Fixed Income

Highlights Butterfly Strategy: A butterfly fixed income strategy is a combination of a barbell (a weighted combination of long- and short-term bonds) and a bullet (the medium-term bonds that sit within the yield curve segment selected in the barbell) designed to provide investors exposure to specific yield curve changes while being insulated from parallel shifts. Yield Curve Models: Simple yield curve models, based on the positive relationship between the slope of the yield curve and butterfly spreads – and to a certain extent, implied interest rate volatility – can be used to identify which part of the yield curve is most attractively valued by comparing what change in the slope is being discounted with our own macro views. Current Valuation: The overall message from our new suite of global yield curve models is that trades favoring barbells over bullets are attractive across all the developed market countries covered in our analysis. Feature In February 2002, BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) introduced a framework for measuring market expectations for changes in short-term interest rates embedded in the slope of government bond yield curves.1 By comparing those discounted changes with our own macro view on where rates were headed, this framework provided signals on potential value in trades focusing on the shape of the yield curve. This analysis originally focused on one specific yield curve (butterfly) strategy across six developed markets; the US, Germany, the UK, Japan, Canada, and Australia. Table 1Most Attractive Butterfly Trades Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies More recently, our sister service US Bond Strategy applied this framework to each different butterfly spread combination across the entire US Treasury curve, creating a tool to identify the most attractively valued parts of the US yield curve at any point in time.2 In this Special Report, we revisit the original GFIS methodology for identifying attractive yield curve trades in global government bond markets. Furthermore we extend the analysis to all butterfly combinations and add three additional European countries to the list - France, Italy and Spain. The overall message is that trades that favor barbells over bullets are attractive across all the developed markets covered in this analysis. Table 1 displays the most attractive combinations of barbells over bullets for each country. Going forward, we will rely on the readings from our refreshed yield curve models, combined with our macro views, to populate our new Tactical Trade Overlay framework with yield curve trades in global government bond markets. What Is A Butterfly Strategy? A butterfly fixed income strategy involves two main components: a barbell (a weighted combination of long-term and short-term bonds) and a bullet (a medium-term bond that sits within the yield curve segment selected in the barbell). This strategy owes its name to the resemblance that barbells and bullets can have with the wings and body of an actual butterfly, not to lepidopterology.3 To implement a butterfly strategy, a bond investor would go long (short) the barbell while simultaneously going short (long) the bullet. In general, barbells are expected to outperform bullets in a flattening yield curve environment, and vice-versa. The reason butterfly strategies are so widely used is that they provide fixed-income investors exposure to specific changes in the slope of the yield curve, while being neutral to small parallel shifts. This immunization to small parallel shifts is achieved by setting the weights of the short- and long-term bonds in the barbell such that the weighted sum of their dollar duration (referred to as DV01 – the dollar value of a basis point) equals the DV01 of the bullet. In the event of large parallel shifts in the yield curve – which are quite rare – the barbell will outperform the bullet since the former will always have a greater convexity than the latter in the absence of convexity-matching between each leg of the trade. We illustrate how a 2/5/10 butterfly strategy works for US Treasuries, using hypothetical constant-maturity par bond yields, in Table 2A.4 Table 2AThe Butterfly (Strategy) Effect Illustrated Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies As can be seen in the ”Weighted DV01” column of Table 2A, the DV01 of each leg of the trade (the bullet and the two combined bonds in the barbell) are identical. Importantly, the weighted DV01 contribution to the barbell from the 2-year note and the 10-year bond differ substantially, meaning that the barbell is more sensitive to changes in the 10-year yield than changes in the 2-year yield. This mismatch is precisely what gives a butterfly strategy exposure to the slope of the curve. Table 2A also presents three yield curve scenarios to demonstrate the benefits of butterfly strategies. In the parallel shift scenario, yields across the entire yield curve rise by 10bps. This parallel shift is neutralized as the two legs of the strategy cancel out. In the steepening curve scenario, the 2-year yield falls by 10bps, the 10-year yield rises by 10bps and the 5-year yield remains flat. In this case, the small gains on the 2-year note cannot offset the losses on the 10-year bond; hence the barbell underperforms the 7-year bullet. Finally, the “Flattening” column in the table shows that the barbell outperforms the bullet when the curve flattens. Our government bond yield curve models rely on the positive relationship typically observed between the butterfly spread and the slope of the yield curve. Bottom Line: A butterfly fixed income strategy is a combination of a barbell (a weighted combination of long- and short-term bonds) and a bullet (the medium-term bonds that sit within the yield curve segment selected in the barbell) designed to provide investors exposure to specific yield curve changes while being insulated from parallel shifts. Dusting Off The GFIS Yield Curve Models Chart 1Butterfly Spreads & Yield Curves Butterfly Spreads & Yield Curves Butterfly Spreads & Yield Curves Our government bond yield curve models rely on the positive relationship typically observed between the butterfly spread and the slope of the yield curve. When the curve steepens, the butterfly spread widens, and vice-versa (Chart 1). This has to do with mean reversion: as the curve steepens, it increases the odds that the curve will flatten in the future since it cannot steepen indefinitely. Consequently, investors will ask for greater compensation to enter a curve steepener trade when the curve is already steepening. As a result, we can create simplified models of the yield curve by regressing any butterfly spread on its corresponding curve slope. Deviations from these fair value models indicate which butterfly strategies are cheap or expensive. While positive, the correlations between yield curve slopes and butterfly spreads vary widely across butterfly combinations and also among countries – in Japan, for example, the historical relationship seems dubious (Chart 1, panel 4). We can further improve the fit of some of our yield curve models by including the MOVE US bond volatility index as a second independent variable. As our colleagues at US Bond Strategy have pointed out, implied interest rate volatility is also positively correlated with the slope of the yield curve (Chart 2, top panel). This matters for butterfly trades because of the convexity mismatch between the barbell and the bullet, particularly given the fact that high convexity is beneficial when implied interest rate volatility is elevated. Simply put, a larger convexity mismatch between the two legs makes them more sensitive to changes in the slope of the curve, and therefore easier to model (Chart 2, bottom panel). Importantly, one other useful application of the relationship between yield curve slopes and butterfly spreads is that we can reverse the yield curve models to calculate what amount of curve steepening or flattening is being discounted in current butterfly spreads. In other words, our models allow us to calculate change in the curve slope that would force the butterfly spread to be equal to its fair value (Chart 3). Chart 2Taking Into Account Implied Vol Taking Into Account Implied Vol Taking Into Account Implied Vol Armed with that information, we can then apply our macro views to determine potential butterfly spread trades. Chart 3Case In Point: US 2/5/10 Spread Fair Value Model Case In Point: US 2/5/10 Spread Fair Value Model Case In Point: US 2/5/10 Spread Fair Value Model For example, the 2/5/10 butterfly spread in the US (the 5-year bullet yield minus the weighted combination of 2-year and 10-year yields) is, at the moment, below its fair value with 46bps of steepening discounted over the next six months (Chart 3, panels 2 & 3). That means the bullet is expensive as per our model and therefore the recommended butterfly strategy would be to go long the 2/10 barbell and short the bullet. However, in the event the 2/10 Treasury slope steepens by more than 46bps over the next six months, the 5-year bullet would be expected to outperform the barbell. In other words, when the butterfly is initially below its fair value, more curve steepening will be needed for the bullet to outperform the barbell. Conversely, if it is above fair value, more curve flattening will be required for the barbell to outperform. In light of this, let’s consider the example of curve steepening from before, but this time looking at two scenarios: the butterfly spread is at fair value the butterfly spread is initially different from its model-implied fair value, but is then expected to revert to fair value by the end of the investment horizon. Under the first scenario, the bullet outperforms the barbell when the curve steepens, as expected given that the butterfly spread is at fair value (Table 2B). Now, in the second scenario, the bullet actually ends up underperforming the barbell, although it is the same curve steepening environment. Table 2BButterfly Strategy Performance And Deviations From Model-Implied Fair Values Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies The reason for this underperformance is that the butterfly spread is now below the fair value shown in scenario #1, thus requiring more steepening for the bullet to outperform the barbell. Ultimately, we have to rely on our macro view of how the slope of the yield curve will change alongside the message from our yield curve models to choose the right butterfly strategy. This means that, ultimately, we have to rely on our macro view of how the slope of the yield curve will change alongside the message from our yield curve models to choose the right butterfly strategy. Bottom Line: Simple yield curve models, based on the positive relationship between the slope of the yield curve and butterfly spreads – and to a certain extent, implied interest rate volatility – can be used to identify which part of the yield curve is most attractively valued by comparing what change in the slope is being discounted with our own macro views. The Message From Our Butterfly Strategy Valuations In the remaining pages of this Special Report, we present the current read-outs from of our yield curve models for each of the major developed market. More specifically, we provide the deviations from fair value for different combinations of bullets and barbells and highlight the most attractive butterfly strategy. The deviations from fair value shown in Tables 3-11 are standardized to facilitate comparison between the different butterfly combinations. Also, for each country we provide a quick assessment of the performance of these butterfly strategies over time by applying a simple mechanical trading rule. Every month, we enter the most attractive butterfly strategy, i.e. the one with the highest absolute standardized deviation from its model fair value. The overall message is that barbells appear attractive relative to bullets across all the countries shown. Trades that favor barbells over bullets are attractive across all the developed markets covered in our analysis. This is consistent with our near term macro view. Global government bond markets have been experiencing bull flattening pressures ever since the COVID-19 virus outbreak sparked a generalized flight-to-safety. Markets woke up to the recent news about the spread of the virus in countries outside of China – namely Italy, South Korea, Japan, Iran and Israel – and all traces of complacency have now vanished.5 There is too much uncertainty about COVID-19 in terms of severity and duration, and government bond yields may very well continue falling until the threat is contained. In the meantime, this may force major central banks to provide even easier monetary policy. While this may be difficult for the ECB and the BoJ, which both already seem out of ammunition, the other central banks could very well end up delivering the rate cuts currently discounted in the overnight index swap curves.6 Looking back at our Central Bank Discounters, the largest amount of rate cuts over the next year are now discounted in the US (-53bps), now discounted in the US (-53bps), Australia (-38bps), Canada (-37bps) and the UK (-23bps). At the same time, the fewest cuts are priced in Japan (-8bps), the euro area (-6bps) and New Zealand (-25bps). The resulting bull steepening would likely be mild, however; after all, rate cuts cannot fight a pandemic, but can only try and cushion the blow to growth. In the event COVID-19 virus does not turn into a pandemic and we observe a decline in the daily change of the number of cases, then global government bond yields would rebound from their current lows. Given the current valuation cushion, we would expect barbelled portfolios to do well, especially since we would not expect more steepening than what is currently being discounted (i.e. we do not expect the 2/30 Treasury slope to steepen by more than 73bps in the near term).   Jeremie Peloso Senior Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com US There are presently three butterfly combinations standing out in that they appear attractive according to our yield curve model. One of them is going long the 2/30 barbell and shorting the 10-year bullet, which currently displays a standardized residual of -1.42 (Table 3). Table 3US: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies The bullet appears 21bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 2/30 Treasury slope greater than 73bps, which we view as unlikely given the current environment (Chart 4A). Chart 4AUS: 2/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model US: 2/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model US: 2/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 4BUS Butterfly Strategy Performance US Butterfly Strategy Performance US Butterfly Strategy Performance Following the mechanical trading rule looks promising (Chart 4B). In fact, we observe few periods of negative year-over-year returns. Germany The most attractively valued butterfly combination currently on the German yield curve is going long the 2/30 barbell and shorting the 10-year bullet, which is currently a little bit more than one standard deviation above its implied-model fair value, with a standardized residual of -1.09 (Table 4). Table 4Germany: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies The bullet appears 14bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 2/30 German curve slope greater than 36bps (Chart 5A). Chart 5AGermany: 2/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Germany: 2/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Germany: 2/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 5BGerman Butterfly Strategy Performance German Butterfly Strategy Performance German Butterfly Strategy Performance Over time, picking the cheapest butterfly combinations based on our yield curve models works relatively well (Chart 5B). Importantly, we observe very few episodes of underperformance since 1990. France The most attractively valued butterfly combination currently on the French OAT yield curve is going long the 5/30 barbell and shorting the 10-year bullet, which currently displays a standardized residual of -1.13 (Table 5). Table 5France: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies The 10-year bullet appears 11bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 5/30 French OAT curve slope greater than 44bps (Chart 6A). Chart 6AFrance: 5/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model France: 5/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model France: 5/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 6BFrench Butterfly Strategy Performance French Butterfly Strategy Performance French Butterfly Strategy Performance The mechanical trading rule appears to also work relatively well when applied to butterfly combinations in the French OAT government bond market (Chart 6B). Italy & Spain Turning to European countries in the periphery, the most attractively valued butterfly combinations appear to be going long the 5/30 barbell and shorting the 7-year bullet in the Italian government bond yield curve (Table 6), and favoring the 7/30 barbell versus the 10-year bullet in the Spanish government bond market (Table 7). Table 6Italy: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies Table 7Spain: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies In the case of Italy, the 7-year bullet appears 7bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 5/30 Italian curve slope greater than 41bps (Chart 7A). The mechanical trading rule appears to work well when applied to Italian butterfly combinations, displaying better excess returns than for most other countries we’ve looked at (Chart 7B). Chart 7AItaly: 5/7/30 Spread Fair Value Model Italy: 5/7/30 Spread Fair Value Model Italy: 5/7/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 7BItalian Butterfly Strategy Performance Italian Butterfly Strategy Performance Italian Butterfly Strategy Performance Looking at Spain, the 10-year bullet appears 8bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 7/30 Spanish curve slope greater than 64bps, which seems highly unlikely at this point in time (Chart 8A). The mechanical trading rule works well when applied to Spanish butterfly combinations and shows very few periods of underperformance since the early 90s (Chart 8B). Chart 8ASpain: 7/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Spain: 7/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Spain: 7/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 8BSpanish Butterfly Strategy Performance Spanish Butterfly Strategy Performance Spanish Butterfly Strategy Performance UK The most attractively valued butterfly combination currently on the UK Gilts yield curve is holding a 2/30 barbell versus the 10-year bullet, which currently displays a standardized residual of -1.64 (Table 8). Table 8UK: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies The 10-year bullet appears 21bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 2/30 curve slope greater than 62bps (Chart 9A). Chart 9AUK: 2/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model UK: 2/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model UK: 2/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 9BUK Butterfly Strategy Performance UK Butterfly Strategy Performance UK Butterfly Strategy Performance Chart 9B shows that applying the simple mechanical trading rule works well over time. Canada The most attractively valued butterfly combination currently on the Canadian yield curve is favoring a 1/30 barbell versus the 10-year bullet, which currently displays a standardized residual of -1.11 (Table 9). Table 9Canada: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies The 10-year bullet appears 18bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 1/30 curve slope greater than 60bps (Chart 10A). Chart 10ACanada: 1/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Canada: 1/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Canada: 1/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 10BCanadian Butterfly Strategy Performance Canadian Butterfly Strategy Performance Canadian Butterfly Strategy Performance Once more, following the mechanical trading rule looks promising (Chart 10B). In fact, we observe only four periods of negative year-over-year returns. Japan The most attractively valued butterfly combination currently on the Japanese JGBs yield curve is going long the 5/10 barbell and shorting the 7-year bullet, which is currently below one standard deviation above its implied-model fair value, with a standardized residual of only -0.86 (Table 10). Table 10Japan: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies The bullet appears slightly expensive, by 5bps, and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 5/10 JGB curve slope greater than 32bps (Chart 11A). Chart 11AJapan: 5/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Japan: 5/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Japan: 5/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 11BJapanese Butterfly Strategy Performance Japanese Butterfly Strategy Performance Japanese Butterfly Strategy Performance The mechanical trading rule also performs well when selecting the most attractive butterfly combinations in the Japanese government bond market (Chart 11B). Australia The most attractively valued butterfly combination currently on the Australian government bond yield curve is going long the 3/10 barbell and shorting the 7-year bullet, which presently displays a standardized residual of -1.52 (Table 11). Table 11Australia: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies Please note that we excluded the 20- and 30-year government bonds from our analysis since they were first issued only a few years ago. Our yield curve model suggests that the bullet is 10bps expensive and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 3/10 Australian curve slope greater than a whopping 92bps (Chart 12A). Chart 12AAustralia: 3/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Australia: 3/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Australia: 3/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 12BAustralian Butterfly Strategy Performance Australian Butterfly Strategy Performance Australian Butterfly Strategy Performance The mechanical trading rule also performs well when picking the most attractive butterfly combinations in the Australian government bond market (Chart 12B).   Footnotes 1 Please contact your sales representative to request a copy. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 The scientific study of butterflies. 4 Using benchmark Treasury yields would only result in slightly different weightings for the bonds in the barbell without affecting the outcome. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus", dated February 21, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "What Central Banks Are (Or Should Be) Watching", dated February 19th, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The coronavirus is a wild card that may have a significant impact on the global economy, … : The COVID-19 outbreak is unfolding in real time, half a world away, and its ultimate course is uncertain. For now, our China strategists think the worst-case scenarios are unlikely, but we will not remain constructive if the virus outlook materially worsens. … but as long as there is not a significantly negative exogenous event, the US economy will be just fine, … : From a domestic perspective, the US expansion is in very good shape. Easy monetary conditions will support a range of activities, and a potent labor market will give increasing numbers of households the confidence and wherewithal to ramp up consumption. … and if there’s no recession, there will not be a bear market: Recessions and equity bear markets coincide, with stocks typically peaking six months ahead of the onset of a recession. If the next recession doesn’t come before late 2021/early 2022, the bull market should remain intact at least through the end of this year. What We Do US Investment Strategy’s stated mission is to analyze the US economy and its future direction for the purpose of helping clients make asset-allocation and portfolio-management decisions. As important as the economic backdrop is, however, we never forget that we are investment strategists, not economic forecasters. We don’t belabor the state of every facet of the economy because neither we nor our clients care about 10- to 20-basis-point wiggles in real GDP growth in themselves. They do want us to keep them apprised of the general trend, though, and we are always trying to assess it. Ultimately, macro analysis benefits investors by providing them with timely recognition of the approach or emergence of an inflection point in the cycles that matter most for financial assets. We view investment strategy as the practical application of the study of cycles, and we are continuously monitoring the business cycle, the credit cycle, the monetary policy cycle and the squishy and only sporadically relevant sentiment cycle. This week, we turn our attention to the business cycle, and the ongoing viability of the expansion, which is already the longest on record at 128 months and counting. If it remains intact, risk assets are likely to continue to generate returns in excess of returns on Treasuries and cash. The Message From Our Simple Recession Indicator We have previously described our simple recession indicator.1 It has just three components, and all three of them have to be sounding the alarm to conclude that a recession is imminent. Our first input is the slope of the yield curve, measured by the difference between the yield on the 10-year Treasury bond and the 3-month T-bill.2 The yield curve inverts when the 3-month bill yield exceeds the 10-year bond yield, and a recession has followed all but one yield curve inversion over the last 50 years (Chart 1). The yield curve inverted from May through September last year, and the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) has driven it to invert again, but the unprecedentedly negative term premium (Chart 2) has made the curve much more prone to set off a false alarm. Chart 1An Inverted Curve May Not Be What It Used To Be ... An Inverted Curve May Not Be What It Used To Be ... An Inverted Curve May Not Be What It Used To Be ... Chart 2... When A Negative Term Premium Is Holding Down Long Yields ... When A Negative Term Premium Is Holding Down Long Yields ... When A Negative Term Premium Is Holding Down Long Yields The indicator’s second input is the year-over-year change in the leading economic index (“LEI”). When the LEI contracts on a year-over-year basis, a recession typically ensues. As with the inverted yield curve, year-over-year contractions in the LEI have successfully called all of the recessions in the last 50 years with just one false positive (Chart 3). The LEI bounced off the zero line thanks to January’s strong reading, and the year-ago comparisons are much easier than they were last year, but we are mindful that it is flirting with sending a recession warning. Chart 3Leading Indicators Are Wobbly, ... Leading Indicators Are Wobbly, ... Leading Indicators Are Wobbly, ... It takes more than tight monetary conditions to make a recession, but you can't have one without them. To confirm the signal from the yield curve and the LEI and make it more robust, we also consider the monetary policy backdrop. Over the nearly 60 years for which BCA’s model calculates an equilibrium rate, every recession has occurred when the fed funds rate has exceeded our estimate of equilibrium (Chart 4). Tight monetary policy isn’t a sufficient condition for a recession – expansions continued for six more years despite tight policy in the mid-‘80s and mid-'90s – but it is a necessary one. Our indicator will not definitively signal an approaching recession until monetary conditions turn restrictive. Chart 4... But The Fed Is Nowhere Near Inducing A Recession ... But The Fed Is Nowhere Near Inducing A Recession ... But The Fed Is Nowhere Near Inducing A Recession Bottom Line: In our view, the yield curve and the LEI both represent yellow lights, though the LEI has a greater likelihood of turning red, especially in the wake of COVID-19. Monetary policy is unambiguously green, however, and we will not conclude that a recession is imminent until the Fed deliberately attempts to rein in the economy. Bolstering Theory With Observation A potential shortcoming of our recession indicator is its reliance on a theoretical concept. The equilibrium (or natural) rate of interest cannot be directly observed, so our judgment of whether monetary policy is easy or tight turns on an estimate. To bolster our assessment of whether or not the expansion can continue, we have been tracking the drivers of the main components of US output. Going back to the GDP equation from Introductory Macroeconomics, GDP = C + I + G + (X - M), we look at the forces supporting Consumption (C), Investment (I) and Government Spending (G). (Because the US is a comparatively closed economy in which trade plays a minor role, we ignore net exports (X-M).) Consumption is by far the largest component, accounting for two-thirds of overall output, while investment and government spending each contribute a sixth. As critical as consumption is for the US economy, it is not the whole story; smaller but considerably more volatile investment is capable of plunging the economy into a recession on its own. The Near-Term Outlook For Consumption Chart 5Labor Market Slack Has Been Absorbed Labor Market Slack Has Been Absorbed Labor Market Slack Has Been Absorbed Consumption depends on household income, the condition of household balance sheets, and households’ willingness to spend. The labor market remains extremely tight, with the unemployment rate at a 50-year low, and “hidden” unemployment dwindling as the supply of discouraged (Chart 5, top panel) and involuntary part-time workers (Chart 5, bottom panel) has withered. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio trails only the peak reached during the dot-com era (Chart 6), which bodes well for household income. The historical correlation between the prime-age non-employment-to-population ratio and wage gains has been quite robust, and compensation growth has plenty of room to run before it catches up with the best-fit line (Chart 7). Chart 6Prime-Age Employment Has Surged, ... Prime-Age Employment Has Surged, ... Prime-Age Employment Has Surged, ... Chart 7... And Wages Will Eventually Follow Suit Back To Basics Back To Basics Chart 8No Pressing Need To Save, Or Pay Down Debt No Pressing Need To Save, Or Pay Down Debt No Pressing Need To Save, Or Pay Down Debt Households can use additional income to increase savings or pay down debt instead of spending it, but it doesn’t look like they will. The savings rate is already quite elevated, having returned to its mid-‘90s levels (Chart 8, top panel); households have already run debt down to its post-dot-com bust levels (Chart 8, middle panel); and debt service is less demanding than it has been at any point in the last 40 years (Chart 8, bottom panel). The health of household balance sheets, and the recent pickup in the expectations component of the consumer confidence surveys, suggest that households have the ability and the willingness to keep consumption growing at or above trend.   Household balance sheets are healthy enough to support spending income gains; there's even room to borrow to augment them.           The Near-Term Outlook For Investment Table 1GDP Equation Recession Probabilities Back To Basics Back To Basics Chart 9A Budding Turnaround A Budding Turnaround A Budding Turnaround We previously identified investment as the individual component most likely to decline enough to zero out trend growth from the other two components (Table 1), and it was a drag in 2019, declining in each of the last three quarters to end the year more than 3% below its peak. We expect it will hold up better this year, however, as the capital spending intentions components of the NFIB survey of smaller businesses (Chart 9, top panel) and the regional Fed manufacturing surveys (Chart 9, bottom panel) have both pulled out of declines. The trade tensions with China weighed heavily on business confidence in 2019, but the signing of the Phase 1 trade agreement lifted that cloud, and we expect that capex will revive in line with confidence once COVID-19 has been subdued. Government Spending In An Election Year Chart 10State And Local Revenues Are Well Supported State And Local Revenues Are Well Supported State And Local Revenues Are Well Supported Heading into the most hotly contested election in many years, we confidently assert that federal spending is not going to go away. Regardless of party affiliation, everyone in Congress sees the appeal of distributing pork to their constituents. Spending by state and local governments, which accounts for 60% of aggregate government spending, should also hold up well, as a robust labor market will support state income tax (Chart 10, top panel) and sales tax (Chart 10, middle panel) receipts. Healthy trailing home price gains will support property tax assessments, keeping municipal coffers full (Chart 10, bottom panel). Coronavirus Uncertainties The coronavirus epidemic (COVID-19) is unfolding in real time, generating daily updates on new infections, deaths and recoveries. Any opinion we offer on the economy’s future is conditioned on the virus' ongoing course. If it takes a sharp turn for the worse, with more severe consequences than we had previously expected, it is likely that we will downgrade our outlook. For now, we are operating under the projection that the virus will cause China’s first quarter output to contract sharply enough to zero out global growth in the first quarter. Our base-case scenario, following from the work of our China Investment Strategy service, is fairly benign from there. For now, we are expecting that the worst of the effects will be confined to the first quarter, and that the Chinese economy and the global economy will bounce back vigorously in the second quarter and beyond, powered by pent-up demand that will go unfilled until the outbreak begins to recede. Our China strategists continue to be heartened by Chinese officials' aggressive (albeit belated) measures to stem the outbreak, revealed in the apparent slowing of the rate of new infections in Hubei province, the epicenter of the outbreak (Chart 11, top panel), and in the rest of China (Chart 11, bottom panel). They also expect a determined policy response to offset the drag from the epidemic (Charts 12 and 13), as officials pursue the imperative of meeting their goal to double the size of the economy between 2010 and 2020. Chart 11Stringent Quarantine Measures May Be Gaining Traction Back To Basics Back To Basics Chart 12The PBOC Is Doing Its Part, ... The PBOC Is Doing Its Part, ... The PBOC Is Doing Its Part, ... Chart 13... By Easing Monetary Conditions ... By Easing Monetary Conditions ... By Easing Monetary Conditions If the economy is expanding, investors' bar for de-risking should be high. Bottom Line: Our China strategists’ COVID-19 view remains fairly optimistic, though it is subject to unfolding developments. Our US view is contingent on BCA’s evolving COVID-19 views. Investment Implications As we noted at the outset, we are not interested in the economy for the economy’s sake; we are only interested in its impact on financial markets. The key business-cycle takeaway for markets is that bear markets and recessions typically coincide, as it is difficult to get a 20% decline at the index level without a meaningful decline in earnings, and earnings only decline meaningfully during recessions. No recession means no bear market, and it also means no meaningful pickup in loan delinquencies and defaults. The bottom line is that it is premature to de-risk while the expansion remains intact. We reiterate our recommendation that investors should remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios, and at least equal weight spread product within fixed income allocations, though we may turn more cautious as we learn more about the progression of COVID-19.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the August 13, 2018 US Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Much Longer Can The Bull Market Last?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We use the 3-month/10-year segment instead of the more common 2-year/10-year because the 3-month bill is a cleaner proxy for short rates than the 2-year note, which incorporates estimates of the Fed’s future actions.

Highlights Analyses on Asian semis, Argentina and Russia are available on pages 7, 12 and 14, respectively. The most likely trajectory for Chinese growth will be as follows: the initial plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that quick rebound will probably be followed by weaker growth. Financial markets will soon focus on growth beyond the temporary rebound. In our opinion, it will be weaker than markets are currently pricing. Thus, risks for EM risk assets and currencies are skewed to the downside. A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if EM corporate bond yields rise. In this week’s report we discuss what it will take for EM corporate credit spreads to widen. Feature The downside risks to EM risk assets and currencies are growing. We continue to recommend underweighting EM equities, credit and currencies versus their DM counterparts. Today we are initiating a short position in EM stocks in absolute terms. Chart I-1 illustrates that the total return index (including carry) of EM ex-China currencies versus the US dollar has failed to break above its 2019 highs, and has rolled over decisively.  In contrast, the trade-weighted US dollar has exhibited a bullish technical configuration by rebounding from its 200-day moving average (Chart I-2). Odds are the dollar will make new highs. An upleg in the greenback will foreshadow a relapse in EM financial markets. Chart I-1EM Ex-China Currencies Have Been Struggling Despite Low US Rates EM Ex-China Currencies Have Been Struggling Despite Low US Rates EM Ex-China Currencies Have Been Struggling Despite Low US Rates Chart I-2The US Dollar Remains In A Bull Market The US Dollar Remains In A Bull Market The US Dollar Remains In A Bull Market   Growth Trajectory After The Dust Settles The evolution of the coronavirus remains highly uncertain and unpredictable. As with any pandemic or virus outbreak, its evolution will be complex with non-trivial odds of a second wave. Even under the assumption that the epidemic will be fully contained by the end of March, its economic impact on the Chinese and Asian economies will likely be greater than global financial markets are currently pricing. As investors come to the realization that this initial pick-up in economic activity after the virus outbreak will be followed by weaker growth, the odds of a selloff in equities and credit markets will rise. In our January 30 report titled Coronavirus Versus SARS: Mind The Economic Differences, we argued that using the framework from the SARS outbreak to analyze the current epidemic is inappropriate. First, only a small portion of the Chinese economy was shut down in 2003, and for a brief period of time. The current closures and limited operations are much more widespread and likely more prolonged. Table I-1China’s Importance Now And In 2003 EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown Second, China accounts for a substantially larger share of the global economy today than it did in 2003 (Table I-1). Hence, the global business cycle is presently much more sensitive to demand and production in the mainland than it was during the SARS outbreak. Global financial markets have rebounded following the initial selloff in late January on expectations that the Chinese and global economies will experience a V-shaped recovery. In last week’s report, we discussed why the odds favor a tepid recovery for the Chinese business cycle and global trade. The main point of last week’s report was as follows: with the median company and household in China being overleveraged, any reduction in cash flow or income will undermine their ability to service their debt and will dent their confidence for some time. Hence, consumption, investment and hiring over the next several months will be negatively affected, even after the outbreak is contained. This in turn will diminish the multiplier effect of policy stimulus in China. Chart I-3Our Expectations Of China’s Business Cycle EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown The most likely pattern for Chinese growth will likely resemble the trajectory demonstrated in Chart I-3. It assumes the plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that snap-back will likely be followed by weaker growth, for reasons discussed in last week’s report. Equity and credit markets in Asia and worldwide have been sanguine because they have so far focused exclusively on expectations of a sharp rebound. As investors come to the realization that this initial pick-up in economic activity will be followed by weaker growth, the odds of a selloff in equities and credit markets will rise. Bottom Line: The most likely trajectory for Chinese and Asian growth will be as follows: the initial plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that quick rebound will probably be followed by weaker growth. Financial markets are not pricing in this scenario. Thus, risks are skewed to the downside for EM risk assets and currencies. The Missing Ingredient For An Equity Selloff The missing ingredient for a selloff in EM equities is rising EM corporate bond yields. Chart I-4 illustrates that bear markets in EM stocks typically occur when EM US dollar corporate bond yields are rising. Hence, what matters for the direction of EM share prices is not risk-free rates/yields but EM corporate borrowing costs. Chart I-4The Destiny Of EM Equities Is DependEnt On EM Corporate Bond Yields The Destiny Of EM Equities is DependEnt On EM Corporate Bond Yields The Destiny Of EM Equities is DependEnt On EM Corporate Bond Yields EM (and US) corporate bond yields can rise under the following circumstances: (1) when US Treasury yields are ascending more than corporate credit spreads are tightening; (2) when credit spreads are widening more than Treasury yields are falling; or (3) when both government bond yields and corporate credit spreads are increasing simultaneously. Provided the backdrop of weaker growth is bullish for government bonds, presently corporate bond yields can only rise if credit spreads widen by more than the drop in Treasury yields. In short, the destiny of EM equities currently relies on corporate spreads. A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if their respective corporate bond yields rise. From a historical perspective, EM and US corporate credit spreads are currently extremely tight (Chart I-5). A China-related growth scare could trigger a widening in EM corporate credit spreads. As this occurs, corporate bond yields will climb, causing share prices to plummet. EM corporate spreads have historically been correlated with EM exchange rates, the global/Chinese business cycle, and commodities prices (Chart I-6). The Chinese property market plays an especially pivotal role for the outlook of EM corporate spreads. Chart I-5EM And US Corporate Spread Remain Tame EM And US Corporate Spread Remain Tame EM And US Corporate Spread Remain Tame Chart I-6EM Corporate Spreads Inversely Correlate With EM Currencies And Commodities Prices EM Corporate Spreads Inversely Correlate With EM Currencies And Commodities Prices EM Corporate Spreads Inversely Correlate With EM Currencies And Commodities Prices   First, offshore bonds issued by mainland property developers account for a large share of the EM corporate bond index. Chart I-7China Property Market Will Continue Disappointing China Property Market Will Continue Disappointing China Property Market Will Continue Disappointing Second, swings in China’s property markets often drive the mainland’s business cycle and its demand for resources, chemicals and industrial machinery. In turn, Chinese imports of commodities affect both economic growth and exchange rates of EM ex-China. Finally, the latter two determine the direction of EM ex-China corporate spreads. China’s construction activity and property developers were struggling before the coronavirus outbreak (Chart I-7). Given their high debt burden, the ongoing plunge in new property sales and their cash flow will not only weigh on their debt sustainability but also force them to curtail construction activity. The latter will continue suppressing commodities prices. The sensitivity of EM corporate spreads to these variables have in recent years diminished because of the unrelenting search for yield by global investors. As QE policies by DM central banks have removed some $9 trillion of high-quality securities from circulation, the volume of securities available in the markets has shrunk. This has distorted historical correlations of EM corporate spreads with their fundamental drivers – namely, China’s construction activity, commodities prices, EM exchange rates and the global trade cycle. Nonetheless, EM corporate credit spreads’ sensitivity to these variables has diminished, but has not vanished outright. If EM currencies depreciate meaningfully, commodities prices plunge and China’s growth and the global trade cycle disappoint, odds are that EM corporate spreads will widen. Given that credit markets are already in overbought territory, any selloff could trigger a cascading effect, resulting in meaningful credit-spread widening. Bottom Line: A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if their respective corporate bond yields rise. The timing is uncertain, but the odds of EM corporate credit spreads widening are mounting as Chinese growth underwhelms, commodities prices drop and EM currencies depreciate. If these trends persist, they will push EM shares prices over the cliff. As to today’s recommendation to short the EM stock index, we anticipate at least a 10% selloff in EM stocks in US-dollar terms. For currency investors, we are maintaining our shorts in a basket of EM currencies versus the dollar. This basket includes the BRL, CLP, COP, ZAR, KRW, IDR and PHP. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Are Semiconductor Stocks Facing An Air Pocket? Global semiconductor share prices have continued to hit new highs, even though there has not been any recovery (positive growth) in global semiconductor sales or in their corporate earnings (EPS). The coronavirus outbreak and the resulting delay in 5G phone sales in China in the first half of 2020 will trigger a pullback in semiconductor equities. Global semiconductor sales bottomed on a rate-of-change basis in June, but their annual growth rate was still negative in December. In the meantime, global semi share prices have been rallying since January 2019. This divergence between stock prices and revenue of global semiconductor stocks is unprecedented (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Over-Hyped Global Semi Share Prices Global Semiconductor Market: Sales & Share Prices Over-Hyped Global Semi Share Prices Global Semiconductor Market: Sales & Share Prices Over-Hyped Global Semi Share Prices Odds are that global semi stocks in general, and Asian ones in particular, will experience a pullback in the coming weeks. The coronavirus outbreak will likely dampen expectations related to the speed of 5G adoption and penetration in China. Critically, China accounted for 35% of global semiconductor sales in 2019, versus 19% for the US and 10% for the whole of Europe. In brief, semiconductor demand from China is now greater than the US and European demand combined. Furthermore, the latest news that the US administration is considering changing its regulations to prevent shipments of semiconductor chips to China’s Huawei Technologies from global companies - including Taiwan's TSMC - could hurt chip stocks further. Since Huawei Technologies is the global leader in 5G networks and smartphones, the ban, if implemented, will instigate a sizable setback to 5G adoption in China and elsewhere. Table II-1Industry Forecasts Of The 2020 Global 5G- Smartphone Shipments EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown Our updated estimate of global 5G smartphone shipments is between 160 million and 180 million units in 2020, which is below the median of industry expectations of 210 million units (Table II-1). The key reasons why the industry’s expectations are unreasonably high, in our opinion, are as follows: Chinese demand for new smartphones will likely stay weak (Chart II-2). The mainland smartphone market has become extremely saturated, with 1.3 billion units having been sold in just the past three years – nearly equaling the entire Chinese population. Chinese official data show that each Chinese household owned 2.5 phones on average in 2018, and that the average household size was about three persons (Chart II-3). This suggests that going forward nearly all potential phone demand in China is for replacement phones, and that there is no urgent need for households to buy new phones. Chart II-2Chinese Smartphone Demand: Further Decline In 2020 Chinese Smartphone Demand: Further Decline In 2020 Chinese Smartphone Demand: Further Decline In 2020 Chart II-3Chinese Households: No Urgent Need For A New Phone Chinese Households: No Urgent Need For A New Phone Chinese Households: No Urgent Need For A New Phone   The Chinese government’s boost to 5G infrastructure investment will likely increase annual installed 5G base stations from 130,000 units last year to about 600,000 to 800,000 this year. However, the total number of 5G base stations will still only account for about 7-9% of total base stations in China in 2020. Hence, geographical coverage will not be sufficiently wide enough to warrant a very high rate of 5G smartphone adoption and penetration. From Chinese consumers’ perspectives, a 5G phone in 2020 will be a ‘nice-to-have,’ but not a ‘must-have.’ Given increasing economic uncertainty and many concerns related to the use of 5G phones, mainland consumers may delay their purchases into 2021 when 5G phone networks will have more geographic coverage.  The number of 5G phone models on the market is expanding, but not that quickly. Consumers may take their time to wait for more models to hit the market before making a 5G phone purchase. For example, Apple will release four 5G phone models, but only in September 2020. Moreover, the price competition between 5G and 4G phones is getting increasingly intense. Smartphone producers have already started to cut prices of their 4G phones aggressively. For example, the price of Apple’s iPhone XS, released in September 2018, has already dropped by about 50% in China. Outside of China, 5G infrastructure development will be much slower. The majority of developed countries will likely give in to pressure from the US and limit their use of Huawei 5G equipment. This will delay infrastructure installation and adoption of 5G throughout the rest of the world because Huawei has the leading and cheapest 5G technology. In 2019, China accounted for about 70% of worldwide 5G smartphone shipments. We reckon that in 2020 Chinese 5G smartphone shipments will be between 120 million and 130 million units. Assuming this accounts for about 70-75% of the world shipment of 5G phones this year, we arrive at our estimate of global 5G smartphone shipments of between 160 million and 180 million units. We agree that 5G technology is revolutionary. Nevertheless, we still believe global semi share prices are presently overhyped by unreasonably optimistic 2020 projections. Overall, investors are pricing global semi stocks using the pace and trajectory of 4G smartphones adoption. However, in 2020 the number and speed of 5G phone penetration will continue lagging that of 4G ones when the latter were introduced in December 2013 (Chart II-4). We agree that 5G technology is revolutionary, and its adoption and penetration will surge in the coming years. Nevertheless, we still believe global semi share prices are presently overhyped by unreasonably optimistic 2020 projections (Chart II-5).  Chart II-4China 5G-Adoption Pace: Slower Than The Case With 4G China 5G-Adoption Pace: Slower Than The Case With 4G China 5G-Adoption Pace: Slower Than The Case With 4G Chart II-5Net Earnings Of Global Semi Sector: Too Optimistic? Net Earnings Of Global Semi Sector: Too Optimistic? Net Earnings Of Global Semi Sector: Too Optimistic?   Investment Implications Global semi stocks’ valuations are very elevated, as shown in Chart II-6 and Chart II-7. Besides, semi stocks are overbought, suggesting they could correct meaningfully if lofty growth expectations currently baked into their prices do not materialize in the first half of this year. Chart II-6Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Chart II-7Global Semi Stocks’ Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated   The coronavirus outbreak and the resulting delay in 5G phone sales in China in the first half of 2020, along with US pressure on global semi producers not to sell to Huawei, will likely trigger a pullback in semiconductor equities. We recommend patiently waiting for a better entry point for absolute return investors. Within the EM equity universe, we have not been underweight Asian semi stocks because of our negative outlook for the overall EM equity benchmark. The Argentine government will drag out foreign debt negotiations with the IMF and foreign private creditors to secure a more favorable settlement. We remain neutral on Taiwan and overweight Korea. The reason is that DRAM makers such as Samsung and Hynix have rallied much less than TSMC. Besides, geopolitical risks in relation to Taiwan in general and TSMC in particular are rising, warranting a more defensive stance on Taiwanese stocks relative to Korean equities. Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com Argentina’s Eternal Tango With Foreign Creditors Chart III-1Downside Risks To Bond Prices Downside Risks to Bond Prices Downside Risks to Bond Prices Our view remains that debt negotiations will be drawn-out because the Argentine government is both unwilling and lacks the financial capacity to service public foreign debt. The administration’s recent attitude toward foreign creditors and the IMF have startled markets: sovereign Eurobond bond prices have tanked (Chart III-1). The reasons why the Fernandez administration will play tough ball with creditors and the IMF are as follows: The country’s foreign funding and the public sector debt situations are precarious. Hence, the lower the recovery rate they negotiate with creditors, the more funds will be available to expand social programs and secure domestic political support. Given Fernandez’s and Peronist’s voter base, the government is inclined to please the population at expense of foreign creditors. Moreover, Alberto Fernandez is facing increasing scrutiny from radical Peronists, who want to dissolve the debt altogether. Vice-president Fernandez de Kirchner stated that Argentina should not pay international agents until the economy escapes a recession. To further add to creditors’ frustration, the government has yet to announce a comprehensive economic plan to revive the economy and service outstanding debt. The public foreign currency debt burden is unsustainable – its level stands at $250 billion, about 4 times larger than exports. The country is still in a recession, and economic indicators do not show much improvement. Committing to fiscal austerity to service foreign debt would entail further economic suffering for Argentine businesses and households, something Fernandez rejected throughout his campaign. The authorities are singularly focused on reviving the economy: government expenditures have grown by over 50% annually under the current administration (Chart III-2). Crucially, Argentina has already achieved a large trade surplus and its current account balance is approaching zero (Chart III-3). Assuming exports stay flat, the economy can afford to maintain its current level of imports. This makes the authorities less willing to compromise and more inclined to adopt a tough stance in debt negotiations. Chart III-2Peronist Government Has Again Boosted Fiscal Spending Peronist Government Has Again Boosted Fiscal Spending Peronist Government Has Again Boosted Fiscal Spending Chart III-3Argentina: Current Account Is Almost Balanced Argentina: Current Account Is Almost Balanced Argentina: Current Account Is Almost Balanced   The risk of this negotiation strategy is that the nation will not be able to raise foreign funding for a while. Nevertheless, the country is currently de facto not receiving any external financing. Hence, this risk is less pressing. Moreover, the administration has already delayed all US$ bond payments until August. This allows them to extend negotiations with creditors over the next six months, thereby increasing uncertainty and further pushing down bond prices. A lower market price on Argentine bonds is beneficial for the government’s negotiation strategy as it implies lower expectations for foreign creditors. Thus, the Fernandez administration’s strategy will be to play hardball and draw-out negotiations as long as possible. We expect Argentina to reach a settlement with creditors no earlier than in the third quarter of this year and at recovery rates below current prices of the nation’s Eurobonds. Russian financial assets will be supported due to improving public sector governance, accelerating domestic demand growth and healthy macro fundamentals. Bottom Line: The government will drag out foreign debt negotiations with the IMF and foreign private creditors to secure a more favorable settlement. Continue to underweight Argentine financial assets over the next several months. Juan Egaña Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com Russia: Harvesting The Benefits Of Macro Orthodoxy Russian financial markets have shown resilience in face of falling oil prices. This has been the upshot of the nation’s prudent macro policies in recent years. We have been positive on Russia and overweight Russian markets over the past two years and this stance remains intact. Going forward, Russian financial assets will be supported due to improving public sector governance, accelerating domestic demand growth and healthy macro fundamentals: Fiscal policy will be relaxed substantially – both infrastructure and social spending will rise. Specifically, the Kremlin is eager to ramp up the national projects program. This is bullish for domestic demand. Russia’s public finances are currently in a very healthy state. Public debt (14% of GDP) is minimal and foreign public debt (4% of GDP) is tiny. The overall fiscal balance is in large surplus (2.7% of GDP). The current account is also in surplus. Hence, a major boost in fiscal spending will not undermine Russia’s macro stability for some time. As a major sign of policy change, President Putin has sidelined or reduced the authority of policymakers who have been advocating tight fiscal policy. This policy change has been overdue as fiscal policy has been unreasonably tight for longer than required (Chart IV-1). Chart IV-1Russia: Government Spending Has Been Extremely Weak Russia: Government Spending Has Been Extremely Weak Russia: Government Spending Has Been Extremely Weak Importantly, the recent changes at the highest levels of government are also positive for governance and productivity. The new Prime Minister Mishustin has earned this appointment for his achievements as the head of the federal tax authority. He has restructured and reorganized the tax department in a way that has boosted its efficiency/productivity substantially and increased tax collection. By promoting him to the head of government, Putin has boosted Mishustin’s authority to reform the entire federal governance system. Given his record of accomplishment, odds are that the new prime minister will succeed in implementing some reforms and restructuring. Thereby, productivity growth that has been stagnant in Russia for a decade could revive modestly. Also, Putin was reluctant to boost infrastructure spending as he was afraid of money being misappropriated without a proper monitoring system. Putin now hopes Mishustin can introduce an efficient governance system of fiscal spending to assure infrastructure projects can be realized with reasonably minimal losses. As to monetary policy, real interest rates are still very high. The prime lending rate is 10%, the policy rate is 6% and nominal GDP growth is 3.3% (Chart IV-2). Weak growth (Chart IV-3) and low inflation will encourage the central bank to continue cutting interest rates. Chart IV-2Russia: Interest Rates Remain Excessively High Russia: Interest Rates Remain Excessively High Russia: Interest Rates Remain Excessively High Chart IV-3Russia's Growth Is Very Sluggish Russia's Growth Is Very Sluggish Russia's Growth Is Very Sluggish   Finally, the economy does not have any structural excesses and imbalances. The central bank has done a good job in cleansing the banking system and the latter is in healthy shape. Bottom Line: The ruble will be supported by improving productivity, cyclical growth acceleration and a healthy fiscal position. We continue recommending overweighting Russian stocks, local currency bonds and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. Last week, we also recommended a new trade: Short Turkish bank stocks / long Russian bank stocks. The main risk to the absolute performance of Russian markets is another plunge in oil prices and a broad selloff in EM. On November 14, 2019 we recommended absolute return investors to go long Russian local currency bonds and short oil. This strategy remains intact. Finally, we have been recommending the long ruble / short Colombian peso trade since May 31, 2018. This position has generated large gains and we are reiterating it. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights In case you missed it in real-time, please listen to a playback of this this quarter’s webcast ‘What Are The Most Attractive Investments In Europe?’ available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Growth is set to plunge in the first quarter, keeping bond yields depressed for the early part of 2020 at least. Stay structurally overweight equities versus bonds so long as bond yields stay around current or lower levels. A 10 basis points decline in the 10-year bond yield can offset a 2 percent decline in stock market profits. Underweight economically sensitive sectors – and regional and country equity indexes with a high weighting to them – until growth and bond yields enter a convincing uptrend. A strong signal for shifting to a more pro-cyclical stance in the coming months would be if/when the 10-year bond yield has reached a sufficiently strong 6-month deceleration. Fractal trade: the strong outperformance of utilities versus oil and gas is technically stretched. Feature Chart I-1Forget Growth, It's All About Valuation Forget Growth, It's All About Valuation Forget Growth, It's All About Valuation ‘Global health scare takes world stock markets to new highs’ would make a jarring, provocative, and counterintuitive headline. But it would be true… at least so far. Most economists expect the global health scare emanating from China to depress economic growth. My colleague, Peter Berezin, forecasts global growth to drop to near zero during the first quarter. Yet the aggregate stock market seems largely unfazed. Most bourses are riding high, and in some cases not far from all-time highs. How can this be if the market is downgrading growth? Ultra-Low Bond Yields Are Protecting The Stock Market Although stock market profits are being revised down, the multiple paid for those profits is rising by more than the profits are falling. Stock market valuations have become hyper-sensitive (inversely) to ultra-low bond yields. Meaning that the valuation boost from a small decline in bond yields is more than sufficient to counter the growth drag from the coronavirus scare. This is not just a recent phenomenon. For the past two years, a good motto for investors has been: forget growth, it’s all about valuation (Chart of the Week). Through 2018-19, profits drifted sideways. Yet the stock market fell 30 percent, then rose 30 percent – because the multiple paid for the profits plunged in 2018, then surged in 2019 (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). The reason was the dramatic swing in bond yields. This is hardly surprising given that the prospective return on equities is sensitive to the prospective return offered by competing (long-duration) bonds. But crucially, at ultra-low bond yields, this sensitivity becomes hyper-sensitivity. Chart I-2The Big Moves In The Stock Market... The Big Moves In The Stock Market... The Big Moves In The Stock Market... Chart I-3...Have Been About Valuation, Not Growth ...Have Been About Valuation, Not Growth ...Have Been About Valuation, Not Growth When bond yields approach their lower bound, bonds become extremely risky investments because the scope for price rises diminishes while the scope for price collapses increases. The upshot is that all (long-duration) investments become equally risky, and the much higher prospective returns required on formerly more risky equities collapses to the feeble return offered on now equally-risky bonds. Given that valuation is just the inverse of the prospective return, the valuation of equities becomes hyper-sensitive to small changes in bond yields. A 10 basis points decline in the bond yield can offset a 2 percent decline in stock market profits Through 2018-2019, the 10-year T-bond yield took a round trip from around 2 percent to 3.2 percent and then down to around 1.6 percent today. This explains the mirror-image round trip in the stock market’s multiple: from 16 down to 13 and then up to around 17 today, a 30 percent increase. Which means that broadly speaking, a 10 basis points decline in the bond yield can offset a 2 percent decline in stock market profits (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Bond Yield Is Driving The Stock Market's Valuation The Bond Yield Is Driving The Stock Market's Valuation The Bond Yield Is Driving The Stock Market's Valuation Therefore, as the coronavirus scare illustrates, the biggest structural threat to the aggregate stock market does not come from slowing growth so long as bond yields continue to adjust downwards. The biggest threat comes from an outsized increase in bond yields, stemming from a subsequent modest acceleration in either growth or inflation. But we do not expect this in the first half of the year (at least). Bond Yields To Stay Depressed For The First Half At Least Although the coronavirus scare is a convenient scapegoat for the growth downgrade, the scare has just amplified a growth deceleration that was going to happen anyway. As we explained at the start of the year in Strong Headwind Warrants Caution In H1, a growth deceleration in Europe and worldwide during early 2020 was already well baked in the cake. The 6-month acceleration in bond yields at the end of 2019 was among the sharpest in recent years. Growth decelerations stem neither from the level of bond yields nor from the change in bond yields (or financial conditions). Growth decelerations stem from the acceleration of bond yields. And the 6-month acceleration in bond yields at the end of 2019 – both in Europe and worldwide – was among the sharpest in recent years (Chart I-5). Chart I-5After A Sharp 6-Month Acceleration In Bond Yields, Yields Stay Depressed For The Following 6 Months After A Sharp 6-Month Acceleration In Bond Yields, Yields Stay Depressed For The Following 6 Months After A Sharp 6-Month Acceleration In Bond Yields, Yields Stay Depressed For The Following 6 Months Although the link between a bond yield acceleration and a GDP deceleration seems hard to grasp, it results from a basic accounting identify. GDP is a flow statistic. So if a credit flow contributes to GDP, it must be a credit flow deceleration that contributes to a GDP deceleration. And if the level of the bond yield establishes the size of a credit flow, it must be a bond yield acceleration that establishes the size of a credit flow deceleration (Chart I-6).  Chart I-6A Bond Yield Acceleration Causes A Credit Flow Deceleration A Bond Yield Acceleration Causes A Credit Flow Deceleration A Bond Yield Acceleration Causes A Credit Flow Deceleration Given the lags between bond yields impacting credit flows and credit flows impacting spending, a sharp 6-month acceleration in the bond yield – like the one experienced at the end of 2019 – tends to keep the bond yield depressed for the following six months. On this basis, we would not expect an outsized increase in the bond yield during the first half of this year. In fact, a continued decline in yields could eventually turn into a sharp 6-month deceleration in the bond yield, leading to an acceleration in credit flows and growth, and providing a forthcoming opportunity to become more pro-cyclical.  Big Winners And Losers Across Sectors, Regions, And Countries To repeat, the growth scare has not had a major impact on the aggregate stock market (so far) because the valuation boost from a small decline in bond yields is more than sufficient to counter the downgrade to profits. But the growth scare has had a major impact on sector, regional, and country winners and losers. Understandably, the sectors most exposed to the declining bond yield have performed very well. These fall under two categories: the first is bond proxies, meaning sectors that pay a stable bond-like income, such as utilities; the second is long-duration investments meaning sectors whose income is likely to grow rapidly, such as tech and healthcare. This is because the more distant is the future cash flow, the greater is the uplift to its ‘net present value’ for a given decline in the bond yield. The growth scare has had a major impact on sector, regional, and country winners and losers. Conversely, the sectors most exposed to short-term growth have performed poorly. These include banks and energy. Banks suffer also because declining bond yields erode their net interest (profit) margin (Chart I-7). In turn, the sector winners and losers have determined the regional and country equity market winners and losers. Nowadays, a stock market’s relative performance is predominantly a play on its distinguishing overweight and underweight ‘sector fingerprint’. This is because major stock markets are dominated by multinational corporations which are plays on their global sectors, rather than the region or country in which they have a stock market listing. It follows that when tech and healthcare outperform, the tech-heavy Netherlands and healthcare-heavy Denmark stock markets must outperform. When energy underperforms, the energy-heavy Norway and UK stock markets must underperform. It also follows that the tech-heavy and healthcare-heavy US stock market must outperform (Chart I-8).  Chart I-7Sector Winners And ##br##Losers... Sector Winners And Losers... Sector Winners And Losers... Chart I-8...Explain Regional And Country Winners And Losers ...Explain Regional And Country Winners And Losers ...Explain Regional And Country Winners And Losers Some of the more extreme sector and country outperformances and underperformances are now technically stretched (see following section). Nevertheless, a general strategy to underweight economically sensitive sectors – and regional and country equity indexes with a high weighting to them – will remain appropriate until growth and bond yields enter a convincing uptrend. To reiterate, one strong signal for shifting to a more pro-cyclical stance in the coming months would be if/when the bond yield has reached a sufficiently strong 6-month deceleration. Stay tuned. Fractal Trading System* The strong outperformance of utilities versus oil and gas is technically stretched, especially in the US, and a reversal is likely within the next three months. Short US utilities versus oil and gas, setting a profit target of 7.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, short Ireland versus Europe reached the end of its holding period having achieved half of its profit target. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 59 percent. Chart I-9US: Utilities Vs. Oil And Gas US: Utilities Vs. Oil And Gas US: Utilities Vs. Oil And Gas 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 Fractal Trading Model Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Forget Growth, It's The Bond Yield That's Driving Markets Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights The elevated uncertainty about global growth stemming from the COVID-19 virus in China has not only made investors more anxious, but central bankers as well. This means that, only six weeks into the year, policymakers may already be having to rethink their expected strategies for 2020 - which were, for the most part, sitting on hold after the monetary easing in 2019. This has important implications for the direction of global bond yields, which were starting to see a cyclical increase before the viral outbreak. In this report, we present what we see as the most important data for investors to focus on in the major developed markets to get the central bank call correct. This is based on our interpretation of recent speeches, press conferences and published research. We also provide our own suggested data series to watch for each country – which do not always line up with what central bankers are saying they are most worried about. We conclude that it is still not clear that the global growth backdrop has turned sustainably more bond bullish, but there is no pressure on any of the major central banks to move away from extremely accommodative policy settings. Feature Over the past four weeks, all of the major central banks have had the opportunity to formally communicate their current views to financial markets. Whether it was through post-policy- meeting press conferences or published monetary policy reports, central bankers have tried to signal their intentions about future changes in the direction of interest rates, given the heightened uncertainties about the momentum of global growth. At the moment, our global leading economic indicator (LEI) is still signaling that 2020 should see some rebound in global growth – and bond yields – after the sharp 2019 manufacturing-led slowdown (Chart 1). Unfortunately, the latest read on the global LEI uses data as of December, so it does not include what is almost certainly to be a very severe slowdown in the Chinese (and global) economy in the first quarter of 2020 due to the COVID-19 virus outbreak. Underlying stories within each developed market economy – on growth, inflation and potential financial imbalances – suggest that the additional interest rate cuts now discounted globally may not come to fruition if the China shock is contained to the first quarter of the year.  Central bankers are in the same spot as investors, trying to ascertain the extent of the hit to global growth from the virus, both in terms of size and, more importantly, duration. This comes at a time when many central banks were already formally rethinking how to meet their own individual inflation-targeting mandates given the persistence of low global inflation alongside tight labor markets (Chart 2). Chart 1Global Bond Yields: Think Globally, Act Locally Global Bond Yields: Think Globally, Act Locally Global Bond Yields: Think Globally, Act Locally Chart 2Common Worries For All CBs: China & Global Inflation Common Worries For All CBs: China & Global Inflation Common Worries For All CBs: China & Global Inflation That all sounds potentially very bond-bullish, but a lot of bad economic news is already discounted in the current low level of global bond yields. More importantly, the underlying stories within each developed market economy – on growth, inflation and potential financial imbalances – suggest that the additional interest rate cuts now discounted globally may not come to fruition if the China shock is contained to the first quarter of the year. In this Weekly Report, we provide a brief synopsis of what we believe are the biggest concerns for each of the major developed economy central banks. This is based on our read of recent policy decisions and central banker statements, as well as our own understanding of the current reaction function of policymakers. Our intention is to provide a short list of indicators to watch for each central bank, to help cut through the noise of data and news during this current period of unusual uncertainty, as well as our own assessment of what policymakers should be focusing on more. We conclude that it is still too soon to expect a new wave of bond-bullish global monetary policy easings in 2020. It will take evidence pointing to an extended shock to global growth from the COVID-19 virus to reverse the bond-bearish signal from other indicators like our global LEI. Federal Reserve Chart 3Federal Reserve: Focus On Financial Conditions & Inflation Expectations Federal Reserve: Focus On Financial Conditions & Inflation Expectations Federal Reserve: Focus On Financial Conditions & Inflation Expectations Currently, the Fed’s commentary suggests a policy bias that can be described as “neutral-to-dovish”, but it is giving no indication that additional rate cuts are likely in 2020 after the 75bps of cuts last year. Markets remain skeptical, however, with -42bps of cuts over the next twelve months now priced into the USD overnight index swap (OIS) curve according to our Fed Discounter (Chart 3). What the Fed seems most focused on: Fed officials seem focused on measures of market-based inflation expectations, like TIPS breakevens, as the best indication that current policy settings are appropriate (or not) relative to the growth outlook of investors. While FOMC members have expressed concern about TIPS breakevens being persistently below the 2% inflation target, they would not necessarily respond to a further decline in breakevens with more rate cuts without first seeing the US Treasury curve becoming inverted for a prolonged period, just like in 2019 (middle panel). Right now, with the 10-year TIPS breakeven at 1.67% and the 10-year/3-month US Treasury curve now at only -1bp, another decline in longer-term inflation expectations will likely invert the Treasury curve. What the Fed should be more focused on: US financial conditions are highly stimulative, with equity indices back near all-time highs and corporate credit spreads remaining well-contained at tight levels. Given the usual lead times of financial conditions indices to US cyclical growth indicators like the ISM manufacturing index (bottom panel), a continuation of the most recent bounce in the ISM is still the most likely result – even allowing for a near-term hit to global growth from China. While FOMC members have expressed concern about TIPS breakevens being persistently below the 2% inflation target, they would not necessarily respond to a further decline in breakevens with more rate cuts without first seeing the US Treasury curve becoming inverted for a prolonged period, just like in 2019. Bottom Line: The incoming US growth data is critical to determine the Fed’s next move. If there is no follow through from easy financial conditions into faster growth momentum, the odds increase that the Treasury curve will become more deeply inverted for a longer period of time – an outcome that would likely prompt more rate cuts, especially if equity and credit markets also begin to sell off as growth disappoints. European Central Bank Chart 4ECB: Focus On Manufacturing & Inflation Expectations ECB: Focus On Manufacturing & Inflation Expectations ECB: Focus On Manufacturing & Inflation Expectations The ECB has been clearly signaling that it still has a dovish bias, although central bank officials have acknowledged that the options available to them to ease further are limited with policy rates already in negative territory. The market agrees, as there are only -7bps of cuts over the next twelve months now priced into the EUR OIS curve according to our ECB Discounter (Chart 4). What the ECB seems most focused on: The ECB has been paying the most attention to the contractions in euro area manufacturing data (like PMIs) and exports seen in 2019. Rightly so, as nearly all of the two percentage point decline in year-over-year euro area real GDP growth since the late-2017 peak has come from weaker net exports. The central bank has also been concerned about the depressed level of inflation expectations, with the 5-year EUR CPI swap rate, 5-years forward, now at only 1.23% - far below the ECB’s inflation target of “at or just below” 2%. What the ECB should be more focused on: We agree that the focus for the ECB should be most concerned about the weakness in manufacturing/exports and low inflation expectations – the latter having not yet responded to extremely stimulative euro area financial conditions (most notably, the weak euro). The euro area economy is highly leveraged to Chinese demand, with exports to China representing 11% of total euro area exports. This makes leading indicators of Chinese economic activity, like the OECD China LEI and the China credit impulse, critically important indicators in determining the future path of European export demand. The COVID-19 outbreak in China could not have come at a worse time for the ECB, as there have been tentative signs of stabilization in cyclical euro area indicators like manufacturing PMIs in recent months. Bottom Line: The COVID-19 outbreak in China could not have come at a worse time for the ECB, as there have been tentative signs of stabilization in cyclical euro area indicators like manufacturing PMIs in recent months. If the China demand shock to euro area exports is large enough, the ECB will likely be forced to deliver a modest interest rate cut – or an expansion of the size of its monthly asset purchases – to try and boost growth. Bank Of England Chart 5Bank Of England: Focus On Business Sentiment & Labor Costs Bank Of England: Focus On Business Sentiment & Labor Costs Bank Of England: Focus On Business Sentiment & Labor Costs The Bank of England (BoE) has a well-deserved reputation as having an unpredictable policy bias under outgoing Governor Mark Carney, but the central bank does appear to be currently leaning on the moderately dovish side of neutral. Short-term interest rate markets also feel the same way, with -19ps of easing over the next twelve months priced into the GBP OIS curve according to our BoE Discounter (Chart 5). What the BoE seems most focused on: The BoE has been paying a lot of attention to indicators of UK business sentiment, which had been negatively impacted by both Brexit uncertainty and global trade tensions in 2019. The BoE has focused on the link from depressed business sentiment to weak investment spending and anemic productivity growth as an important reason why UK potential GDP growth has been so low and why UK inflation expectations have been relatively high. What the BoE should be more focused on: We agree that business sentiment should be the BoE’s greatest area of focus. Sentiment has shown a solid improvement of late, after the signing of the “phase one” US-China trade deal in December and the formal exit of the UK from the EU on January 31. The CBI Business Optimism survey (measuring the net balance of optimists versus pessimists) soared from -44 in October to +23 in January – the biggest quarterly jump ever recorded in the series. It remains to be seen if this improvement in confidence can be sustained and begin to arrest the steady decline in UK capital spending and productivity growth, and the associated surge in unit labor costs and inflation expectations, that has taken place since the 2016 Brexit vote. Bottom Line: The BoE’s next move, under the new leadership of incoming Governor Andrew Bailey, is not clear. Inflation expectations remain elevated but the recovery in business sentiment is still fragile. One potential risk to watch: UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson may choose to take a bolder stand on trade negotiations with the EU after his resounding election victory in December, risking an outcome closer to the “no-deal Brexit” scenario that was most feared by UK businesses. Bank Of Japan Chart 6Bank of Japan: Focus On Exports & The Yen Bank of Japan: Focus On Exports & The Yen Bank of Japan: Focus On Exports & The Yen The Bank of Japan (BoJ) seems to have had a perpetually dovish bias since the 1990s. Yet the current group of policymakers under Governor Haruhiko Kuroda, realizing that they have run out of realistic policy options after years of extreme stimulus, has not been signaling that fresh easing measures are on the horizon, even with economic growth and inflation remaining very weak in Japan. Markets have taken the hint, with only -6bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months priced into the JPY OIS curve according to our BoJ Discounter (Chart 6). What the BoJ seems most focused on: The BoJ has been vocally concerned about the recent slump in Japanese consumer spending, which declined -2.9% (in real terms) in Q4 after the sales tax hike last October. That blow to consumption was expected, but could not have come at a worse time for a central bank that was already worried about plunging Japanese manufacturing activity and exports – the latter declining by -8% in nominal terms as of December 2019. There is little hope for a near-term rebound given the certain hit to global growth and export demand from virus-stricken China. What the BoJ should be more focused on: Given that Japan is still an economy with a large manufacturing sector that is levered to global growth, the BoJ should remain focused on the path for Japanese exports. A bigger risk, however, comes from the Japanese yen, which has remained very stable over the past year. It has proven very difficult to generate any rise in Japanese inflation without some yen weakness, and with headline CPI inflation now only at +0.2%, a burst of yen strength would likely tip Japan back into outright deflation. Bottom Line: The BoJ is now stuck in a very bad spot, with no real ability to provide a major monetary policy stimulus for the stagnant Japanese economy. At best, all the central bank could do is deliver a small interest rate cut and hope for a quick rebound in global manufacturing activity and/or some yen weakness to boost flagging inflation. Bank Of Canada Chart 7Bank of Canada: Focus On Housing & Capital Spending Bank of Canada: Focus On Housing & Capital Spending Bank of Canada: Focus On Housing & Capital Spending The Bank of Canada (BoC) surprised many observers by keeping policy on hold last year, even as central banks worldwide engaged in various forms of monetary easing to offset the effects of the global manufacturing downturn. The BoC’s recent messaging has been relatively neutral, in our view, although Governor Stephen Poloz has not completely dismissed the possibility of rate cuts in his speeches. The markets are strongly convinced that the BoC will need to belatedly join the global easing party, with -32bps of rate cuts now priced into the CAD OIS curve according to our BoC Discounter (Chart 7) What the BoC seems most focused on: The BoC remains highly concerned over the high level of Canadian household debt, especially given how Canadian consumer spending has been highly geared towards trends in house price inflation over the past few years. This is likely why the BoC has been reluctant to cut policy rates as “insurance” against the effects of a prolonged global growth slump, to avoid stoking a new Canadian housing bubble. Interestingly, the commentary from BoC officials has taken on a bit more dovish tone whenever USD/CAD has threatened to break down below 1.30, suggesting some fears of unwanted currency appreciation. What the BoC should be more focused: The BoC should continue to monitor developments in the Canadian housing market, given the implications for consumer spending and, potentially, financial stability if there is another boom in house prices. The central bank should also pay even greater attention than usual to the subdued level of oil prices, which has triggered a deep slump in the oil-rich Alberta province that has weighed on the overall level of Canadian business investment spending. Persistently soft oil prices would also force the BoC to continue resisting strength in the Canadian dollar. It would likely take a breakdown in oil prices, or an outright decline in house prices, for the rate cut expectations currently discounted in the CAD OIS curve to come to fruition. Bottom Line: The BoC appears under no pressure to make any near-term interest rate adjustments, especially with realized inflation now sitting at the midpoint of the BoC’s 1-3% target band. It would likely take a breakdown in oil prices, or an outright decline in house prices, for the rate cut expectations currently discounted in the CAD OIS curve to come to fruition. Reserve Bank Of Australia Chart 8Reserve Bank Of Australia: Focus On Underemployment & Housing Reserve Bank Of Australia: Focus On Underemployment & Housing Reserve Bank Of Australia: Focus On Underemployment & Housing The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has been very transparent over the past year, loudly signaling a dovish bias and following through with 75bps of rate cuts that took the Cash Rate to a record low of 0.75%. The latest messaging has been a bit more balanced, while still leaving the door to additional rate cuts if the economy worsens. Markets are expecting at least one more easing, with -24bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months priced into the AUD OIS curve, according to our RBA Discounter (Chart 8). What the RBA seems most focused on: The RBA’s main concerns have centered around the persistent undershoot of Australian inflation, with core inflation remaining below the central bank’s 2-3% target band since the beginning of 2016. The central bank has attributed this to persistent excess capacity in the Australian labor market, as evidenced by the elevated underemployment rate. The RBA is also paying close attention to the Australian housing market and its links to consumer spending, with house prices already responding positively to last year’s RBA rate cuts. The outlook for exports is also on the RBA radar, particularly after the recent surge that lifted the Australia trade balance into surplus but is now at risk from a plunge in Chinese demand. What the RBA should be more focused on: We agree that the labor market should be the main focus for the RBA, particularly the underemployment rate which is still high at 8.3%, signaling that core CPI inflation should remain subdued (bottom panel). We also see the RBA as potentially being more sanguine about the risks of a renewed upturn in the housing market than many observers expect, since that would provide a potential offset to a likely pullback in exports which are now a record 25% of GDP (middle panel). Bottom Line: The RBA still has a clear dovish bias, even though they are currently on hold to assess the impact of last year’s easing. RBA Governor Philip Lowe noted in a recent speech that more cuts may be necessary “if the unemployment rate deteriorates”, suggesting that the labor market is the main area of focus for the central bank. Reserve Bank Of New Zealand Chart 9Reserve Bank Of New Zealand: Focus On The Terms Of Trade & Non-Tradeables Inflation Reserve Bank Of New Zealand: Focus On The Terms Of Trade & Non-Tradeables Inflation Reserve Bank Of New Zealand: Focus On The Terms Of Trade & Non-Tradeables Inflation The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) was one of the more dovish central banks in 2019, cutting the Cash Rate by 75bps to a record low of 1%. The overall tone of the central bank’s recent commentary remains cautious, but has taken on a more balanced tone. Markets are priced appropriately, with only -13bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months discounted in the NZD OIS curve according to our RBNZ Discounter (Chart 9). What the RBNZ seems most focused on: The latest messaging from the RBNZ has highlighted the downside risks to New Zealand from weak global growth, but those are now more manageable since the central bank estimates the economy is operating at full employment. In its latest Monetary Policy Statement (MPS), the RBNZ noted that the economy has been able to weather the weakness in global growth thanks to the positive terms of trade effect from elevated New Zealand export prices – a trend that the central bank expects will persist in 2020 even if external demand remains sluggish (middle panel). The central bank has also expressed some concern over the recent pickup in domestically-driven inflation measures, with core CPI inflation back above 2% (bottom panel). What the RBNZ should be more focused on: The RBNZ is right to focus on global growth, particularly given the coming demand shock from virus-stricken China. While the New Zealand dollar has always been a critical variable for the RBNZ in its policy decisions, the currency now takes on added importance given the central bank’s expectation that export prices and the terms of trade will remain elevated. If the latter turns out to be wrong, the RBNZ will be far more likely to take actions to ensure that the Kiwi dollar stays undervalued. Bottom Line: The RBNZ still has a dovish policy bias, but the hurdle to deliver additional rate cuts after last year’s easing seems a bit higher now. It would likely take a major downturn in global growth, combined with a decline in New Zealand export prices and some cooling of domestic inflation, to get the RBNZ to cut again in 2020. Investment Conclusions Based on our “whirlwind tour” of the major developed market central banks in this report, we can make the following conclusions regarding the expected path of interest rates, and bond yields, in these countries: There are no central banks with anything resembling a hawkish bias – not surprising in the current slow global growth environment with heightened uncertainty. The least dovish central banks are the BoC and the RBNZ, which are not signaling any urgency to cut rates. The most dovish central bank is the RBA, which is indicating a clear willingness to cut again if domestic growth deteriorates. The Fed and the BoE are somewhere in the middle of the “dovishness” spectrum, with both likely willing to ease policy but only under a specific set of circumstances. The ECB and BoJ are clearly boxed in having policy rates already below the zero bound, limiting their ability to ease further if needed. In our view, the rate cut probabilities in the US and Canada seem a bit too aggressive, as we are not anticipating major growth slowdowns in either country over the next 6-12 months.  Looking back at our Central Bank Discounters, the largest amount of rate cuts over the next year are now discounted in the US (-42bps), Canada (-32bps), Australia (-24bps) and the UK (-19bps). At the same time, the fewest cuts are priced in Japan (-6bps), the euro area (-7bps) and New Zealand (-13bps). In our view, the rate cut probabilities in the US and Canada seem a bit too aggressive, as we are not anticipating major growth slowdowns in either country over the next 6-12 months. The odds seem more “fair” in the other countries, in terms of the size of rate cut expectations versus the probability of those cuts actually being delivered because of domestic economic considerations. What does this all mean for global bond investing this year? For that we can turn to our Global Golden Rule framework, which links expected returns of government bonds versus cash to the difference between actual and expected rate cuts.1 US Treasuries and Canadian government bond yields are most at risk of underperforming their global peers in 2020 as the Fed and BoC disappoint the current dovish rate cut expectations discounted in interest rate markets.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated September 25th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index What Central Banks Are (Or Should Be) Watching What Central Banks Are (Or Should Be) Watching Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chinese policymakers will deliver more growth-supporting measures in the coming months, but Chinese government bond yields have already priced in a much weaker economic slowdown and a more aggressive policy response. While we think monetary policy may get even looser in the very near term, there is limited potential for the short-end of the Chinese government bond yield curve to remain at such low levels. The PBoC’s recent liquidity injections are mostly a preventive measure to avoid an acute cash crunch in the real economy, and the historical path following the 2003 SARS outbreak suggests the additional monetary easing action is unlikely to be sustained over the coming 6-12 months. As such, Chinese government bond yields will rebound in expectation of better economic conditions and more restrictive monetary conditions. On a cyclical basis, we continue to overweight Chinese equities over government bonds. Feature Chinese bond yields have declined sharply over the past two weeks, as investors weighed both the economic consequences of the Covid-19 outbreak and the likelihood of more accommodative monetary policy. Following the extended Chinese New Year holiday, China’s central bank (PBoC) has carried out five cash injections, pumping nearly 3 trillion yuan into the interbank market (Chart 1). It also lowered the de jure policy rate - the 7-day reverse repo rate - by 10bps to cut the cost of funding for commercial banks. The 3-month SHIBOR (which trades very closely to the 3-month repo rate), which we have long viewed as China’s de facto short-term policy rate, quickly reversed its January rise and fell back to its July-2018 low (Chart 2). Chart 1Large And Frequent Liquidity Injections Since The Onset Of The Virus Outbreak Large And Frequent Liquidity Injections Since The Onset Of The Virus Outbreak Large And Frequent Liquidity Injections Since The Onset Of The Virus Outbreak Chart 2Monetary Conditions Turned Much Easier In Just Three Weeks Monetary Conditions Turned Much Easier In Just Three Weeks Monetary Conditions Turned Much Easier In Just Three Weeks The PBoC’s aggressive easing measures of late have sparked market speculation that China is entering another major monetary and credit easing cycle, and that a government bond rally is well underway with even lower yields to come. Chart 3Extremely Tight Relationship Between Interbank Lending Rate And Government Bond Yields Extremely Tight Relationship Between Interbank Lending Rate And Government Bond Yields Extremely Tight Relationship Between Interbank Lending Rate And Government Bond Yields In our January 29 Special Report1 on China’s government bond market, we discussed how there has been a strong relationship in the past decade between unexpected changes in the 3-month SHIBOR and the long-end of China’s government bond yields. In order for the current rally in government securities to be sustained, investors need to believe that the PBoC’s easing measures are here to stay and that there will be additional policy rate cuts in the months to come (Chart 3). There are indications that Chinese policymakers are looking to deliver more growth-supporting measures over the coming months. However, it is likely that the current bond rally will be a near-term event rather than a cyclical (6-12 months) trend. Therefore, on a cyclical time horizon, we continue to recommend overweighting Chinese stocks versus Chinese government bonds and would advise against an aggressively long duration stance. Has The Covid-19 Epidemic Peaked? The fact that the number of new suspected cases is also in decline sends a signal that the outbreak outside Hubei may have largely been contained.  Chart 4Financial Market Shakes Off Some Of The "Fear Element" From The Outbreak Financial Market Shakes Off Some Of The "Fear Element" From The Outbreak Financial Market Shakes Off Some Of The "Fear Element" From The Outbreak Investors appear to concur with our view that the Covid-19 outbreak has largely become a Hubei-specific crisis.2 Chinese stocks in the onshore and offshore markets have recovered more than half of the losses from their bottom on February 3, when the number of new cases outside of the Hubei epicenter reached a tentative peak. The 12-month change in the yields of Chinese 3 and 10-year government bonds also inched up since then (Chart 4). While the Chinese government’s rollout of supportive measures, including liquidity injections and policy rate cuts since early February might have helped improve market sentiment, the fact the epidemic outside Hubei province seems to be contained also helps explain the bottom in equity prices and bond yields. In addition, the number of new suspected cases outside Hubei province has trended down since February 9 (Chart 5). The diagnosis methodology was recently revised to include suspects with clinical symptoms, regardless of whether they had a history of contact with infected cases from Wuhan. This new methodology has lowered the bar for registering newly suspected cases. While the situation surrounding the Covid-19 outbreak is still fluid, the fact that the number of new suspected cases is also in decline sends a signal that the outbreak outside Hubei may have largely been contained. Bottom Line: Outside of the epicenter, the Covid-19 outbreak may have peaked. This means the fear element driving down Chinese government bond yields may soon end. Chart 5The Situation Continues To Get Better Outside Of The Epicenter Don’t Chase China’s Bond Yields Lower Don’t Chase China’s Bond Yields Lower Current Bond Rally Unlikely A Cyclical Play Bond yields now appear to have largely priced in a delayed economic recovery and more aggressive policy response. We think the current rally in Chinese government bonds will thus only be a short-term event rather than a cyclical (6-12 month) play. The rally in China’s government bond market since mid-2018 was largely driven by market expectations of a significant slowdown in the Chinese economy, and a much easier monetary policy in responding to a slowing Chinese domestic demand and a protracted Sino-US trade war. Bond market is pricing in a 2015-2016-style economic slowdown and a policy response that is more aggressive than four years ago. Cyclically, we think both of these factors are absent from the current situation, and a normalization back to the pre-outbreak monetary stance may come earlier than the market expects. In the last two weeks, Chinese government bond markets have discounted a sharp slowdown in economic activity; 10-year Chinese government bond yields are back below 3.0% for the first time since 2016 and the 3-month SHIBOR is now 25bps lower than the bottom in 2015-2016 (Chart 6). This suggests the market is pricing in a 2015-2016-style economic slowdown and a policy response that is more aggressive than four years ago. The nature of the current situation, as we pointed out in our previous reports,3 represents a temporary delay rather than a derailing of an economic recovery in China.  The Covid-19 outbreak and the unprecedented containment measures paused the Chinese economy in the first quarter, just as it was coming off of a two-year soft patch. But domestic demand was not nearly as weak as in 2015-2016 before the outbreak (Chart 7). Chart 6Bond Market Is Pricing In A 2015-2016-Style Economic Slowdown Bond Market Is Pricing In A 2015-2016-Style Economic Slowdown Bond Market Is Pricing In A 2015-2016-Style Economic Slowdown Chart 7A Chinese Economic Recovery Was Budding Pre-Outbreak A Chinese Economic Recovery Was Budding Pre-Outbreak A Chinese Economic Recovery Was Budding Pre-Outbreak Chart 8The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank, But A Proactive Central Bank In Reversing Crisis Easing The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank, But A Proactive Central Bank In Reversing Crisis Easing The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank, But A Proactive Central Bank In Reversing Crisis Easing If the virus is contained outside of the epicenter in the next couple of weeks and the hit to China’s overall economy is limited to Q1, then the PBoC will likely normalize policy back to its pre-outbreak stance. While the PBoC is generally a reactive central bank and has historically lagged a pickup in economic activity, it was proactive in normalizing its monetary policy following short-term shocks. Chart 8 shows the historical path of 3-month SHIBOR in the year following a bottom in economic activity in 2009, 2012, and 2015.  In all three economic slowdowns, there has not been a significant rise in interbank rates in the first nine months of an economic recovery. Following the SARS outbreak, however, the PBoC reversed its easy stance and significantly tightened liquidity conditions in the banking system only four months after the peak of the SARS outbreak. While we do not expect the PBoC to shift into a tightening mode this year, a shift back to the pre-outbreak policy trajectory sometime in Q2 is highly likely, provided the Covid-19 outbreak is contained outside of Hubei province.  In turn, Chinese government bond yields will rebound in expectation of better economic conditions and more restrictive monetary conditions. PBoC is also unlikely to open a liquidity floodgate. Despite large liquidity injections in the past two weeks, we are not convinced that the PBoC intends to fully open the liquidity tap in the interbank market.  So far, most of the financial support measures have been a combination of targeted low-cost funding to non-financial corporations and fiscal subsidies to local governments and businesses. This differs from 2015-2016 when the PBoC aggressively cut interbank rates and the 1-year benchmark lending rate, and kept excessive liquidity in the interbank system for a prolonged period (Chart 9). As Chart 9 (bottom panel) shows, PBoC’s net fund injections have been extremely volatile since Covid-19 erupted in January. This suggests that while the PBoC has added large doses of liquidity into the interbank market, demand for financial support in the banking system has mostly matched or even outstripped supply. In other words, the PBoC is not flooding the interbank system with cash, rather it is preventing an outbreak-induced illiquidity issue from turning into a widespread insolvency problem.  The PBoC is trying to prevent an outbreak-induced illiquidity issue from turning into a widespread insolvency problem.  Chart 9Monetary Policy Not Turning Back To A 2015-2016-Style "Floodgate Irrigation" Monetary Policy Not Turning Back To A 2015-2016-Style "Floodgate Irrigation" Monetary Policy Not Turning Back To A 2015-2016-Style "Floodgate Irrigation" Chart 10Private Sector Highly Leveraged... Private Sector Highly Leveraged... Private Sector Highly Leveraged... This approach is warranted. Small businesses have been disproportionally hit by the outbreak and are reporting a severe shortage of cash. China’s private sector is particularly vulnerable to cash flow restrictions because many businesses are highly leveraged (Chart 10).  A joint survey of 995 small and mid-size companies by Tsinghua and Peking universities showed that more than 60% of respondents said they can survive for only one to two months with their current savings (Chart 11).   Chart 11…Making Small Businesses Especially Vulnerable To Cash-Flow Constraints Don’t Chase China’s Bond Yields Lower Don’t Chase China’s Bond Yields Lower Additionally, there is a risk that the PBoC is underestimating the demand for cash in the banking system, particularly from small- and medium-sized banks. This underestimation could lead to a rise in the interbank lending rate. This occurred in 2017 when the crackdown of shadow bank lending caused a funding squeeze for China’s small and mid-sized banks, which led to a material rise in interbank lending rates and government bond yields (shown in Chart 6). It is also the reason that we primarily track the 3-month SHIBOR over the 7-day rate, as the former tends to capture the effects of these funding squeezes whereas the latter does not. The demand for cash in the interbank market in the current quarter will be higher than in the same period last year. The government has announced an additional debt quota of 848 billion yuan, on top of the previously authorized quota of 1 trillion yuan worth of local government bonds that would be frontloaded in Q1. This is a 32% increase from a total of 1400 billion yuan of bonds that local government frontloaded in Q1 2019. This implies the demand for cash in the interbank market will remain high as commercial banks account for about 80% of local government bond purchases.4 A temporary spike in corporate bond defaults leading to a jump in the interbank rate could also push up government bond yields. Additionally, the delayed resumption of work, the loss of production and the cash crunch facing small companies raise the risk of a surge in overdue bank loans and defaults. This could also escalate the demand for cash from smaller banks, because large commercial banks may be unwilling to lend to riskier borrowers in the interbank market. The 3-month SHIBOR has inched up since the takeover of Baoshang Bank in May 2019. Chart 12Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields We expect the PBoC to lower the loan prime rate (LPR), following the 10bps cut in the medium lending facility rate (MLF) on February 17. As we pointed out in our January 29 Special Report, this easing by the PBoC will reduce corporate lending rates, but not necessarily interbank rates. Chart 12 shows that the change in average lending rates lags the change in Chinese government bond yields. Therefore, the upcoming cuts in the LPR are a result of lowered interbank rates and bond yields, not a cause for changes in government bond yields going forward. Bottom Line: Monetary policy will remain relatively loose this year, but we think the PBoC’s recent aggressive easing will be a temporary event. Any additional easing by the PBoC this year will likely be through providing short-term cash relief and temporarily lowered funding costs to non-financial corporations. There are also near-term risks that interbank rates may be pushed up due to a liquidity crunch.  Hence, yields at the short-end will likely be volatile in the near term whereas yields at the long-end are unlikely to stay at their current low levels. Investment Conclusions While we think monetary policy may get even looser in the very near term, there is limited potential for the short-end of the Chinese government bond yield curve to remain at such low levels. Barring a lasting economic slowdown from the Covid-19 outbreak, the long-end of the curve has the potential to move moderately higher in the second half of the year, as China’s economy recovers from the outbreak-induced shock. Bond yields at the short-end will likely be volatile in the near term whereas yields at the long-end are unlikely to stay at their current low levels. Given this, we continue to expect Chinese domestic and investable equities to outperform government bonds in the next 6-12 months, and we would advise Chinese fixed-income investors against an aggressively long duration stance. Onshore corporate bonds, while risking a higher default rate in the near term, shares a similar outlook on a cyclical basis: onshore spreads are pricing in (massively) higher default losses than we believe are warranted. This means that onshore corporate bonds will still outperform duration-matched government bonds without any changes in yield, underpinning another year of Chinese corporate bond market outperformance versus government bonds.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "How To Analyze And Position Towards Chinese Government Bonds," dated January 29, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Evolving Crisis," dated February 13, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Recovery, Temporarily Interrupted," dated February 5, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4   ChinaBond, as of 2019 Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration: Bond yields will stay low until the daily number of new COVID-19 cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. We therefore recommend maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. Rising odds of a Bernie Sanders presidential win could prevent bond yields from rising at all this year. We may adjust our recommendations in the coming months if this risk increases. Spread Product: Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, with a preference for high-yield. Accommodative monetary conditions will ensure that the supply of credit remains ample for some time yet. This will keep defaults low and spreads tight. Monetary Policy: The Fed is in no rush to tighten policy, but has also set a high bar for further cuts. Investors should short August 2020 fed funds futures.  Yields Will Move Higher … But Not Yet Chart 1A Peak In New Cases? A Peak In New Cases? A Peak In New Cases? Uncertainty about the economic impact of the coronavirus – now officially called COVID-19 – is the cloud that continues to hang over financial markets. Last week, bond yields fell when a change in the definition of what constitutes a confirmed infection caused the number of reported cases to spike. However, even after revisions, the daily number of new cases looks like it may have peaked (Chart 1). The end result is that the 10-year Treasury yield sits at 1.58%, not far from where it was last week (Chart 2). Notably, the 10-year yield continues to shrug off the notable improvement in US economic data (Chart 2, bottom panel), taking its cues instead from COVID-19 headline risk. Even if the downtrend in new COVID-19 cases continues, it is too soon to be looking for higher bond yields. For one thing, the most up-to-date economic data releases were collected during January, before the outbreak. Weaker readings during the next 1-2 months are assured, and investors may not look through the weakness given that many were already skeptical about the prospects for global economic recovery. Our read of the data is that global growth was in the process of bottoming when COVID-19 struck. We therefore expect global growth to move higher once the virus’ impact abates. In terms of timing, using the 2003 SARS outbreak as a comparable, we expect bonds to remain bid until the daily number of new cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. Yields continue to shrug off improvements in economic data. It’s not just the long-end of the curve that has responded to COVID-19. The front-end has also moved to price-in high odds of a rate cut in the coming months. Specifically, the overnight index swap curve is priced for a 42 bps decline in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months (Chart 2, panel 2), and the fed funds futures market is pricing a 74% chance of a rate cut by the end of the summer. As we discussed last week, given that any economic impact from COVID-19 will be temporary, we think the bar for a Fed rate cut this year is quite high.1 As such, our Golden Rule of Bond Investing dictates that investors should keep portfolio duration low on a 12-month horizon.2 We also recommend shorting August 2020 fed funds futures, a trade that will earn 23 bps of unlevered return if the Fed stands pat between now and August (Chart 2, panel 3). Turning to corporate credit, we see that, so far, COVID-19’s impact on spreads has been minor. The investment grade corporate bond index spread is only 3 bps wider than at the start of the year, and the junk index spread is only 8 bps wider (Chart 3). Value remains stretched in the investment grade space, but high-yield spreads look quite attractive. The sell-off in the energy sector has boosted the high-yield index spread considerably (Chart 3, bottom 2 panels). We view this as a medium-term buying opportunity for junk. Once the COVID outbreak abates and global growth ticks higher, the oil price is bound to increase, leading to some tightening in energy spreads. Chart 2Bond Yields Driven By COVID Bond Yields Driven By COVID Bond Yields Driven By COVID Chart 3HY More Attractive Than IG HY More Attractive Than IG HY More Attractive Than IG Will Bonds Feel The Bern? Beyond COVID-19, there is one more risk on the horizon this year. Specifically, the risk that Bernie Sanders is elected President in November. This outcome is far from certain. Sanders is currently leading all other candidates in the Democratic Primary, but fivethirtyeight.com’s model puts the odds of a brokered convention at 38%.3 This means that the race is still wide open and might only be settled at the convention in July. But given Sanders’ lead, it is worth considering the bond market implications if he were to become the next President. The most obvious implication is that risk assets (equities and corporate spreads) would respond to Sanders’ agenda of wealth redistribution by selling off. This could spur a flight-to-quality into government bonds, causing Treasury yields to fall. However, that flight-to-quality won’t occur if markets also start to price-in the long-run implications of Sanders’ agenda. I.e. the fact that the redistribution of wealth from capital to labor would lower the economy’s marginal propensity to save, and likely raise inflation expectations, leading to higher interest rates. It’s important to note that there are a lot of hurdles to overcome before Sanders’ full policy agenda is implemented. First he must secure the Democratic nomination, then defeat Donald Trump in the general election. Even after that, he will still need to convince the House and Senate to pass non-watered down versions of his proposals. With such a long road ahead, we don’t think Sanders’ momentum will push bond yields higher in 2020. Rather, the risk is that Sanders’ rise keeps bond yields low in 2020 as risk assets sell off. If Bernie Sanders looks poised to win the nomination, we will consider reducing our 6-12 month allocation to spread product and increasing our recommended portfolio duration. The outlook for the Democratic Primary should become clearer after Super Tuesday on March 3. If Sanders looks poised to win the nomination we will consider reducing our recommended 6-12 month allocation to spread product and increasing our recommended portfolio duration. Bottom Line: Bond yields will stay low until the daily number of new COVID-19 cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. We therefore recommend maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. Rising odds of a Bernie Sanders presidential win could prevent bond yields from rising at all this year. We may adjust our recommendations in the coming months if this risk increases. Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, with a preference for junk. Though the credit cycle is far from over (see next section), we may reduce our recommended allocation to spread product versus Treasuries if Sanders’ election chances rise.  Bank Lending Standards Won’t Push Credit Spreads Wider In 2020 The net change in commercial & industrial (C&I) bank lending standards, as reported in the Fed’s quarterly Senior Loan Officer Survey, is a vitally important indicator for the credit cycle. Easing lending standards tend to coincide with a low default rate and falling credit spreads, while tightening lending standards usually coincide with spread widening and a rising default rate. With that in mind, it is mildly concerning that bank lending standards have been fluctuating around neutral levels for quite some time, and have in fact tightened in two of the past five quarters (Chart 4). In this week’s report we consider whether tighter bank lending standards could pose a risk to our overweight spread product view in 2020. Chart 4Bank Lending Standards And Monetary Variables Bank Lending Standards And Monetary Variables Bank Lending Standards And Monetary Variables Bank lending standards are such an important credit cycle variable because they tell us about the supply of credit. A corporate default only occurs when credit supply is lower than the amount required for that firm’s survival. On a macro scale, we can think of two main reasons why lenders might restrict the credit supply: They perceive the monetary environment as restrictive. That is, they worry about higher interest rates and slower growth in the future. They perceive corporate balance sheets as being in poor health. That is, they worry that firms won’t be sufficiently profitable to make good on their debts. We find that monetary indicators do a very good job of predicting when lending standards will tighten. Looking back at the past two cycles, lending standards didn’t tighten until after: The yield curve inverted (Chart 4, panel 2). The real fed funds rate was above its estimated equilibrium level (Chart 4, panel 3). Inflation expectations were at or above target levels (Chart 4, bottom panel). Presently, all three of these monetary indicators are supportive. Some portions of the yield curve have been inverted at various times during the past year. But in general, the inversion signal from the yield curve has not been as strong as it was when lending standards tightened in prior cycles. For instance, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope has not inverted this cycle, and it currently sits at +20 bps (Chart 4, panel 2). Further, the real fed funds rate is below most estimates of its neutral level and the Fed is signaling that it will keep it there for a long time yet. This dovish posture is justified by inflation expectations that remain well below target. It is conceivable that, despite the accommodative monetary environment, banks might be so concerned about poor balance sheet health that they are becoming more cautious with their lending. However, a survey of corporate health metrics doesn’t point to an imminent tightening of bank lending standards either (Chart 5). Chart 5Bank Lending Standards And Corporate Balance Sheet Variables Bank Lending Standards And Corporate Balance Sheet Variables Bank Lending Standards And Corporate Balance Sheet Variables In past cycles, tighter bank lending standards were preceded by: A trough in gross leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) (Chart 5, panel 2). A peak in interest coverage (Chart 5, panel 3). Negative pre-tax profit growth (Chart 5, panel 4). A peak in profit margins (Chart 5, bottom panel). Currently, gross leverage is the only one of the above four variables that is clearly sending a negative signal. As for the other three, interest coverage and profit margins are barely off their cyclical highs, and profit growth has been fluctuating around zero for three years. If global growth rebounds during the next 12 months, as we expect, then profit growth will also move modestly higher. Bottom Line: Neither monetary nor balance sheet variables point to an imminent tightening of bank lending standards. We expect that the supply of credit will remain ample in 2020, keeping the default rate low and credit spreads tight. A Note On Falling C&I Loan Demand In addition to questions about lending standards, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey also asks banks to report whether they are seeing stronger or weaker demand for C&I loans. In response, banks have reported weaker C&I loan demand for six consecutive quarters, ending in Q4 2019. Historically, it is unusual for C&I loan demand to fall without a concurrent tightening in lending standards (Chart 6). Chart 6Explaining Weakening Loan Demand Explaining Weakening Loan Demand Explaining Weakening Loan Demand We also see the impact of weaker loan demand in the hard data. C&I loan growth has been falling since early 2019 (Chart 6, panel 2) and net corporate bond issuance had been on a sharp downtrend since 2015, before moving higher last year (Chart 6, bottom panel). So what’s going on with C&I loan demand? We can think of two reasons why firms might seek out less credit. First, they may face a dearth of investment opportunities, or alternatively, they might perceive some benefit from carrying less debt on their balance sheets. On the first point, we find that new orders for core capital goods do a very good job explaining the swings in C&I lending (Chart 7). Specifically, we see that the global growth slowdown of 2015/16 drove both investment spending and C&I lending lower. Then, both series recovered in 2017/18 before moving down again during last year’s slowdown. Surveys about firms’ capital spending plans also dropped last year, consistent with the deceleration in C&I lending, but remain at high levels (Chart 7, bottom three panels). All of this suggests that C&I loan growth will recover this year as global growth improves and the investment landscape brightens. Capital goods new orders do a good job explaining C&I lending. Corporate bond issuance has followed a different path from C&I lending during the past few years. Specifically, bond issuance slowed in 2015/16 as investment spending dried up. But it did not recover in 2017/18 the way that investment spending and C&I lending did. This appears to be a result of the 2018 corporate tax cuts and repatriation holiday. Chart 8 shows that the Financing Gap – the difference between capex spending and retained earnings – plunged in 2018 because firms suddenly received a huge influx of retained earnings. The influx came in part from the lower tax rate, but mostly from repatriated cash that had been stranded overseas. Simply, firms didn’t need to issue bonds to finance their investment plans in 2018 because they had a lot more cash on hand. Chart 7C&I Lending Follows ##br##Investment C&I Lending Follows Investment C&I Lending Follows Investment Chart 8A Negative Financing Gap Limits The Need For Debt A Negative Financing Gap Limits The Need For Debt A Negative Financing Gap Limits The Need For Debt What about the possibility that firms are demanding less debt because they are trying to clean up their balance sheets? Beyond a few anecdotes, we don’t see much support for this idea. In fact, an equity index of firms with low debt/asset ratios has been underperforming an index of firms with high debt/asset ratios (Chart 9). This suggests that there is currently little reward for firms that are paying down debt. Chart 9Firms Not Rewarded For Healthy Balance Sheets Firms Not Rewarded For Healthy Balance Sheets Firms Not Rewarded For Healthy Balance Sheets Bottom Line: Weaker demand for C&I loans is a result of the recent global growth downturn and decline in investment spending. It is not a harbinger of the end of the credit cycle. Loan demand should improve as global growth rebounds this year. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on our Golden Rule of Bond Investing please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Provided that the coronavirus outbreak is contained, global growth should accelerate over the course of 2020. Stocks usually rise when the economy is strengthening. But could this time be different? We explore five scenarios in which the stock market could decouple from the economy: 1) The economy holds up, but stretched valuations bring down equities, especially high-flying growth stocks; 2) Bond yields rise in response to faster growth, hurting equities in the process; 3) A strong US economy lifts the value of the dollar, denting multinational profits and tightening financial conditions abroad; 4) Faster wage growth cuts into corporate profits; and 5) Redistributionist politicians seek to shift income from capital to labor. We are not too concerned about the first four scenarios, but we do worry about the fifth, especially now that betting markets are giving Bernie Sanders a nearly 50% chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. Matters should be clearer by mid-March, by which time more than 60% of Democratic delegates will have been awarded. If Bernie Sanders does emerge as the nominee at that point, we will consider trimming back our bullish cyclical bias towards stocks. Coronavirus: A Break In The Clouds? Chart 1Coronavirus Remains Mostly Contained To China Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Investors continue to grapple with two distinct narratives about how the coronavirus outbreak is unfolding. On the pessimistic side, some contend that the true number of infections in China is much higher than the Chinese authorities are disclosing. How else, they ask, can one explain why the government has taken the extreme step of imposing some form of quarantine on 400 million of its own people? More optimistic observers argue that the Chinese government is simply being proactive. While the number of cases in Hubei province spiked yesterday, this was due to a loosening in the definition for what constitutes a confirmed infection. Whereas previously a positive laboratory test was required, now a positive imaging-based clinical examination will suffice. Under the new definition, the number of newly confirmed cases fell from 6,528 on February 11th to 4,273 on February 12th. Under the old definition, newly diagnosed cases peaked on February 2nd (Chart 1). The revised definition adopted in Hubei brought the mortality rate in the province down to 2.7%. The mortality rate observed in the rest of China is 0.5%. The share of all cases in China originating in Hubei also rose to 81%. Even before the rule change, the share of cases diagnosed in Hubei had risen from 52% on January 26th to 75% on February 11th. This suggests progress in limiting the outbreak to the province. Critically, the number of cases in the rest of the world remains low. In the US, a total of 13 cases have been confirmed as of February 12th, just two more than the 11 reported on February 2nd. The Exception To The Rule? Provided that the coronavirus outbreak is contained, global growth should bounce back forcefully in the second quarter. If that were to occur, history suggests that equities will continue to rally, while bond prices will fall (Chart 2). But could history fail to repeat itself? In this week’s report, we explore five scenarios in which that may happen. Scenario 1: Stretched valuations bring down equities, especially high-flying growth stocks Stocks have moved up considerably since their December 2018 lows. This suggests that investors have become more confident about the economic outlook. Nevertheless, while most investors may no longer be worried about an imminent recession, they do not foresee a sharp acceleration in global growth either. This is evidenced by the fact that cyclical stocks have generally underperformed defensives (Chart 3). Oil prices have also languished, while copper prices are back near a 2.5-year low (Chart 4). Chart 2Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Chart 3Cyclicals Have Failed To Outperform Defensives Cyclicals Have Failed To Outperform Defensives Cyclicals Have Failed To Outperform Defensives   At the broad index level, global equities trade at 16.7-times forward earnings. Conceptually, the inverse of the PE ratio – the earnings yield – should serve as a reasonable guide for the total real return that equities will deliver over the long haul.1 At 6%, the global earnings yield still points to decent returns for global stocks. Relative to bonds, the case for owning stocks is even more compelling. The equity risk premium, which one can compute as the earnings yield minus the real bond yield, remains well above its historic average (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Prices Have Taken It On The Chin Commodity Prices Have Taken It On The Chin Commodity Prices Have Taken It On The Chin Chart 5Relative Valuations Favor Equities Relative Valuations Favor Equities Relative Valuations Favor Equities   That said, there are pockets where valuations have gotten stretched. US equities trade at 19.5-times forward earnings compared to 14.1-times in the rest of the world. Growth stocks, in particular, have gotten very expensive (Chart 6). The five largest stocks in the S&P 500 (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Facebook) now account for 18% of the index, the same share that the top five stocks (Microsoft, Cisco, GE, Intel, and Exxon) commanded in 2000. The big risk for stocks is that wages go up not because the overall size of the economic pie is growing, but because policies are implemented that shift a bigger share of the pie from capital to labor. Despite the similarities between today and the dotcom era, there are a few critical differences – most of which make us less worried about the current state of affairs. First, while tech valuations are currently stretched, they are not in bubble territory. The NASDAQ Composite trades at 30-times trailing earnings. At its peak in March 2000, the tech-heavy index traded at more than 70-times earnings (Chart 7). Chart 6Growth Stocks Have Become Expensive Relative To Value Stocks Growth Stocks Have Become Expensive Relative To Value Stocks Growth Stocks Have Become Expensive Relative To Value Stocks Chart 7Not Yet Partying Like 1999 Not Yet Partying Like 1999 Not Yet Partying Like 1999   Second, IPO activity has also been more muted today than during the dotcom boom (Chart 8). Only 110 companies went public last year, with the gain on the first day of trading averaging 24%. In 1999, 476 companies went public. The average first day gain was 71%. Meanwhile, companies continue to buy up their shares. The buyback yield stands at 3%, twice as high as in the late 1990s. Third, there is no capex overhang like in the late 1990s (Chart 9). This reduces the odds of a 2001-recession scenario where falling equity prices prompted companies to pare back capital expenditures, leading to rising unemployment and even lower equity prices. Chart 8IPO Activity Is Muted Today Compared To The Late 1990s IPO Activity Is Muted Today Compared To The Late 1990s IPO Activity Is Muted Today Compared To The Late 1990s Chart 9No Capex Boom This Time No Capex Boom This Time No Capex Boom This Time   Scenario 2: Bond yields rise in response to faster growth, hurting equities in the process The period between November 2018 and September 2019 was an odd one for the stock-to-bond correlation. If one looks at daily data, stocks did best when bond yields were rising. Yet, for the period as a whole, stocks finished higher while bond yields finished lower (Chart 10). Chart 10Daily Changes: S&P 500 Vs. 10-Year Treasury Yield Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? How can one explain this seeming paradox? The answer is that the underlying trend in bond yields was squarely to the downside last year. While yields did rise modestly on days when equities rallied, yields fell sharply on days when equities swooned. If one zooms out, one sees the underlying trend, whereas if one zooms in, one only sees the wiggles around the trend. Bond yields trended lower last year because the Fed and most other central banks were delivering one dose of dovish medicine after another. This year, however, the Fed is on hold, and while a few central banks may still cut rates, global monetary policy is unlikely to become much looser. This means that bond yields are likely to drift higher if economic growth surprises on the upside. Will rising bond yields sabotage the stock market? We do not think so. Stocks crashed in late 2018 because investors became convinced that US monetary policy had turned restrictive after the Fed had raised rates by a cumulative 200 basis points over the prior two years. The fact that the Laubach-Williams model, one of the most widely followed models of the neutral rate, showed that real rates had moved above their equilibrium level did not help sentiment (Chart 11). Chart 11The Fed Will Keep Policy Easy For The Time Being The Fed Will Keep Policy Easy For The Time Being The Fed Will Keep Policy Easy For The Time Being Chart 12Stocks Do Well When Earnings And Growth Surprise On The Upside Stocks Do Well When Earnings And Growth Surprise On The Upside Stocks Do Well When Earnings And Growth Surprise On The Upside Today, real rates are about 100 basis points below the Laubach-Williams estimate. This will not change anytime soon, given that the Fed is likely to remain on hold at least until the end of the year. So long as rates stay put, monetary policy will remain accommodative, allowing the economy to grow at a solid pace. Granted, rising long-term bond yields will reduce the present value of future cash flows, thus potentially hurting stocks. However, as we discussed three weeks ago, the discount rate is not the only thing that affects equity valuations.2 The expected growth rate of earnings matters too. As Chart 12 shows, global equity returns are highly sensitive to earning revisions. While earnings may disappoint in the first quarter due to the economic damage from the coronavirus, they should bounce back during the remainder of this year. This should pave the way for higher equity prices. Scenario 3: A strong US economy lifts the value of the dollar, denting multinational profits and tightening financial conditions abroad The US is a fairly closed economy. Imports and exports account for only 14.6% and 11.7% of GDP, respectively. In contrast, the US stock market is very exposed to the rest of the world. S&P 500 companies derive over 40% of their sales from abroad. As such, changes in the value of the dollar tend to have a bigger impact on Wall Street than on Main Street. Estimating the degree to which a stronger dollar reduces S&P 500 profits is no easy task. Direct estimates that measure the currency translation effect on overseas profits from a stronger dollar tend to yield fairly modest results, typically showing that a 10% appreciation in the trade-weighted dollar reduces S&P 500 profits by about 2%. These estimates, however, generally do not take into account feedback loops between a strengthening dollar and global financial conditions (Chart 13). According to the Bank of International Settlements, $12 trillion of dollar-denominated debt has been issued outside the US. A stronger dollar makes it more challenging to service this debt, which can put a significant strain on borrowers. As a result, a vicious cycle can erupt where a stronger dollar leads to tighter financial conditions, which in turn lead to weaker global growth and an even stronger dollar. Chart 13A Strong US Dollar Could Tighten Global Financial Conditions, Leading To Lower Equity Prices, Especially In EM A Strong US Dollar Could Tighten Global Financial Conditions, Leading To Lower Equity Prices, Especially In EM A Strong US Dollar Could Tighten Global Financial Conditions, Leading To Lower Equity Prices, Especially In EM Such an outcome cannot be dismissed, especially if the spread of the coronavirus fuels significant foreign inflows into the safe-haven US Treasury market. Nevertheless, we continue to see it as a low-probability event given the tailwinds to global growth, including the lagged effects of last year’s decline in bond yields, an improvement in the global manufacturing inventory cycle, diminished Brexit and trade war risks, and ongoing policy stimulus out of China. In fact, one can more easily envision the opposite outcome – a virtuous cycle of dollar weakness, leading to easier global financial conditions, stronger growth, and ultimately, an even weaker dollar (Chart 14). In such an environment, earnings growth is likely to accelerate (Chart 15). Chart 14The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 15The Virtuous Cycle Of Dollar Easing The Virtuous Cycle Of Dollar Easing The Virtuous Cycle Of Dollar Easing     Scenario 4: Faster wage growth cuts into corporate profits Labor compensation is the largest expense for most companies. Thus, it stands to reason that faster wage growth could depress earnings, and by extension, share prices. Although this is possible conceptually, in practice, it happens less often than one might guess. Chart 16 shows that rising wage growth is positively correlated with earnings. The bottom panel of the chart explains why: Wages tend to rise most quickly when sales are growing rapidly. Strong demand growth adds to revenues, while allowing companies to spread fixed costs over a large amount of output. The resulting improvement in “operating leverage” helps buffer profit margins from higher wages. Scenario 5: Redistributionist politicians seek to shift income from capital to labor As long as wages are rising against a backdrop of fast sales growth, equities will fare well. The big risk for stocks is that wages go up not because the overall size of the economic pie is growing, but because policies are implemented that shift a bigger share of the pie from capital to labor. Bernie Sanders has promised to do just that. The S&P 500 has tended to increase when Sanders’ perceived chances of winning the Democrat nomination have risen (Chart 17). Investors have apparently concluded that Trump would clobber Sanders in a presidential race. Hence, the better Sanders performs in the primaries, the more likely Trump is to be re-elected. Chart 16Stocks Tend To Do Best When Wage Growth Is Rising Stocks Tend To Do Best When Wage Growth Is Rising Stocks Tend To Do Best When Wage Growth Is Rising Chart 17The Sanders Effect On Stocks The Sanders Effect On Stocks The Sanders Effect On Stocks   Is this really a safe assumption? We are not so sure. Sanders has still beaten Trump in 49 of the last 54 head-to-head polls tracked by Realclearpolitics over the past 12 months. Sanders tends to appeal to white working class voters – the same demographic that propelled Trump into office. Sanders is also benefiting from a secular leftward shift in voter attitudes on economic issues. According to a recent Gallup poll, 47% of Americans believe that governments should do more to solve problems, up from 36% in 2010. Almost 40% of Americans have a positive view on socialism (Chart 18). Today’s youth in particular is enamored with left-wing ideology (Chart 19). Chart 18The US Is Moving To The Left Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Chart 19Woke Millennials Cozying Up To Socialism Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? It’s not just the Democratic voters who are trending left. Some prominent Republicans are having second thoughts too. Tucker Carlson is probably the best leading indicator for where the Republican Party is heading. His attacks on “woke capitalism” have become a staple of his popular evening show.3 It is not surprising why many Republicans are having a change of heart. For decades, the Republican Party has been a cheap date for corporate interests: It has given businesses what they want – lower taxes, less regulation, etc. – without asking for much in return (aside from campaign contributions, of course). This has allowed corporations to focus on appealing to left-wing interests by taking increasingly strident positions on a variety of social issues. The fact that some of these positions – such as support for open-border immigration policies – are a boon for profits has only increased their appeal. The risk for corporations is that they end up with no real political support. If the Democrats move further to the left, “soak the rich” policies will become popular no matter how much virtue signaling corporate leaders deliver. Likewise, if Republicans abandon big businesses, today’s fat profit margins will become a thing of the past. When The Music Ends The current market climate resembles a Parisian ball on the eve of the French Revolution. The music is still playing, but the discontent among the commoners outside is growing. The question is when will this discontent boil over? Trump’s victory in 2016 represented a shot across the bow of the political establishment. Fortunately for corporate interests, aside from his protectionist impulses, Trump has been on their side. Bernie Sanders would not be so friendly. Matters should be clearer by mid-March. Super Tuesday takes place on March 3rd. By March 17th, more than 60% of Democratic delegates will have been awarded. If Bernie Sanders emerges as the likely nominee at that point, we will consider trimming back our bullish cyclical 12-month bias towards stocks. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. 2  Please see Global investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Yields: How High Is Too High?” dated January 17, 2020. 3  Ian Schwartz, “Tucker Carlson: Elizabeth Warren's "Economic Patriotism" Plan "Sounds Like Donald Trump At His Best," realclearpolitics, June 6, 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Global Growth & Market Volatility: Fears over global growth have pushed government bond yields lower as markets discount dovish monetary policy responses to the China viral outbreak. That combination may, perversely, be helping keep risk assets stable, even as investors try to assess the potential hit to global growth from a sharp China demand shock, through lower interest rate and currency volatility. Tactical Trade Overlay: We are in the process of revamping our Tactical Trade Overlay framework, thus we are closing all our recommended current positions this week. We will begin unveiling the new trade selection process - with more specific rules on idea development, holding period, security selection and performance measurement - in the coming weeks. Feature Chart of the WeekLow Inflation Sustaining The Low Volatility Backdrop Low Inflation Sustaining The Low Volatility Backdrop Low Inflation Sustaining The Low Volatility Backdrop The timing of the coronavirus outbreak in China has introduced uncertainty into what was looking like a true bottom in global growth after the 2019 slowdown. The epicenter of that improvement seen in measures like the global PMI was China, where not only was there a visible pickup in soft data like the manufacturing PMI about also hard data like import growth. The coronavirus outbreak - and the severe actions to contain its spread via widespread quarantines, factory shutdowns, supply chain disruptions and travel bans – has most likely triggered a “sudden stop” in Chinese economic growth in the first quarter of the year that will spill over beyond China’s borders. This could potentially snuff out the nascent 2020 global growth recovery if the virus is not soon contained. Global government bond markets, however, have already discounted a fairly sharp slowdown in global activity. 10-year US Treasury yields are back below 1.6%. Inflation expectations across the developed economies remain well below central bank targets and short-term interest markets are discounting additional rate cuts to varying degrees. This has created a backdrop of relative tranquility in interest rate and currency markets, with option implied volatilities for the latter back to post-crisis lows (Chart of the Week). Perversely, the shorter-term uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus outbreak may have created a backdrop for risk assets to stay resilient, by reducing the more longer-lasting uncertainty that comes from interest rate and currency market volatility.  Perversely, the shorter-term uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus outbreak may have created a backdrop for risk assets to stay resilient, by reducing the more longer-lasting uncertainty that comes from interest rate and currency market volatility. If the virus is contained and the hit to the world economy limited to just the first quarter of the year, then our underlying thesis of faster growth underpinning another year of global corporate bond market outperformance versus government bonds will remain intact. Extending The “Sweet Spot” For Global Risk Assets Chart 2How Low Will These Go? How Low Will These Go? How Low Will These Go? Investors are right to be worried about the potential hit to the global economy from China. Prior to the outbreak of the coronavirus, a modest improvement in Chinese import demand was underway that was finally starting to put a floor under global trade activity after the sharp 2019 downturn (Chart 2). Without that boost from Chinese demand, the world economy will be far less likely to recover in 2020. BCA Research’s Chief Investment Strategist, Peter Berezin, has attempted some back-of-the-envelope calculations to determine the potential hit to global growth from a “sudden stop” of China’s economy from the coronavirus.1 Assuming that real GDP growth will essentially be zero in the first quarter of 2020, Peter calculates that global growth will slow to 1.7% in Q1 – or one-half the IMF’s expected average growth rate for 2020 of 3.4%. The bulk of that effect comes from the direct impact of Chinese growth slowing from a trend pace of 5.5% in Q1, but that also includes spillover effects to the rest of the world from weaker Chinese spending on imported goods and tourism (Chart 3). Chart 3Chinese GDP Growth Will Plunge In Q1, But Should Recover In The Remainder Of 2020 - Provided The Coronavirus Outbreak Is Contained Slow & Steady Wins The Race Slow & Steady Wins The Race Importantly, Peter sees Chinese and global growth recovering during the rest of 2020, if the virus is contained by the end of March. The potential hit to overall global growth this year would only be 0.3 percentage points under that scenario. There is obviously a lot of uncertainty involved in making such estimates, from the timing of the spread of the virus to the potential monetary and fiscal policy responses from China (and other nations) to boost growth. Yet a total hit to global growth of only 0.3 percentage points would be fairly modest and may not end up derailing the signs of an economic rebound seen in indicators like the ZEW economic sentiment surveys. The individual country expectations component of the ZEW survey have shown solid improvements for the US, the UK, the euro area and even Japan over the past few months (Chart 4). Also, the current conditions component of the ZEW survey was just starting to bottom out in the most recent readings in the US, the UK and euro area. We have found that the spread between those two measures (ZEW current conditions minus expectations) is a reliable coincident indicator of year-over-year real GDP growth in the countries surveyed. Chart 4Will The Coronavirus Delay, Or Derail, The Recovery Process? Will The Coronavirus Delay, Or Derail, The Recovery Process? Will The Coronavirus Delay, Or Derail, The Recovery Process? As of the latest read of the data from mid-January – importantly, before the start of the more widespread media coverage of the viral outbreak in China – the “current conditions minus expectations gap” from the ZEW survey was still trending downward (Chart 5). Chart 5The ZEW "Current Vs Expected" Gap Is Still Signaling Soft Global Growth The ZEW "Current Vs Expected" Gap Is Still Signaling Soft Global Growth The ZEW "Current Vs Expected" Gap Is Still Signaling Soft Global Growth In other words, the boost in expectations had not yet translated into in a larger pickup in current economic activity. The risk now is that the turnaround in that gap, and in global GDP growth, will be delayed by a severe pullback in Chinese demand. The response of global business confidence to the virus is critical. According to the Duke University CFO Global Business Outlook survey taken at the end of 2019, more than half (52%) of US CFOs believe the US will be in an economic recession by the end of 2020, and 76% predict a recession by mid-2021. These numbers are similar to the 2018 survey, where 49% of CFOs thought a recession was likely by the end of 2019 and 82% predicted a recession by the end of 2020. The “CFO recession odds” are even larger outside the US, particularly in Asia and Latin America (Chart 6). Chart 6Duke/CFO Survey Respondents' 1-Year-Ahead Probability Of A Recession Slow & Steady Wins The Race Slow & Steady Wins The Race The Duke CFO survey also asks a question on CFO optimism about the outlook for their own businesses. That data, measured on a scale of 0 to 100, shows that companies remain relatively optimistic about their own companies (Chart 7). The levels of optimism at the end of 2019 were roughly the same as at the end of 2018, except for the US where CFO optimism has soared above the highs seen prior to the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 8). Chart 7Duke/CFO Survey Respondents’ Own Company Optimism Level Slow & Steady Wins The Race Slow & Steady Wins The Race Chart 8US Companies Are Thinking Globally, But Acting Locally US Companies Are Thinking Globally, But Acting Locally US Companies Are Thinking Globally, But Acting Locally The interesting implication of this data is that a considerable number of global companies has believed that recession was “only a year or two away” since the end of 2018, but have not expressed similar pessimism when it comes to their own businesses. The extreme financial market volatility at the end of 2018 likely explains why investors thought a recession was likely in 2019 or 2020, while the US-China trade war last year meant those recession fears were “extended” into 2020 and 2021. Yet one big variable changed over that period since the end of 2018 – global monetary policy was eased significantly and bond yields (i.e. borrowing costs) fell sharply for both governments and companies. Looking ahead, the likely policy response to the sharp fall in Chinese growth in Q1/2020 will be continued dovishness from global central bankers. With the US dollar now firming again, in what is shaping up to be a typical response of the greenback to slower global growth expectations, the reflation narrative that was brewing for 2020 has been postponed (Chart 9). With the US dollar now firming again, in what is shaping up to be a typical response of the greenback to slower global growth expectations, the reflation narrative that was brewing for 2020 has been postponed. A softer US dollar is a necessary ingredient for that reflation. Thus, a stable-to-firmer dollar will keep global inflation pressures muted, allowing central banks to maintain their current dovish policy biases. This will help keep market volatility for bonds, currencies and equities subdued – if the China demand shock to global growth is contained to the first quarter. From a fixed income investment perspective, an extended period of low rates/currency volatility, combined with very low government yields already reflecting a sharp global growth slowdown that is not yet assured, is an ideal “sweet spot” backdrop for corporate credit spreads to remain relatively stable. From a fixed income investment perspective, an extended period of low rates/currency volatility, combined with very low government yields already reflecting a sharp global growth slowdown that is not yet assured, is an ideal “sweet spot” backdrop for corporate credit spreads to remain relatively stable (Chart 10). Chart 9Renewed USD Strength Would Delay Global Reflation Renewed USD Strength Would Delay Global Reflation Renewed USD Strength Would Delay Global Reflation We continue to recommend a strategic (6-12 months) overweight allocation to corporate credit versus government bonds for global fixed income investors, focused on high-yield credit in the US. Chart 10Still A Sweet Spot For Global Credit Still A Sweet Spot For Global Credit Still A Sweet Spot For Global Credit Bottom Line: Fears over global growth have pushed government bond yields lower as markets discount dovish monetary policy responses to the China viral outbreak. That combination may, perversely, be helping keep risk assets stable, even as investors try to assess the potential hit to global growth from a sharp China demand shock, through lower interest rate and currency volatility. A Quick Note: Rebooting Our Tactical Trade Overlay Framework Back in 2016, we introduced a part of our service that was separate from our main framework which emphasized medium-term (6-12 month) investment recommendations.2 We called this piece our Tactical Trade Overlay and it was intended to focus on ideas with shorter-term horizons (less than 6-months) with specific “exit strategies”. The majority of past trades included in the Overlay did fit that description. The current list of open positions, however, has drifted away from the original mandate with recommendations now being held far longer than six months. We are in the process of developing a new framework for the Tactical Trade Overlay, with more specific rules on idea development, holding period, security selection and performance measurement. Thus, this week, we are closing out all the recommendations currently in the Overlay (see the table on page 12). The goal is to create a list of trade suggestions for our clients with the capability and/or mandate to seek out “quicker” ideas that can also be implemented in more liquid instruments whenever possible. The new Overlay will also include ideas from smaller fixed income markets not included in our Model Bond Portfolio (i.e. New Zealand or Sweden), but with the same focus on holding periods of six months or less. We will be introducing the new Tactical Overlay framework over the next few months. We plan on publishing separate reports covering the new process for selecting ideas for different types of fixed income trades, similar to the current groupings in the Overlay (rates trades, yield curve trades, relative value trades, inflation trades). The first such report, to be published by the end of February, will introduce a methodology for identifying yield curve trades in global government bond markets.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "From China To Iowa", dated February 7, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "GFIS Overlay Trades Review", dated October 4, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Slow & Steady Wins The Race Slow & Steady Wins The Race Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns