a reactive central bank and its decisions often lagged a pickup in economic activity. As such, although interest rates have swiftly rebounded after the pandemic-induced growth contraction in Q1, we expect the pace of rate hikes to be slower in 2021. Chart 4Rapid RMB Appreciation Will Bring Headwinds To Chinese Industrial Profits Rapid RMB Appreciation Will Bring Headwinds To Chinese Industrial Profits Rapid RMB Appreciation Will Bring Headwinds To Chinese Industrial Profits External factors are accounted for in the model, though they may be underestimated. The US Federal Reserve Bank has decisively shifted its monetary policy to broadly accommodative and will stay behind the inflation curve in the next few years. The collapse in interest rate differentials between the US and China has made RMB-denominated assets attractive, boosting strong inflows of foreign capital and rapidly pushing up the value of the RMB (Chart 4, top panel).    While we think Chinese policymakers have pivoted to prefer a strong RMB, the recent countermeasures by the PBoC indicate that the central bank will not allow the RMB to climb too rapidly.4 China's drastic tightening in monetary conditions and the sharp rally in the trade-weighted RMB from 2011 to 2014 led to a prolonged economic downturn (Chart 4, bottom panel). Therefore, in the absence of synchronized policy tightening from other central banks, the magnitude of rate hikes by the PBoC will be measured.  Bottom Line: The PBoC will continue to push up the policy rate in 2021, but our baseline view is that the magnitude will be capped below 50bps. Interest Rates And Chinese Stocks Chart 5Chinese Stocks/Bond Yields Correlation Became Much More Positive After 2015 Chinese Stocks/Bond Yields Correlation Became Much More Positive After 2015 Chinese Stocks/Bond Yields Correlation Became Much More Positive After 2015 Many investors might think that stock prices tend to react negatively to monetary policy tightening because interest rate upturns and mounting bond yields lead to higher costs of funding for corporations and lower profit growth. However, Chinese stock prices started moving in the same direction with policy rates and bond yields following the burst of the 2014/15 stock market bubble (Chart 5 and Chart 1A and 1B on Page 4 and 2). In general, when China’s economic and profit growth accelerates, share prices can rise with higher interest rates. Share prices can still climb with cuts in interest rates even when economic growth slows but profit growth rate remains in positive territory. However, when profit growth is expected to drop below zero, share prices will drop even if rates are falling (Chart 6A and 6B).  In this vein, the most pertinent reason for Chinese stocks to move in tandem with bond yields is that Chinese stocks are increasingly driven by economic fundamentals, which are supported by the volume of total credit creation (measured by total social financing) rather than the price of money in China. Furthermore, the reverse relationship between the volume and price of money in China broke down after 2015; China’s credit creation has become less sensitive to changes in interest rates. Chart 6AWhen Interest Rates Rise... When Interest Rates Rise... When Interest Rates Rise... Chart 6B...Economic Growth Holds The Key For Stock Performance ...Economic Growth Holds The Key For Stock Performance ...Economic Growth Holds The Key For Stock Performance Since 2015, the PBOC shifted its policy to target interest rates instead of the quantity of money supply (Chart 7). In order to effectively manage the official interbank rates (the 7-day interbank repo rate), the central bank uses tools such as reserve requirement ratio cuts and liquidity injections in the interbank system (Chart 8).  In other words, the central bank has forgone its control of the volume of money. Moreover, since late 2016, rather than direct interest rate hikes, the PBoC has been taking monetary policy tightening measures through changes in its macro-prudential assessment (MPA). The changes in the MPA are evident in the 3-month / 1-week repo spread.5  As such, an increase in the 3-month interbank repo rate (and SHIBOR) is often intended to curb shadow-banking activities rather than depress aggregate credit creation and business activities (Chart 9). Chart 7Monetary Policy Regime Shifted In 2015 Monetary Policy Regime Shifted In 2015 Monetary Policy Regime Shifted In 2015 Chart 8More Open Market Operations Monetary Tightening ≠ Lower Stock Prices Monetary Tightening ≠ Lower Stock Prices Chart 9Most Monetary Tightening Has Been Carried Out Through MPA Since 2016 Most Monetary Tightening Has Been Carried Out Through MPA Since 2016 Most Monetary Tightening Has Been Carried Out Through MPA Since 2016 Another idiosyncrasy is China’s fiscal stimulus, which has become a more relevant driver of total social financing since the onset of the 2014/15 economic downcycle (Chart 10). The amount of government bond issuance is specified by the People’s Congress in March each year and is not affected by changes in interest rates or bond yields. Therefore, growth in total social financing can still accelerate despite a higher price of money (Chart 11). Chart 10Fiscal Lever Has Become More Prominent In Driving Business Cycles Since 2015 Fiscal Lever Has Become More Prominent In Driving Business Cycles Since 2015 Fiscal Lever Has Become More Prominent In Driving Business Cycles Since 2015 Chart 11Changes In Interest Rates Have Little Impact On Fiscal And Quasi-Fiscal Borrowing Changes In Interest Rates Have Little Impact On Fiscal And Quasi-Fiscal Borrowing Changes In Interest Rates Have Little Impact On Fiscal And Quasi-Fiscal Borrowing By the same token, a rising 3-month SHIBOR can also be the result of rapid fiscal and quasi-fiscal expansions, as seen in Q3 this year.  A flood of central and local government bond issuance drained liquidities from commercial banks, boosting the banks’ needs to borrow money from the interbank system. Nevertheless, the market’s appetite for risk assets increases because fiscal stimulus provides an imminent and powerful reflationary force in China’s business cycles. Chart 12Bank Lending Rates Can Still Trend Downwards Against A Rising Policy Rate Bank Lending Rates Can Still Trend Downwards Against A Rising Policy Rate Bank Lending Rates Can Still Trend Downwards Against A Rising Policy Rate Rising policy rates typically push up corporate bond yields. However, bond yields in China play a relatively small role in driving corporate financing costs on an aggregate level, since commercial banks are still dominant in China’s debt market. Commercial banks' average lending rates closely track the PBoC’s policy rate on a cyclical basis, but Chinese authorities periodically use window guidance to target the Loan Prime Rate (LPR), a reformed bank lending rate. Hence, the direction in both the LPR and the average lending rate can temporarily diverge from the policy rate. These measures can boost bank loan growth even in a rising interest rate environment (Chart 12). Bottom Line: The key driver of Chinese stock performance is the country’s domestic credit, business, and corporate profit growth cycles. Since the 2014/15 cycle, the policy rate has not been the determinant of China’s economic or credit growth. Investment Conclusions We expect that this year’s massive monetary and fiscal stimulus to accelerate the country’s economic recovery into 1H21. Therefore, even if interest rates and bond yields advance, Chinese stock prices can still trend upward. Chinese cyclical stocks should also continue to outperform defensives, in both the onshore and offshore markets (Chart 13A and 13B). Chart 13AStay Invested In Chinese Stocks Stay Invested In Chinese Stocks Stay Invested In Chinese Stocks Chart 13BCyclicals Still Have Upside Potentials Cyclicals Still Have Upside Potentials Cyclicals Still Have Upside Potentials Rates will begin to climb and fiscal policy will also become more restrictive if China’s output moves above trend growth through 1H21. Government bond quotas and fiscal budget will be determined at the National People’s Congress in March. If the economy is strong, odds are that fiscal stimulus will be scaled back. At that point, investors should start to look for a peak in China’s business cycle linked to monetary and fiscal policy tightening. As growth expectations start to downshift in the equity market, yields on long-dated government bonds will start to decline while yields on the short end will not drop. Additionally, the small-cap ChiNext market has been considered as a speculative segment of the domestic financial market with higher multiples and greater volatility than large-cap A shares. The bourse's trailing price-to-earnings ratio and price-to-book ratio are extremely elevated at 79 and 8.6, respectively, much higher than for broader onshore and offshore Chinese stocks. As such, this market will remain the most vulnerable to domestic liquidity tightening.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 based on our estimates for 1h21: 7.5-8.0% GDP growth,  2.5-2.8% headline CPI, 6.5-6.7 USD/CNY, and the fed holding current fund rate unchanged. 2Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China Macro And Market Review," dated October 7, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Don’t Chase China’s Bond Yields Lower," dated February 19, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4On October 12, the PBoC removed financial institutions’ Forex reserve ratio of 20%, making betting against the RMB cheaper.  5Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations