Fixed Income

Feature What Could Sour The Sweet Spot? This continues to look like a very benevolent environment for risk assets. Growth in the U.S. remains decent, with Q1 GDP growth beating expectations at 3.2% QoQ annualized (albeit somewhat distorted by rising inventories). Leading indicators point to U.S. GDP growth of around 2.5% for 2019. The rest of the world is showing the first “green shoots” of economic recovery. China continues to expand credit, and the effects of this are starting to stabilize growth in Europe, Japan, and the Emerging Markets (Chart 1). Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 1China Reflation Helping Growth To Bottom China Reflation Helping Growth To Bottom China Reflation Helping Growth To Bottom At the same time, central banks everywhere have turned accommodative. Following the Fed’s dovish shift late last year, the market has priced in rate cuts by end-2019. The ECB is about to relaunch its TLTRO funding program, and is expected to keep rates in negative territory for at least another year (Chart 2) – though there are worries whether Mario Draghi’s successor as ECB president might be more hawkish. The Bank of Canada and Bank of Japan, among others, have recently reemphasized monetary caution. Chart 2No Rate Hikes Anywhere No Rate Hikes Anywhere No Rate Hikes Anywhere Chart 3Term Premium Keeping Down Yields Term Premium Keeping Down Yields Term Premium Keeping Down Yields This goes some way to explain the biggest puzzle in markets currently: why, despite global equities being less than 1% below a record high, long-term interest rates remain so low, with the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield at 2.5%, and yields in Germany and Japan hovering around zero. There are other explanations too. A decomposition of the U.S. 10-year yield shows that most of the downward pressure has come from a sharp drop in the term premium (Chart 3). This is partly because lousy growth in other developed economies, such as Germany and Japan, has pushed down yields in these countries and, given that spreads to the U.S. were at record highs, depressed U.S. rates too. It also reflects a lingering pessimism among investors who bought Treasuries at the end of last year to hedge against recession and who remain concerned about the economy. This is evidenced by continuing strong flows into bond funds in 2019 (Chart 4). A decomposition of the U.S. 10-year yield shows that most of the downward pressure has come from a sharp drop in the term premium. Chart 4Investors Buying Bonds, Not Equities Investors Buying Bonds, Not Equities Investors Buying Bonds, Not Equities Chart 5Why Has Inflation Fallen? Why Has Inflation Fallen? Why Has Inflation Fallen? A further explanation is the recent softness in inflation, with the Fed’s focus measure, core PCE inflation, slowing to an annual rate of only 0.7% over the past three months (Chart 5). This is probably mostly due to the economic slowdown late last year. But it may also have structural causes: the recent improvement in labor productivity can perhaps allow wages to rise without feeding through into consumer price inflation (Chart 6). Chart 6Maybe Because Of Better Productivity Maybe Because Of Better Productivity Maybe Because Of Better Productivity Chart 7Indicators Suggest Inflation Will Still Trend Up Indicators Suggest Inflation Will Still Trend Up Indicators Suggest Inflation Will Still Trend Up How is this all likely to pan out?  We think it improbable that inflation will stay low for long if growth is as robust as we expect. Leading indicators of inflation continue to suggest prices will trend higher (Chart 7). The Fed may not rush to raise rates (not least since, with the lower inflation recently, the Fed Funds Rate in real terms is now at neutral according to the Laubach-Williams model, Chart 8). But we also find it inconceivable that the Fed will cut rates, if growth remains strong, stocks continue to rise, and global risks recede. By the end of this year, it should be able to make a renewed case for a further hike. But even if it doesn’t do that – and permits either inflation to overheat for a while, or asset bubbles to form – these scenarios should be more conducive to equity outperformance, than bond outperformance. Global equities have already risen by 22% since last December’s low and may struggle to make rapid progress over the next few months. The key to further upside for stocks will be earnings: since analysts have cut EPS forecasts for S&P 500 companies for this year to only 4%, those expectations should not be hard to beat. In the Q1 earnings season, for instance, 79% of companies have so far come in ahead of the consensus EPS forecast. For global asset allocators, the key decision is always at the asset-class level. Will equities outperform bonds over the coming 12 months? Equities should have further upside if our macro scenario proves correct. On the other hand, we find it hard to imagine that global bond yields will not rise moderately if global growth recovers, the Fed refrains from cutting rates, inflation rises somewhat, and investors turn less wary of equities. We continue, therefore, to expect the stock-to-bond ratio (Chart 9) to rise further over the next 12 months. We think it improbable that inflation will stay low for long if growth is as robust as we expect. Chart 8Is Fed Now At Neutral? Is Fed Now At Neutral? Is Fed Now At Neutral? Chart 9Stock-To-Bond Ratio Can Rise Further Stock-To-Bond Ratio Can Rise Further Stock-To-Bond Ratio Can Rise Further   Chart 10Europe And EM Outperform Only Briefly Europe And EM Outperform Only Briefly Europe And EM Outperform Only Briefly Equities: We remain overweight global equities, but are reluctant to take higher beta country exposure until there is greater clarity on the bottoming out of ex-U.S. growth. Moreover, the structural headwinds that have prevented anything more than short-term outperformance for eurozone stocks (banking sector weakness) and Emerging Markets (excess debt and poor productivity) since 2010 remain powerful negative factors (Chart 10). Our moderately pro-cyclical sector recommendations (overweight energy and industrials) should hedge us against upside risk emanating from a strong rebound in Chinese imports. Fixed Income: Over the past few years, periods where equities have decoupled from bond yields have been resolved with bond yields playing catch-up (Chart 11). We expect the same to happen over the next few months, with global government bond yields rising moderately. The risk-on environment continues to be positive for credit. We prefer credit to government bonds within fixed income, but are only neutral within our overall recommended portfolio. U.S. high-yield bonds in particular look attractively valued, as long as growth continues and default rates don’t start to rise too much (Chart 12). Chart 11When Bonds And Equities Diverge… When Bonds And Equities Diverge... When Bonds And Equities Diverge... Chart 12Junk Bonds Attractively Valued Junk Bonds Attractively Valued Junk Bonds Attractively Valued Currencies: A pick-up in global growth would be negative for the U.S. dollar, typically a counter-cyclical currency (Chart 13). BCA’s currency strategists have slowly been moving towards a more positive stance on some currencies versus the dollar, particularly the euro and Australian dollar. We would expect to see the trade-weighted dollar start to depreciate in H2 once global growth accelerates, fueled by the very skewed long-dollar positioning currently. However, this may be only a six- to 12-month move, since growth and interest-rate differentials suggest that the structural dollar bull market that began in 2012 has not yet fully run its course. Commodities: Oil remains dominated by supply-side dynamics. How much the ending of waivers on Iranian oil sanctions, plus troubles in Venezuela and Libya, push up oil prices will depend on whether President Trump can persuade Saudi Arabia and UAE to increase production. BCA’s energy team expects he will be only partially successful in doing so, and see Brent reaching $80 a barrel and WTI $77 (from $72 and $64 currently) during 2019. Industrial commodities prices will depend on the strength and nature of China’s reflation: our commodities strategists see copper, the most sensitive metal to Chinese demand, as the best way to play this.1 Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Chart 13Stronger Growth Would Be Dollar Negative Stronger Growth Would Be Dollar Negative Stronger Growth Would Be Dollar Negative   Footnotes 1       Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Copper Will Benefit Most From Chinese Stimulus,” dated April 25, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation  

Highlights Fed: Fed policymakers are sending a unified message that they want to keep rates on hold until they see a significant increase in inflation. However, our reading of their recent remarks suggests that they will be reluctant to actually cut rates unless GDP growth falls to below its estimated potential. Economy: If we strip out the volatile net exports, government and inventory components of growth, we see that economic activity slowed to below potential in the first quarter. However, the timeliest data on consumer spending, nonresidential investment and residential investment all suggest that Q1 will be the trough for the year. All in all, economic growth should be comfortably above potential in 2019, keeping rate cuts at bay. Investment Strategy: Investors should keep portfolio duration low, avoiding the 5-year/7-year part of the Treasury curve. Investors should also overweight spread product versus Treasuries, with a focus on Baa and junk rated corporate bonds. Feature Since January, Federal Reserve policymakers have sent a strikingly unified message: Policy should remain “patient” in an effort to re-anchor inflation expectations and demonstrate the symmetry of the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target. Take for example, two excerpts from recent speeches by Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and Chicago Fed President Charles Evans. Rosengren:1 My own preference is for the Federal Reserve to adopt an inflation range that explicitly recognizes the challenge of the effective lower bound. We might be forced to accept below-2-percent inflation during recessions, but we would commit to achieving above-2-percent inflation in good times, so as to provide more policy space to counteract the next recession. Evans:2 I think the Fed must be willing to embrace inflation modestly above 2 percent 50 percent of the time. Indeed, I would communicate comfort with core inflation rates of 2-1/2 percent, as long as there is no obvious upward momentum and the path back toward 2 percent can be well managed. The consensus appears to be not only that higher inflation is necessary before the Fed lifts rates again, but also that the Fed should explicitly target an overshoot of its 2 percent target. With trailing 12-month core PCE inflation running at only 1.55% as of March, it will undoubtedly take some time before these inflation goals are met. We think the Fed’s commitment to keeping rates steady could waver if financial conditions ease sufficiently.3 But for now, with the market priced for 36 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months, the more pertinent question is: What will it take for the Fed to lower rates from current levels? Expecting A Rate Cut? Don’t Hold Your Breath Our Fed Monitor has an excellent track record calling turning points in monetary policy, and at present it is very close to zero, consistent with the Fed’s “on hold” stance (Chart 1). The Monitor is comprised of 44 indicators of economic growth, inflation and financial conditions. In other words, for the Monitor to recommend rate cuts going forward we will need to see some further deterioration in either economic growth, inflation or financial markets (Chart 2). This is roughly consistent with how Chicago Fed President Evans described his reaction function in his speech from two weeks ago: Chart 1"On Hold" Stance Justified "On Hold" Stance Justified "On Hold" Stance Justified Chart 2Fed Monitor Components Fed Monitor Components Fed Monitor Components If growth runs close to or somewhat above its potential and inflation builds momentum, then some further rate increases may be appropriate over time… In contrast, if activity softens more than expected or if inflation and inflation expectations run too low, then policy may have to be left on hold – or perhaps even loosened – to provide the appropriate accommodation to obtain our objectives. Our interpretation of the Fed’s reaction function is that it wants to maintain an accommodative monetary policy to ensure that inflation and inflation expectations move higher over time. However, it will consider monetary policy to be accommodative as long as GDP growth stays close to, or above, estimates of its potential rate. In other words, while the Fed is in no rush to tighten, we probably need to see a significant period of below-potential GDP growth before rate cuts are on the table. In his speech, Evans indicates that his personal estimate of potential GDP growth is 1.75%. The March Summary of Economic Projections shows that the central tendency of FOMC participant estimates is 1.8% - 2%. Our view is that U.S. growth will easily surpass this threshold in 2019, keeping rate cuts at bay. Tracking U.S. Growth Markets were caught off guard last week when we learned that real GDP grew 3.17% in the first quarter, above consensus estimates and well above the 1.8% - 2% potential growth threshold. However, the headline Q1 figure was flattered by significant gains in a few volatile GDP components. Chart 3Underlying Growth Slowdown Underlying Growth Slowdown Underlying Growth Slowdown Much like how core measures of inflation strip out volatile food and energy prices to give us a better sense of the underlying trend, we can also look at Real Final Sales To Domestic Purchasers (FSDP) to get a better sense of the underlying trend in economic growth. FSDP includes only consumer spending, nonresidential investment and residential investment. That is, it removes government spending, net exports and inventory investment from the overall number. Viewed this way, we see that the U.S. economy did experience a significant growth slowdown in the first quarter. Real FSDP grew only 1.45% in Q1, below the 1.8% - 2% potential growth threshold (Chart 3). Net Exports & Inventories Chart 4Net Exports & Inventories Net Exports & Inventories Net Exports & Inventories First quarter GDP was boosted by a +1.03% contribution from net exports and a +0.65% contribution from inventory investment, neither of which is likely to be repeated in Q2 (Chart 4). The top panel of Chart 4 shows just how unusual it is to see such a large contribution from net exports, an event that becomes even less likely when you factor in the dollar’s recent appreciation (Chart 4, panel 2). Turning to inventories, a significant build was long overdue given the backlog of orders seen during the past two years. But the ISM Manufacturing Index’s backlog of orders component has now fallen back to a neutral level (Chart 4, bottom panel). This suggests that firms are comfortable with their current inventory stockpiles, and that no aggressive inventory increases are likely during the next few quarters. Interestingly, while net exports and inventories will almost certainly pressure GDP growth lower in Q2, back toward the growth rate in FSDP, the latter has probably already troughed for the year. Recent data on consumer spending, nonresidential investment and residential investment all appear to have turned a corner. Consumer Spending Consumer spending added a meager +0.8% to GDP in Q1, but core retail sales growth has recovered sharply after having plunged near the end of last year (Chart 5). What’s more, with consumer sentiment close to one standard deviation above its historical mean – whether we look at expectations or current conditions surveys – consumers don’t seem inclined to retrench in the months ahead (Chart 6). Chart 5Consumer Spending Consumer Spending Consumer Spending Chart 6Buoyant Consumer Sentiment Buoyant Consumer Sentiment Buoyant Consumer Sentiment Nonresidential Investment Chart 7Nonresidential Investment Nonresidential Investment Nonresidential Investment We expected business investment to weaken in Q1, and its +0.4% growth contribution is low compared to recent readings. The decline was anticipated due to last year’s significant deterioration in global growth. Slower global growth necessarily causes firms to downgrade their profit expectations. Faced with lower expected profits, companies are much more inclined to curtail investment. However, considering the outlook heading into mid-year, we have already noticed signs of improvement in leading global growth indicators.4 More recently, we have even seen that improvement translate into stronger U.S. investment data. Core durable goods new orders grew +17% (annualized) in March, dragging the year-over-year rate up to +5.3% (Chart 7). Further, our BCA Composite New Orders Indicator – a weighted combination of ISM New Orders and NFIB Capital Spending Plans – has bounced during the past few months, returning close to its historical mean (Chart 7, panel 3). An average of Capital Spending Intentions from regional Fed surveys also remains close to one standard deviation above its historical average (Chart 7, bottom panel). Residential Investment Residential investment (aka Housing) has exerted a meaningful drag on GDP growth in each of the past five quarters, and it lowered GDP by -0.1% in Q1 (Chart 8). However, much like with consumer spending and nonresidential investment, the timely economic data suggest a turnaround is in the offing. Much like with consumer spending and nonresidential investment, the timely economic data suggest a turnaround is in the offing. Optimism has returned to housing since mortgage rates fell earlier this year. New home sales and mortgage purchase applications have jumped, and single-family housing starts are the only important housing-related data that haven’t yet rebounded. We expect that rebound to occur soon, as do homebuilders whose confidence has risen during the past few months. Homebuilder optimism surveys remain close to one standard deviation above their historical averages (Chart 9). Chart 8Residential Investment Residential Investment Residential Investment Chart 9Buoyant Homebuilder Confidence Buoyant Homebuilder Confidence Buoyant Homebuilder Confidence Bottom Line: Fed policymakers are sending a unified message that they want to keep rates on hold until they see a significant increase in inflation. However, our reading of their recent remarks suggests that they will be reluctant to actually cut rates unless GDP growth falls to below its estimated potential. Potential GDP growth is estimated to be in the 1.8% to 2% range. If we strip out the volatile net exports, government and inventory components of growth, we see that economic activity slowed to below potential in the first quarter. However, the timeliest data on consumer spending, nonresidential investment and residential investment all suggest that Q1 will be the trough for the year. All in all, economic growth should be comfortably above potential in 2019, keeping rate cuts at bay. Investment Implications To translate the above views on the economy and the Fed’s reaction function into a portfolio strategy, we first return to our Golden Rule of Bond Investing.5The Golden Rule states that if the Fed delivers more (fewer) rate hikes than are currently discounted in the market over the next 12 months, then the Treasury index will earn negative (positive) excess returns versus cash during that investment horizon (Chart 10). At present, this means that investors should only expect positive excess returns from taking duration risk in the event that the Fed cuts rates by more than 36 basis points during the next 12 months. Given our view that rate cuts are unlikely, investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Chart 10The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record If we further assume that market expectations will shift to price-in fewer rate cuts, or even possibly some rate hikes, then we would expect 5-year and 7-year yields to rise the most (Chart 11). Investors should avoid those maturities and focus their Treasury exposure on the short and long ends of the curve. These barbell over bullet trades have the advantage of being positive carry, so they will earn money even if rate hike expectations are unchanged.6  Chart 11Avoid The 5- And 7-Year Maturities Avoid The 5- And 7-Year Maturities Avoid The 5- And 7-Year Maturities Chart 12Investment Grade Spread Targets Investment Grade Spread Targets Investment Grade Spread Targets Finally, the combination of above-potential GDP growth and a patient Fed is positive for spread product. Investors should remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries in bond portfolios, focusing on Baa and junk rated corporate bonds. Spreads for those credit tiers remain wide compared to historical median levels for this phase of the cycle (Charts 12 &13).7 Chart 13High-Yield Spread Targets High-Yield Spread Targets High-Yield Spread Targets Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/speeches/2019/monetary-policymaking-in-todays-environment.aspx 2 https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/speeches/2019/risk-management-and-the-credibility-of-monetary-policy 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on how we calculate these spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Oil & Bond Yields: Global growth indicators are starting to rebound, risk assets have returned to previous cyclical highs, and oil prices remain buoyant. This is a combination that will eventually result in rising global bond yields, but more through higher inflation expectations that will bear-steepen yield curves. Stay below-benchmark on overall portfolio duration, but enter new reflationary trades in core Europe (long inflation breakevens) and Australia (yield curve steepeners). EM vs DM Credit: Signs of a pickup in Chinese growth will be more supportive for growth in EM economies. Hedging against an extended downturn in China is no longer needed. Upgrade EM U.S. dollar denominated sovereign and corporate debt to neutral (3 of 5), at the expense of a smaller overweight position in U.S. investment grade corporates. Feature Chart of the WeekA Consistent Message On Rebounding Growth A Consistent Message On Rebounding Growth A Consistent Message On Rebounding Growth Evidence is starting to point to a bottoming in global economic momentum. Credit growth has notably picked up in China, global leading economic indicators are stabilizing and sentiment measures like our Duration Indicator have started to climb (Chart of the Week). While it is still early in this reflation process, the leading data is now moving in a direction that bodes well for continued gains in global equities and growth-sensitive spread product. The sharp rallies across risk assets seen so far this year have merely retraced the stinging losses incurred in the final months of 2018. Those moves were fueled by a combination of slowing global growth and overly hawkish central bankers. Now that policymakers have “course corrected” towards dovishness, led by the Fed’s 180-degree turn on the outlook for rate hikes in 2019 that drove U.S. Treasury yields lower, the next leg of the risk rally can begin, led by improving global growth. At some point, looser financial conditions – higher equity prices, tighter credit spreads and lower market volatility – will require global central bankers to retreat from dovish forward guidance (Chart 2). Policymakers who have been focused on sluggish global growth, “persistent uncertainty” (as ECB President Mario Draghi has described it), and falling inflation expectations will eventually have to adjust their policy bias once those factors reverse. On that front, the combination of improving global growth, rising oil prices and an increasingly likely U.S.-China trade deal will help boost global bond yields through rising inflation expectations first and higher interest rate expectations later (Chart 3). Chart 2A Full Unwind Of Late-2018 Moves...Except For Inflation A Full Unwind Of Late-2018 Moves...Except For Inflation A Full Unwind Of Late-2018 Moves...Except For Inflation Chart 3Get Ready For A Bond-Bearish Turn In Growth Get Ready For A Bond-Bearish Turn In Growth Get Ready For A Bond-Bearish Turn In Growth We continue to recommend a high-level fixed income portfolio construction that will benefit from these trends: below-benchmark on overall duration exposure with overweights on global corporate debt versus government bonds. We also see a case to selectively position for steeper yield curves and higher inflation expectations in countries more sensitive to higher oil prices and where central banks will be less hawkish/more dovish. Most importantly, we no longer see a need to maintain a defensive underweight in emerging market (EM) hard currency spread product, as we discuss later in this report. Yes, Oil Prices Still Matter For Bond Yields Global oil prices hit a new 2019 high last week on news that the Trump administration was letting waivers expire on U.S. sanctions of Iranian oil exports. Coming on top of the lost output from Venezuela, increased tensions in Libya and persistent production discipline from the major oil players (OPEC, the so-called “OPEC 2.0” of Russia and Saudi Arabia, and even U.S. shale producers), a boost to global oil demand from faster global growth is likely to result in even higher oil prices in the next 6-9 months. The combination of improving global growth, rising oil prices and an increasingly likely U.S.-China trade deal will help boost global bond yields. Our colleagues at BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy remain steadfast bulls on oil prices, with a year-end price target of $80/bbl on the Brent crude benchmark. They view the supply constraints as large and persistent enough to cause oil prices to continue rising alongside firmer global demand. Our most optimistic forward-looking growth indicator, the diffusion index of global leading economic indicators, is now calling for a sharp rebound in cyclical data like the global manufacturing PMI in the latter half of 2019. A move back to the 55-60 range for the global PMI, which the diffusion indicator is pointing towards (Chart 4, bottom panel), would be consistent with the +50% year-over-year growth rates in oil prices implied by BCA’s bullish oil forecasts (middle panel). Chart 4The 2019 Oil Rally Is Not Over Yet The 2019 Oil Rally Is Not Over Yet The 2019 Oil Rally Is Not Over Yet Over the past several years, there has been a strong correlation between oil prices and government bond yields in most developed economies (Chart 5). Since the most recent bottom in global yields back on March 27, that behavior has persisted. Longer-term bond yields have risen more than shorter-dated yields, alongside higher inflation expectations further out the yield curve (Table 1). Chart 5Inflation Expectations Still Driving Bond Yields Inflation Expectations Still Driving Bond Yields Inflation Expectations Still Driving Bond Yields Such “bear-steepenings” do not usually last for long periods of time. Inflation targeting central banks typically look at the reflationary implications of higher oil prices – faster economic growth with more future inflation as energy costs seep into core inflation measures – as a sign to maintain a more hawkish bias for monetary policy. That is not the case today, though, as data dependent central bankers have been more focused on past soft readings on both growth and inflation momentum. This should support a growth-driven rise in global oil prices in the coming months, as policymakers will be reluctant to alter the current dovish guidance without signs of both faster growth and higher realized inflation. Within the major developed markets, the recent correlations between oil prices (in local currency terms) and inflation expectations have been weakest in regions where central banks are most likely to keep policy interest rates stable. In the euro area, Japan and Australia – where core inflation rates are well below central bank targets and money markets are discounting flat-to-lower interest rate expectations over the next 1-2 years – market-based measures of inflation expectations like CPI swap rates have diverged from the rising path of local-currency denominated oil prices (Chart 6). In the U.S. and Canada, which have only recently paused their rate hike cycles, the correlation between oil prices and inflation expectations has been a bit more in line with the experience of the past several years. The same goes for the U.K., although inflation expectations there seem more driven by currency weakness stemming from the Brexit uncertainty rather than a central bank that is perceived to be too hawkish (even though the Bank of England only recently shifted away from its past language signaling a desire to start normalizing very low interest rates). Table 1A Reflationary Bear-Steepening Of Yield Curves Since Yields Troughed In March It's Time To Break Out The Fine China It's Time To Break Out The Fine China Correlations between longer-term inflation expectations and the slopes of government bond yield curves have also become less consistent across countries (Chart 7). In particular, 2-year/10-year yield curves been more positively correlated to inflation expectations in the euro zone, Australia and even Japan (where the BoJ is actively targeting the yield curve) than in the U.S., U.K. and Canada. Chart 6Higher Oil, Higher Inflation Expectations Higher Oil, Higher Inflation Expectations Higher Oil, Higher Inflation Expectations Chart 7Position For Reflationary Yield Curve Steepening Position For Reflationary Yield Curve Steepening E Position For Reflationary Yield Curve Steepening E Given BCA’s bullish oil forecast, we recommend positioning for higher inflation expectations and steeper yield curves in selected countries based on the above correlations. We are already doing this in the U.S., where we are running a long position in U.S. 10-year TIPS breakevens. This week, we are entering the following new positions in our Tactical Trade portfolio (see page 15): Long 10-year CPI swaps (or inflation-linked bonds versus nominal debt) in Germany A 2-year/10-year government bond curve steepener in Australia We are not confident enough about the growth outlook in Canada and Japan, and the political outlook in the U.K., to recommend inflation-focused trades in those markets at the present time. We recommend positioning for higher inflation expectations and steeper yield curves in selected countries. Bottom Line: Global growth indicators are starting to rebound, risk assets have returned to previous cyclical highs, and oil prices remain buoyant. This is a combination that will eventually result in rising developed market global bond yields, but more through higher inflation expectations that will bear-steepen yield curves. Stay below-benchmark on overall portfolio duration, but enter new reflationary trades in core Europe (long inflation breakevens) and Australia (yield curve steepeners). Upgrade EM U.S. Dollar Denominated Debt To Neutral Chart 8A Cyclical Rebound In China Is Underway A Cyclical Rebound In China Is Underway A Cyclical Rebound In China Is Underway Back in January, we upgraded our recommended allocation for global corporate debt to overweight, while downgrading developed market government bonds to underweight.1 That decision was in response to the Fed’s dovish turn, which lowered the risk of a monetary policy-induced U.S. recession that spooked investors in late 2018. Yet while a more accommodative Fed meant an extension of the U.S. business cycle expansion, it did not solve the problems of slowing growth elsewhere in the world – most notably in China and Europe. For that reason, we have maintained a preference for U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporate debt relative to European and EM spread product, even within an overall overweight recommended allocation to global corporates. In particular, we maintained an outright underweight stance on EM U.S. dollar denominated sovereigns and corporates within our model bond portfolio. That tilt served as a hedge to the risk of persistent softening growth in China – the nation to which EM economies remain most highly levered. It is the pickup in the China credit impulse that is most relevant for EM growth and asset markets. Now, amid signs that Chinese policy stimulus is starting to show up in faster credit growth – a reliable precursor to greater Chinese domestic demand (Chart 8) – that EM hedge to our overweight stance on global corporates is no longer needed. Thus, this week, we are upgrading our recommended exposure on EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt to neutral, while reducing the size of our recommended overweight in U.S. investment grade corporates in our model bond portfolio (see the changes on page 14). The broadening rebound in Chinese economic data makes us more confident that growth there has turned the corner (Chart 9): Aggregate government spending is up 15.5% on a year-over-year basis. Infrastructure spending is now starting to grow again after the sharp slowdown seen in 2018. The China manufacturing PMI rose sharply in March, with the surge in the import sub-component of the overall PMI suggesting that domestic demand may be improving. In addition, with all signals pointing to a U.S./China trade deal being signed by the end of May, a major source of uncertainty weighing on the Chinese (and global) economy will soon be lifted. It is the pickup in the China credit impulse that is most relevant for EM growth and asset markets. Over the past decade, the credit impulse has led both the EM (ex-China) manufacturing PMI and annual growth in overall EM corporate earnings by around 9-12 months (Chart 10). The credit impulse bottomed back in October 2018, which means EM growth should begin to improve in the third quarter of 2019. Financial markets will discount that improvement in advance, however, which is why it makes sense to increase EM credit allocations today. Chart 9The Arrows Are Pointing 'Up' For Chinese Growth The Arrows Are Pointing 'Up' For Chinese Growth The Arrows Are Pointing 'Up' For Chinese Growth Chart 10EM Growth Is Highly Dependent On China EM Growth Is Highly Dependent On China EM Growth Is Highly Dependent On China   As can be seen in the bottom panels of Chart 11 and Chart 12, there is a strong correlation between Chinese credit (as a % of GDP) and the relative performance of EM U.S. dollar denominated spread product versus U.S. investment grade corporates. Our colleagues at BCA China Investment Strategy recently noted that if the pace of China’s credit expansion seen in Q1 were to be maintained over the rest of 2019, this would imply a credit overshoot beyond the stated medium-term goal of Chinese policymakers to avoid significant further increases in leverage.2 Such additional stimulus would very beneficial for EM growth (via strong Chinese import demand), supporting continued EM credit market outperformance. Chart 11Upgrade EM USD Sovereigns Vs U.S. IG Corporates Upgrade EM USD Sovereigns Vs U.S. IG Corporates Upgrade EM USD Sovereigns Vs U.S. IG Corporates Chart 12Upgrade EM USD Corporates Vs U.S. IG Corporates Upgrade EM USD Corporates Vs U.S. IG Corporates Upgrade EM USD Corporates Vs U.S. IG Corporates By moving our EM credit allocation only to neutral, we are merely responding to the pickup in Chinese credit growth seen over the past several months. The increasingly positive cyclical story is not yet bullish enough to justify a full-blown overweight stance on EM credit, however, for several reasons: Past periods of EM credit market outperformance have typically occurred during periods of U.S. dollar weakness. Chart 13A Weaker USD Is Good For EM Markets A Weaker USD Is Good For EM Markets A Weaker USD Is Good For EM Markets The amount of policy stimulus likely to be delivered in China in 2019 will be more limited than in past cycles, given policymakers’ concerns over high Chinese debt levels and excess industrial capacity. A U.S.-China trade deal may not involve the swift reduction in U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, if the White House chooses to use tariffs as the mechanism to ensure Chinese compliance with the terms of an agreement. “Hard data” in China that measures private sector spending (retail sales, autos sales, etc.) has yet to bottom, which may indicate that the improvement seen in the credit aggregates and survey data like the manufacturing PMI is overstating the growth rebound. The U.S. dollar remains firm, and past periods of EM credit market outperformance have typically occurred during periods of dollar weakness (Chart 13). We do anticipate moving to an overweight position sometime in the next several weeks, after getting more Chinese economic data to confirm the improvement seen in March. This also lines up with the timetable for a potential trade deal, the details of which will be critical for boosting investor sentiment towards assets sensitive to Chinese demand, like EM credit. We will also look for signs of the U.S. dollar breaking to the downside to confirm any decision to upgrade EM credit. One final point – we are only reducing our recommended overweight on U.S. investment grade credit in our model bond portfolio as part of this EM upgrade. We are leaving our U.S. high-yield credit overweights untouched, as U.S. investment grade is much closer to the spread targets laid out by our colleagues at BCA U.S. Bond Strategy than U.S. high-yield. Bottom Line: Signs of a pickup in Chinese growth will be more supportive for growth in EM economies. Hedging against an extended downturn in China is no longer needed. Upgrade EM U.S. dollar denominated sovereign and corporate debt to neutral (3 of 5), at the expense of a smaller overweight position in U.S. investment grade corporates.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Enough With The Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis”, dated January 15th, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “In The Wake Of An Upgrade: An Investment Strategy Post-Mortem”, dated April 17th, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index It's Time To Break Out The Fine China It's Time To Break Out The Fine China Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights We continue to recommend overweighting Mexican local fixed-income markets, the peso and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. A new trade: Sell Mexican CDS / buy Brazilian and South African CDS. Continue holding the long MXN / short ZAR position. We have a lower conviction view that Mexican equities will outperform the EM benchmark. Feature Since the election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador – or AMLO, as he is commonly known – as President, investors have been worrying about Mexico’s fiscal policy and public debt sustainability. Specifically, investors have expressed concern over the debt dynamics of state-owned petroleum company Pemex and its impact on the country’s public debt. While these concerns are not groundless, on balance we find the risk-reward profile of Mexico’s sovereign credit and local currency bonds superior relative to their respective EM peers. Fiscal Sustainability: A Comparative Analysis We discussed debt sustainability in Brazil and South Africa in two of our recent reports, and concluded that their public debt dynamics are unsustainable without drastic fiscal reforms. However, a closer look at debt sustainability in Mexico reveals a different picture. Chart 1Public Debt Burden Including SOE Debt Public Debt Burden Including SOE Debt Public Debt Burden Including SOE Debt Mexico’s public debt level including the debt of state-owned enterprises is lower than those in Brazil and South Africa (Chart 1). Notably, Mexico’s public debt-to-GDP ratio has been flat over the past three years. Importantly, as detailed below, the two primary conditions for public debt sustainability – the level of government borrowing costs and the primary fiscal balance - are far superior in Mexico relative to Brazil and South Africa. Government borrowing costs in local currency terms are only slightly above nominal GDP in Mexico. Brazil and South Africa score much worse on this measure (Chart 2). The primary fiscal balance in Mexico is much better than in Brazil and South Africa (Chart 3). In fact, Mexico is targeting a primary surplus of 1% for 2019. Chart 2Local Borrowing Costs Versus Nominal GDP Local Borrowing Costs Versus Nominal GDP Local Borrowing Costs Versus Nominal GDP Chart 3Primary Fiscal Balances Primary Fiscal Balances Primary Fiscal Balances Even with potential pension reforms, Brazil will continue to run primary deficits for the next few years. As we discussed in our recent report on Brazil, the government’s submitted draft on social security reforms will save only BRL190 billion over the next four years, or 0.7% of GDP per year. The current primary deficit is 1.5% of GDP. Unless nominal GDP growth and government revenue growth shoot up, the primary deficit will not be eliminated in the next four years. Unlike Brazil and South Africa, the growth of public sector debt in Mexico is not outpacing nominal GDP growth (Chart 4). Critically, the latter point is also true in Mexico if one includes state-owned enterprises’ debt. Brazil and South Africa sovereign spreads are currently only 40 and 85 basis points above those in Mexico, respectively. The spread will widen further in favor of Mexico, given the latter’s superior fundamentals (Chart 5). In terms of local currency bonds, real yields in Mexico are also on par with Brazil but are well above those in South Africa (Chart 6). Hence, Mexican local bonds offer relative value versus many of their EM peers. Chart 4Public Debt and GDP Growth Public Debt and GDP Growth Public Debt and GDP Growth Chart 5Sell Mexican CDS / Long South African and Brazilian CDS Sell Mexican CDS / Long South African and Brazilian CDS Sell Mexican CDS / Long South African and Brazilian CDS             Nominal local currency bond yields in Mexico are about 200 basis points above the EM GBI benchmark domestic bond yield index (Chart 7). This is great value. Clearly, Mexico’s fiscal worries are overblown relative to those in Brazil and South Africa. Besides, relative valuations of sovereign credit and local bonds adjusted for relative fundamentals warrant outperformance in Mexico versus the other two markets as well as against the respective EM benchmarks in the months ahead. Chart 6Real Bond Yields: Decent Value In Mexico Real Bond Yields: Decent Value In Mexico Real Bond Yields: Decent Value In Mexico Chart 7Nominal Bond Yields: Great Value In Mexico Nominal Bond Yields: Great Value In Mexico Nominal Bond Yields: Great Value In Mexico In addition, AMLO’s administration has proven to be committed to fiscal austerity. Last month, the Ministry of Finance reinforced this notion by announcing a reduction in public spending on social programs in order to balance the loss of fiscal revenue from decreasing oil revenues and lower GDP estimates. Mexico’s fiscal worries are overblown relative to those in Brazil and South Africa. Besides, relative valuations of sovereign credit and local bonds adjusted for relative fundamentals warrant outperformance in Mexico versus the other two markets as well as against the respective EM benchmarks in the months ahead. We view the primary fiscal target of 1% for 2019 as aggressive and potentially unattainable due to a shortfall in revenues. However, these actions prove that AMLO’s administration is not intending to run a large fiscal deficit to finance populist spending programs, as investors had feared. Adding Pemex To Public Finances Pemex’s financial position and the government budget’s reliance on oil revenues are an Achilles’ heel for Mexico’s public finances. Therefore, we have incorporated Pemex into the budget. The resulting fiscal deterioration is not calamitous. Specifically, international credit agencies estimate that Pemex needs an additional $13 billion to $20 billion in capital expenditures per year in order to maintain current operations and replenish reserves. This is in addition to its debt service obligations in the coming years, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Pemex Debt Servicing Mexico: The Best Value In EM Fixed Income Mexico: The Best Value In EM Fixed Income We have the following considerations on this issue: First, this year the government announced $5.7 billion of financing for Pemex in the form of direct investment, tax breaks, deductions for drilling and exploration costs and revenue recovered from oil theft. In addition, the government will also do a one-time transfer of $6.8 billion from its $15.4 billion budget stabilization fund in order to finance Pemex’s debt payments due by the end of this year. While Congress must first approve the use of these funds, odds are that the bill will pass as AMLO’s party holds a majority. That would bring total capital injection into Pemex to $12.5 billion for the year, almost enough to finance the company’s capital spending this year. Second, in order to revive operations at Pemex in the medium to long term, the government must maintain this level of investment on an annual basis. Essentially, AMLO’s administration will inevitably have to sacrifice part of the $29 billion in net oil transfers it receives every year to finance the oil company and prevent further downgrades to its credit rating. How large is this required Pemex financing as a share of the public budget? We performed a simulation including into the public budget all of Pemex’s payments and all its receipts from the government. While the overall fiscal position deteriorates, it is not unsustainable. The primary and overall deficits would widen to 1.9% and 4.4% of GDP, respectively, if the government eliminates all transfers to Pemex and if the company stops all payments to the government budget, including direct transfers and indirect oil taxes1 (Table 2, Scenario 1). Table 2Mexico: Pemex And Government Budget Mexico: The Best Value In EM Fixed Income Mexico: The Best Value In EM Fixed Income In such a scenario, Pemex would gain $ 29 billion each year to invest in exploration and production. Pemex is the largest fiscal challenge for Mexico. Yet, even including Pemex debt and required financing, the nation’s fiscal accounts are not worrisome. Chart 8Mexico's Budget Balance Adjusted For Financing To Pemex Mexico's Budget Balance Adjusted For Financing To Pemex Mexico's Budget Balance Adjusted For Financing To Pemex Third, provided Pemex’s capital spending needs could be met by half of this $29 billion, the government could provide the company just half of this amount (Table 2, Scenario 3). In this scenario, the oil company will have sufficient funds to invest. Meanwhile, the government’s primary and overall fiscal deficit will deteriorate only moderately to 0.7% and 3.2% of GDP, respectively (Chart 8 and Table 2). Finally, the importance of oil revenues – both directly from Pemex and via indirect taxation on the oil industry – have already declined as a share of total fiscal revenues – from 40% in 2012 to 18.3% currently (Chart 9). In short, Mexico’s budget is less reliant on oil revenues. If economic growth picks up, non-oil revenues will improve. Consequently, the government’s fiscal position will improve, giving it more maneuvering room to deal with Pemex. Bottom Line: Pemex is the largest fiscal challenge for Mexico. Yet, even including Pemex debt and required financing, the nation’s fiscal accounts are not worrisome. Cyclical Economic Conditions The Mexican economy is slowing and inflationary pressures are subsiding. Narrow money (M1) and retail sales growth are decelerating (Chart 10, top panel) Capital spending is contracting and non-oil exports will be in a soft spot over the next six months, according the U.S. manufacturing ISM new orders-to-inventory ratio (Chart 10, bottom panel). Core inflation is at 3.55% and is heading south. Chart 9Dependence On Oil Revenues Has Declined A Lot Dependence On Oil Revenues Has Declined A Lot Dependence On Oil Revenues Has Declined A Lot Chart 10Mexico: Cyclical Conditions Mexico: Cyclical Conditions Mexico: Cyclical Conditions   Barring major turmoil in EM currency markets that weighs on the peso, weakening growth and disinflation will lead the domestic fixed-income market to discount rate cuts. Mexico’s central bank is very hawkish and will be slow to ease policy. Yet, such a policy stance warrants a bullish view on domestic bonds. The basis is that the longer they delay rate cuts, the more they will need to cut in the future. Investment Strategy We have been recommending an overweight position in Mexico in EM local currency and sovereign credit portfolios, and are reiterating these strategies. Relative value investors should consider this trade: Sell Mexico CDS / buy Brazilian and South African CDS. The Mexican sovereign credit market has made a major bottom versus the EM benchmark and the path of least resistance is now up (Chart 11). EM local currency bond portfolios should continue overweighting Mexico while underweighting Brazil and South Africa (Chart 12). Chart 11Sovereign Excess Returns: A Relative Bull Market In Mexico Sovereign Excess Returns: A Relative Bull Market In Mexico Sovereign Excess Returns: A Relative Bull Market In Mexico Chart 12Total Return on Local Currency Bonds in Dollar Terms Total Return on Local Currency Bonds in Dollar Terms Total Return on Local Currency Bonds in Dollar Terms Similarly, among EM currencies, we favor the Mexican peso because it is cheap (Chart 13). Specifically, we continue to hold the long MXN / short ZAR position; investors who are not yet in this trade should consider entering it now. Chart 13The Mexican Peso Is Cheap The Mexican Peso Is Cheap The Mexican Peso Is Cheap Finally, in the EM equity universe, we are overweight Mexican stocks, but our conviction level is lower than in the case of fixed-income markets. The basis is that AMLO’s policies intend to weaken oligopolies and monopolies and undermine their pricing power. These policies are very positive for fixed-income markets and the exchange rate in the long run, as they entail lower inflation resulting from a more competitive environment. Yet, they could hurt profits of incumbent monopolies and oligopolies. This is why we recommend equity investors focus on Mexican small-caps. That said, from a macro perspective, resulting disinflation and lower local rates are also positive for equity multiples. Hence, the Mexican stock market will also likely outperform the EM benchmark in common currency terms.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Juan Egaña, Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1 Indirect oil taxation includes different taxes for the oil fund for stabilization and development, such as rights on drilling and exploration, import and export duties on oil and gas and financing for oil and gas research.

Highlights We continue to recommend overweighting Mexican local fixed-income markets, the peso and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. A new trade: Sell Mexican CDS / buy Brazilian and South African CDS. Continue holding the long MXN / short ZAR position. We have a lower conviction view that Mexican equities will outperform the EM benchmark. Feature Since the election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador – or AMLO, as he is commonly known – as President, investors have been worrying about Mexico’s fiscal policy and public debt sustainability. Specifically, investors have expressed concern over the debt dynamics of state-owned petroleum company Pemex and its impact on the country’s public debt. While these concerns are not groundless, on balance we find the risk-reward profile of Mexico’s sovereign credit and local currency bonds superior relative to their respective EM peers. Fiscal Sustainability: A Comparative Analysis We discussed debt sustainability in Brazil and South Africa in two of our recent reports, and concluded that their public debt dynamics are unsustainable without drastic fiscal reforms. However, a closer look at debt sustainability in Mexico reveals a different picture. Chart 1Public Debt Burden Including SOE Debt Public Debt Burden Including SOE Debt Public Debt Burden Including SOE Debt Mexico’s public debt level including the debt of state-owned enterprises is lower than those in Brazil and South Africa (Chart 1). Notably, Mexico’s public debt-to-GDP ratio has been flat over the past three years. Importantly, as detailed below, the two primary conditions for public debt sustainability – the level of government borrowing costs and the primary fiscal balance - are far superior in Mexico relative to Brazil and South Africa.   Government borrowing costs in local currency terms are only slightly above nominal GDP in Mexico. Brazil and South Africa score much worse on this measure (Chart 2). The primary fiscal balance in Mexico is much better than in Brazil and South Africa (Chart 3). In fact, Mexico is targeting a primary surplus of 1% for 2019. Chart 2Local Borrowing Costs Versus Nominal GDP Local Borrowing Costs Versus Nominal GDP Local Borrowing Costs Versus Nominal GDP Chart 3Primary Fiscal Balances Primary Fiscal Balances Primary Fiscal Balances Even with potential pension reforms, Brazil will continue to run primary deficits for the next few years. As we discussed in our recent report on Brazil, the government’s submitted draft on social security reforms will save only BRL190 billion over the next four years, or 0.7% of GDP per year. The current primary deficit is 1.5% of GDP. Unless nominal GDP growth and government revenue growth shoot up, the primary deficit will not be eliminated in the next four years. Unlike Brazil and South Africa, the growth of public sector debt in Mexico is not outpacing nominal GDP growth (Chart 4). Critically, the latter point is also true in Mexico if one includes state-owned enterprises’ debt. Brazil and South Africa sovereign spreads are currently only 40 and 85 basis points above those in Mexico, respectively. The spread will widen further in favor of Mexico, given the latter’s superior fundamentals (Chart 5). In terms of local currency bonds, real yields in Mexico are also on par with Brazil but are well above those in South Africa (Chart 6). Hence, Mexican local bonds offer relative value versus many of their EM peers. Chart 4Public Debt and GDP Growth Public Debt and GDP Growth Public Debt and GDP Growth Chart 5Sell Mexican CDS / Long South African and Brazilian CDS Sell Mexican CDS / Long South African and Brazilian CDS Sell Mexican CDS / Long South African and Brazilian CDS             Nominal local currency bond yields in Mexico are about 200 basis points above the EM GBI benchmark domestic bond yield index (Chart 7). This is great value. Clearly, Mexico’s fiscal worries are overblown relative to those in Brazil and South Africa. Besides, relative valuations of sovereign credit and local bonds adjusted for relative fundamentals warrant outperformance in Mexico versus the other two markets as well as against the respective EM benchmarks in the months ahead. Chart 6Real Bond Yields: Decent Value In Mexico Real Bond Yields: Decent Value In Mexico Real Bond Yields: Decent Value In Mexico Chart 7Nominal Bond Yields: Great Value In Mexico Nominal Bond Yields: Great Value In Mexico Nominal Bond Yields: Great Value In Mexico In addition, AMLO’s administration has proven to be committed to fiscal austerity. Last month, the Ministry of Finance reinforced this notion by announcing a reduction in public spending on social programs in order to balance the loss of fiscal revenue from decreasing oil revenues and lower GDP estimates. Mexico’s fiscal worries are overblown relative to those in Brazil and South Africa. Besides, relative valuations of sovereign credit and local bonds adjusted for relative fundamentals warrant outperformance in Mexico versus the other two markets as well as against the respective EM benchmarks in the months ahead. We view the primary fiscal target of 1% for 2019 as aggressive and potentially unattainable due to a shortfall in revenues. However, these actions prove that AMLO’s administration is not intending to run a large fiscal deficit to finance populist spending programs, as investors had feared. Adding Pemex To Public Finances Pemex’s financial position and the government budget’s reliance on oil revenues are an Achilles’ heel for Mexico’s public finances. Therefore, we have incorporated Pemex into the budget. The resulting fiscal deterioration is not calamitous. Specifically, international credit agencies estimate that Pemex needs an additional $13 billion to $20 billion in capital expenditures per year in order to maintain current operations and replenish reserves. This is in addition to its debt service obligations in the coming years, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Pemex Debt Servicing Mexico: The Best Value In EM Fixed Income Mexico: The Best Value In EM Fixed Income We have the following considerations on this issue: First, this year the government announced $5.7 billion of financing for Pemex in the form of direct investment, tax breaks, deductions for drilling and exploration costs and revenue recovered from oil theft. In addition, the government will also do a one-time transfer of $6.8 billion from its $15.4 billion budget stabilization fund in order to finance Pemex’s debt payments due by the end of this year. While Congress must first approve the use of these funds, odds are that the bill will pass as AMLO’s party holds a majority. That would bring total capital injection into Pemex to $12.5 billion for the year, almost enough to finance the company’s capital spending this year. Second, in order to revive operations at Pemex in the medium to long term, the government must maintain this level of investment on an annual basis. Essentially, AMLO’s administration will inevitably have to sacrifice part of the $29 billion in net oil transfers it receives every year to finance the oil company and prevent further downgrades to its credit rating. How large is this required Pemex financing as a share of the public budget? We performed a simulation including into the public budget all of Pemex’s payments and all its receipts from the government. While the overall fiscal position deteriorates, it is not unsustainable. The primary and overall deficits would widen to 1.9% and 4.4% of GDP, respectively, if the government eliminates all transfers to Pemex and if the company stops all payments to the government budget, including direct transfers and indirect oil taxes1 (Table 2, Scenario 1). Table 2Mexico: Pemex And Government Budget Mexico: The Best Value In EM Fixed Income Mexico: The Best Value In EM Fixed Income In such a scenario, Pemex would gain $ 29 billion each year to invest in exploration and production. Pemex is the largest fiscal challenge for Mexico. Yet, even including Pemex debt and required financing, the nation’s fiscal accounts are not worrisome. Chart 8Mexico's Budget Balance Adjusted For Financing To Pemex Mexico's Budget Balance Adjusted For Financing To Pemex Mexico's Budget Balance Adjusted For Financing To Pemex Third, provided Pemex’s capital spending needs could be met by half of this $29 billion, the government could provide the company just half of this amount (Table 2, Scenario 3). In this scenario, the oil company will have sufficient funds to invest. Meanwhile, the government’s primary and overall fiscal deficit will deteriorate only moderately to 0.7% and 3.2% of GDP, respectively (Chart 8 and Table 2). Finally, the importance of oil revenues – both directly from Pemex and via indirect taxation on the oil industry – have already declined as a share of total fiscal revenues – from 40% in 2012 to 18.3% currently (Chart 9). In short, Mexico’s budget is less reliant on oil revenues. If economic growth picks up, non-oil revenues will improve. Consequently, the government’s fiscal position will improve, giving it more maneuvering room to deal with Pemex. Bottom Line: Pemex is the largest fiscal challenge for Mexico. Yet, even including Pemex debt and required financing, the nation’s fiscal accounts are not worrisome. Cyclical Economic Conditions The Mexican economy is slowing and inflationary pressures are subsiding. Narrow money (M1) and retail sales growth are decelerating (Chart 10, top panel) Capital spending is contracting and non-oil exports will be in a soft spot over the next six months, according the U.S. manufacturing ISM new orders-to-inventory ratio (Chart 10, bottom panel). Core inflation is at 3.55% and is heading south. Chart 9Dependence On Oil Revenues Has Declined A Lot Dependence On Oil Revenues Has Declined A Lot Dependence On Oil Revenues Has Declined A Lot Chart 10Mexico: Cyclical Conditions Mexico: Cyclical Conditions Mexico: Cyclical Conditions   Barring major turmoil in EM currency markets that weighs on the peso, weakening growth and disinflation will lead the domestic fixed-income market to discount rate cuts. Mexico’s central bank is very hawkish and will be slow to ease policy. Yet, such a policy stance warrants a bullish view on domestic bonds. The basis is that the longer they delay rate cuts, the more they will need to cut in the future. Investment Strategy We have been recommending an overweight position in Mexico in EM local currency and sovereign credit portfolios, and are reiterating these strategies. Relative value investors should consider this trade: Sell Mexico CDS / buy Brazilian and South African CDS. The Mexican sovereign credit market has made a major bottom versus the EM benchmark and the path of least resistance is now up (Chart 11). EM local currency bond portfolios should continue overweighting Mexico while underweighting Brazil and South Africa (Chart 12). Chart 11Sovereign Excess Returns: A Relative Bull Market In Mexico Sovereign Excess Returns: A Relative Bull Market In Mexico Sovereign Excess Returns: A Relative Bull Market In Mexico Chart 12Total Return on Local Currency Bonds in Dollar Terms Total Return on Local Currency Bonds in Dollar Terms Total Return on Local Currency Bonds in Dollar Terms Similarly, among EM currencies, we favor the Mexican peso because it is cheap (Chart 13). Specifically, we continue to hold the long MXN / short ZAR position; investors who are not yet in this trade should consider entering it now. Chart 13The Mexican Peso Is Cheap The Mexican Peso Is Cheap The Mexican Peso Is Cheap Finally, in the EM equity universe, we are overweight Mexican stocks, but our conviction level is lower than in the case of fixed-income markets. The basis is that AMLO’s policies intend to weaken oligopolies and monopolies and undermine their pricing power. These policies are very positive for fixed-income markets and the exchange rate in the long run, as they entail lower inflation resulting from a more competitive environment. Yet, they could hurt profits of incumbent monopolies and oligopolies. This is why we recommend equity investors focus on Mexican small-caps. That said, from a macro perspective, resulting disinflation and lower local rates are also positive for equity multiples. Hence, the Mexican stock market will also likely outperform the EM benchmark in common currency terms.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Juan Egaña, Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1 Indirect oil taxation includes different taxes for the oil fund for stabilization and development, such as rights on drilling and exploration, import and export duties on oil and gas and financing for oil and gas research.

Highlights Corporate Debt In Theory: Conventional theory holds that high levels of corporate debt pose a risk to the economy because they make the corporate sector more vulnerable to exogenous economic shocks. Corporate Debt In Practice: The conventional theory is contradicted by empirical evidence that links rapid private debt growth to negative economic outcomes, but shows no relationship between high debt levels and slow economic growth. The empirical evidence also links measures of credit market sentiment – such as corporate bond spreads – to future economic outcomes. We present an alternative theory of the corporate credit cycle that better aligns with the observed empirical results. The Current Risk: At present, the corporate debt measures that have historically been linked to weaker economic growth paint a fairly benign picture. We see no immediate risk to the U.S. economy from elevated corporate debt. Feature In our interactions with clients we are often asked whether corporate debt poses a risk to the U.S. economy. It’s easy to see why, U.S. nonfinancial corporate debt as a percent of GDP is higher than at any time since 1936 (Chart 1). Chart 1U.S. Corporate Debt: Highest Since 1936! U.S. Corporate Debt: Highest Since 1936! U.S. Corporate Debt: Highest Since 1936! This Special Report investigates the issue by looking at what recent academic theory and empirical evidence have to say about the relationship between corporate debt and economic growth. We then apply that evidence to today’s corporate debt situation to assess the economy’s current level of risk. We should note that this report focuses on potential risks stemming from the amount of outstanding debt, how quickly it is growing and how it is valued in financial markets. In a follow-up report, we will consider whether the ownership structure of the corporate bond market imparts additional risks to the economy and financial system. The Risk From Corporate Debt In Theory Conventional economic theory tells us that we should be concerned about elevated private sector debt because high debt makes the economy more vulnerable in the face of future shocks. Case in point, here is how the Federal Reserve’s Financial Stability Report describes the mechanism through which private sector debt impacts the economy: Excessive borrowing by businesses and households leaves them more vulnerable to distress if their incomes decline or the assets they own fall in value. In the event of such shocks, businesses and households with high debt burdens may need to cut back spending sharply, affecting the overall level of economic activity.1 This theory raises a few issues that we will consider in the remainder of this report: The theory suggests that the absolute amount of private sector debt matters more than its rate of growth. The theory suggests that elevated debt leads to a more severe economic downturn, but doesn’t necessarily cause the downturn. In other words, high debt simply makes the economy more vulnerable to exogenous shocks. The theory suggests that household debt and corporate debt are equally important. The Empirical Record Level Versus Growth While conventional theory implies that the crucial variable to monitor is the level of private sector debt, recent empirical evidence challenges this view. For example, a 2017 Bank of England paper considered a sample of 130 recessions across 26 countries and found that the rate of private debt growth matters much more.2 Please note that in the remainder of this report we define “debt growth” as the 3-year change in the debt-to-GDP ratio. Specifically, the researchers found a statistically and economically significant link between the severity of the recession – defined as the drawdown in per capita GDP – and the 3-year change in private debt-to-GDP that immediately preceded the downturn. They found no similar relationship using the level of private debt-to-GDP. In fact, the researchers found that the level of private debt to GDP only helped explain the severity of the recession when it was interacted with the rate of private debt growth. To quote from the paper: It appears that the level of credit before a recession matters for the severity of the downturn only when it is accompanied by a credit boom. By contrast, periods of fast credit growth appear to be associated with more severe recessions whether or not the level of credit is elevated.3 These findings suggest that the conventional theory presented above – that high debt levels make the private sector more vulnerable to exogenous shocks – is not the principle mechanism at work. We need an alternative theory to explain why the rate of debt growth is the more important variable to monitor. We discuss a possible alternative theory in the section titled “Toward A Better Theory” below. But for now, let’s consider the current state of the U.S. economy in light of the Bank of England’s findings. Chart 2 shows that the level of U.S. private sector debt-to-GDP is elevated compared to history. In fact, using data beginning in 1955, it was only higher in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. However, the second panel of Chart 2 shows that private sector debt growth is only 2.5%, a far cry from what was seen prior to the last three recessions. Chart 2Recession Watch: Private Debt Growth And Inflation Recession Watch: Private Debt Growth And Inflation Recession Watch: Private Debt Growth And Inflation We don’t mean to imply that a recession cannot occur with low private debt growth, but the track record of post-WWII U.S. recessions shows that every single one was preceded either by elevated private debt growth – 8% or above – or high inflation. At present, the U.S. economy shows very little risk on either front. Household Debt Versus Corporate Debt So far we’ve looked at private sector debt in total, i.e. we have combined household debt and nonfinancial corporate debt. This arguably masks the true instability in the U.S. economy, which is concentrated in the corporate sector. Chart 3 shows that low overall private sector debt growth of 2.5% is split between relatively quick corporate debt growth of 4.2% and household debt that is contracting at a rate of 1.8%. If we ignore the household sector’s persistent deleveraging, we see that current corporate debt growth of 4.2% is not that far below the peaks of 6.9%, 7.9% and 8% seen prior to each of the last three recessions. Chart 3U.S. Private Debt Growth Is Driven By Corporate Sector U.S. Private Debt Growth Is Driven By Corporate Sector U.S. Private Debt Growth Is Driven By Corporate Sector This raises two interesting questions. First, are corporate debt and household debt equally de-stabilizing for the economy? And relatedly, when tracking the U.S. economy should we focus on overall private sector debt, or should we monitor household and corporate sector debt individually? The track record of post-WWII U.S. recessions shows that every single one was preceded either by elevated private debt growth or high inflation. On the first question, we can turn back to the Bank of England paper. That paper presented the results from several regressions where the researchers looked at household debt growth and corporate debt growth individually. The results showed that elevated household debt growth and elevated corporate debt growth were both associated with more severe recessions, and with roughly equal coefficients. In the words of the researchers: Rapid credit growth continues to be an important predictor of the severity of a recession whether we look at lending to non-financial companies or to households, suggesting that the role of lending to businesses should not be ignored. Interestingly, this result stands in contrast to some other recent empirical work. Most notably, a 2016 paper by Atif Mian, Amir Sufi and Emil Verner (MSV). That paper looked at a panel of 30 countries between 1960 and 2012 and found that while higher household debt growth is associated with lower subsequent GDP growth, no such correlation is found with corporate debt.4 MSV summarize their basic result as follows: There is a significant negative correlation between changes in private debt and future output growth. Moreover, this negative correlation is entirely driven by the growth in household debt. The magnitude of the negative correlation is large, with a one standard deviation increase in the change in household debt to GDP ratio (6.2 percentage points) associated with a 2.1 percentage point lower growth rate during the subsequent three years. The main difference between the MSV methodology and that used by the Bank of England is that the MSV paper looks at GDP growth unconditional on whether there is a recession. In contrast, the Bank of England paper looks only at recessionary periods. A look back at past U.S. recessions makes us reluctant to ignore corporate debt growth completely. Table 1 lists every post-WWII U.S. recession, showing the peak-to-trough drawdown in GDP as a measure of the recession’s severity along with prior peaks in private debt growth, household debt growth, corporate debt growth and inflation. Table 1A History Of Post-WWII U.S. Recessions The Risk From U.S. Corporate Debt: Theory And Evidence The Risk From U.S. Corporate Debt: Theory And Evidence Table 1 confirms what we already stated above, that every post-WWII U.S. recession has been preceded by either rapid private sector debt growth or high inflation. If we dig deeper and look at the breakdown between household debt growth and corporate debt growth we find that there have only been two recessions where peak corporate debt growth exceeded peak household debt growth. Current corporate debt growth of 4.2% is not that far below the peaks of 6.9%, 7.9% and 8% seen prior to each of the last three recessions. The first such recession occurred in 1973-75, but that recession was clearly driven by high inflation. Both household and corporate debt growth were quite low during that period. The second example is the 2001 recession. Private debt growth was elevated prior to the 2001 recession, and more heavily concentrated in the corporate sector. However, it’s important to note that the 2001 recession was also the mildest post-WWII U.S. recession. Main Takeaways We draw several conclusions from our review of the empirical research: First, we should pay attention to the rate of growth in private debt-to-GDP and downplay the level of private debt-to-GDP. The latter has very little predictive power on its own. Second, a U.S. recession is unlikely to occur in the absence of elevated private sector debt growth (above ~8%) or high inflation. At the moment, neither factor suggests that the U.S. economy is on the cusp of a downturn. Third, we should not ignore corporate debt growth. However, the MSV research suggests it might be less economically important than household debt growth. Further, the Bank of England paper shows that the severity of any future downturn is equally sensitive to both household and corporate debt, suggesting that it is reasonable to combine the two and use overall private sector debt growth as our key metric when assessing risks to the economy. Finally, the empirical research suggests that the theory of how corporate debt relates to the economy that was presented in the first section of this report is at best incomplete. That theory cannot explain why the rate of debt growth is associated with weaker economic activity, but the level of debt is not. Fortunately, some recent research proposes a few alternative theories that better align with the empirical results. These theories also suggest a few other measures of corporate credit risk that are important for investors to monitor. Looking Beyond Debt Growth So far we have focused on the difference between the level of corporate debt and the rate of corporate debt growth, but recent empirical research has also linked several other measures of ebullient credit market sentiment to future slow-downs in economic activity. Assessing Credit Market Sentiment For example, a 2016 paper by David Lopez-Salido, Jeremy Stein and Egon Zakrajsek (LSZ) shows, using U.S. data from 1929 to 2013, that “when corporate bond spreads are narrow relative to their historical norms and when the share of high-yield bond issuance in total corporate bond issuance is elevated, this forecasts a substantial slowing of growth in real GDP, business investment, and employment over the subsequent few years. Thus buoyant credit-market sentiment today is associated with a significant weakening of real economic outcomes over a medium-term horizon.”5 Before getting into the possible reason for this finding, let’s quickly look at how the U.S. economy stacks up with regard to credit market sentiment. First, the spread between Baa-rated corporate bonds and the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield – the spread measure used in the LSZ paper – is slightly above its historical average, and does not look stretched compared to history (Chart 4). Chart 4U.S. Credit Spreads Aren't Stretched U.S. Credit Spreads Aren't Stretched U.S. Credit Spreads Aren't Stretched Second, even a more conventional spread measure like the average option-adjusted spread from the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Corporate Bond index remains fairly wide (Chart 5). Chart 5Junk Share Of New Issuance Is Falling Junk Share Of New Issuance Is Falling Junk Share Of New Issuance Is Falling Third, the high-yield share of new corporate bond issuance was elevated early in the recovery, especially compared to last cycle, but has declined in recent years (Chart 5, panel 2). Relatedly, the par value of outstanding junk debt as a proportion of the total par value of corporate debt has been falling since 2015 (Chart 5, bottom panel). Does Elevated Credit Market Sentiment Cause Slower Economic Growth? Of course, the empirical finding that tight credit spreads predict slower economic growth could simply reflect the fact that credit spreads respond to swings in the economic data. If our goal is to forecast economic growth, then this would suggest that we don’t need to pay much attention to credit spreads, because they are simply reflecting swings in the economy rather than causing them. However, the empirical evidence increasingly suggests that there is a causal mechanism at play. To test this, the LSZ paper employs a two-step regression procedure. In the first step, researchers model the future change in credit spreads based on the lagged level of credit spreads and the junk share of new issuance. In the second step, they use the fitted value from the first regression to predict changes in economic activity. The fact that the fitted value is significantly related to changes in economic activity implies that there is some predictable mean reversion in credit market sentiment, unrelated to economic fundamentals, that actually exerts an influence on future economic growth. LSZ suggest the following causal mechanism: Heightened levels of sentiment in credit markets today portend bad news for future economic activity. This is because mean reversion implies that when sentiment is unusually positive today, it is likely to deteriorate in the future. Moreover, a sentiment-driven widening of credit spreads amounts to a reduction in the supply of credit, especially to lower credit-quality firms. It is this reduction in credit supply that exerts a negative influence on economic activity. It follows from this analysis that if we could show that corporate bond spreads are tight relative to their “economic fair value”, then the economy would be at even greater risk from a mean reversion in credit market sentiment. While it’s difficult to identify a true “fair value” for credit spreads, Simon Gilchrist and Egon Zakrajsek (GZ) have calculated an Excess Bond Premium that measures the excess spread available in a sample of corporate bonds after removing a bottom-up estimate of expected default losses.6 Expected default losses are estimated using the Merton model and each firm’s market value of equity and face value of debt.7 Using this new measure, GZ find that “over the past four decades, the predictive power of credit spreads for economic downturns is due entirely to the Excess Bond Premium”. This stunning result is the most compelling evidence yet that swings in credit market sentiment actually cause shifts in economic activity, rather than simply reflect them. Looking at the GZ Excess Bond Premium today, we see that while it had been negative for most of the current cycle, it recently ticked above zero and has yet to recover (Chart 6). For the time being, there is no evidence of excessively optimistic credit market sentiment. Chart 6U.S. Credit Spreads Are High Relative To Fundamentals U.S. Credit Spreads Are High Relative To Fundamentals U.S. Credit Spreads Are High Relative To Fundamentals Toward A Better Theory So far we’ve seen that rapid debt growth is a better predictor of future economic weakness than high debt levels. We’ve also seen evidence that optimistic credit market sentiment (tight credit spreads, especially relative to fundamentals, and an elevated junk share of new issuance) forecasts, and likely causes, future economic weakness. Clearly, we need a better theory for why corporate debt matters for the economy than the one provided by the Federal Reserve in the first section of this report. In our view, the theory that most closely aligns with the empirical data is Nicola Gennaioli and Andrei Shleifer’s theory of Diagnostic Expectations, as detailed in their 2018 book A Crisis Of Beliefs.8 In the book, the author’s demonstrate how investors systematically overreact to new economic information. A tendency that makes forecast errors highly predictable. For example, Chart 7 shows that forecasts for what the Baa/Treasury spread will be in one year’s time are tightly linked with today’s actual spread. This means that investors inevitably expect too much future spread widening when spreads are high, and too much future tightening when spreads are low. Chart 7Forecast Errors Are Predictable Forecast Errors Are Predictable Forecast Errors Are Predictable Gennaioli and Shleifer integrate this systematic behavioral bias into a model that, from our perspective, better aligns with the empirical data on the relationship between corporate debt and the real economy. According to Gennaioli and Shleifer: Good economic news […] makes right-tail outcomes representative. This leads investors to both overestimate average future conditions and to neglect the unrepresentative downside risk, causing overexpansion of both leverage and real investment. When good news stops coming, investors revise their expectations down, even without adverse shocks. These revisions cause credit spreads to revert, the lenders to perform poorly, and economic and financial conditions to deteriorate, leading to deleveraging and cuts in real investment. A severe crisis occurs if arriving news is sufficiently bad as to render left-tail outcomes representative and hence overstated. This theory would seem to explain all of the key empirical findings. Investors form their expectations based on an overreaction to recent news. During an economic recovery this causes credit spreads to tighten and debt to grow rapidly. Eventually, investors realize that expectations have become unrealistically optimistic, credit spreads mean-revert and debt growth plunges. Crucially, in this model a severe economic shock is not required for credit spreads to mean-revert, only a lack of further good news to confirm investor over-optimism. Based on this theory, if we are concerned about the impact of corporate debt on the real economy we should predominantly track measures of credit market sentiment and the rate of debt growth. The theory helps reveal why the level of corporate debt has little informational value. Concluding Thoughts Conventional theory tells us that high corporate debt levels could pose a risk to the economy because they make the corporate sector more vulnerable in the face of exogenous economic shocks. However, empirical evidence suggests that this theory is of little practical value. A better theory is one where investors and corporate managers overreact to positive economic news, leading to overvaluation in credit markets and rapid debt growth. Then, when sentiment is revealed to be overly optimistic, it leads to a mean-reversion in credit spreads and a tightening of credit supply that actually causes a period of weaker economic growth. Investors inevitably expect too much future spread widening when spreads are high, and too much future tightening when spreads are low. It follows from this theory that if we are concerned about the impact of corporate debt on the real economy we should predominantly track debt growth and measures of credit market sentiment such as credit spreads and the junk share of new issuance. The U.S. economy currently looks quite stable by these measures. Overall private sector debt growth is only 2.5%. Historically, it has been above 8% prior to recessions that weren’t caused by high inflation. The GZ Excess Bond Premium also shows that credit market sentiment is not currently stretched relative to fundamentals. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/financial-stability-report-201811.pdf 2      https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2017/down-in-the-slumps-t… 3      Please note that the Bank of England paper uses the term “credit” in place of “debt”. In this report we use both terms interchangeably. 4      https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&co… 5      https://www.nber.org/papers/w21879 6      https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2016/recession-risk-and-the-excess-bond-premium-20160408.html 7      Merton, Robert C., “On The Pricing Of Corporate Debt: The Risk Structure of Interest Rates”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 29, No. 2, May 1974. 8      Nicola Gennaioli and Andrei Shleifer, A Crisis Of Beliefs: Investor Psychology And Financial Fragility, Princeton University Press, 2018.

Dear Client, This Special Report is the full transcript and slides of a keynote presentation I recently gave to the Sovereign Investor Institute in London titled: 'The Biggest Risks To The Global Economy Are…' The short presentation pulls together several concepts and observations which identify the ‘weak links’ in the global economy. Therefore, the presentation should serve as a useful summary of the global economy’s current vulnerabilities. The report then explains how each of the risks translates into a European investment context. I hope you find it insightful. Best regards, Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist Image Feature Full Transcript And Slides Image Good morning Thank you for inviting me to give today’s keynote presentation under the title: ‘The Biggest Risks To The Global Economy Are…’ (Slide 1). I will not discuss all the risks out there, but the four risks that I will present are the ones that I think are the most significant. And the biggest of these four risks I will leave to the end. So let’s begin. Risk 1 is China’s Credit Cycle (Slide 2). You can see this very clearly in this slide (Slide 3) which shows the short-term accelerations and decelerations in credit within the world’s three largest economies – Europe, the United States, and China. In essence, it is showing how much new credit was created in the last six months compared with the preceding six months. Was it more credit creation or was it less, and how much more or less? Everything is in dollars to allow a fair comparison. Image Image Now look at the red line. The red line is China. Just ten years ago, China’s credit cycle was irrelevant. It simply didn’t matter. But after the GFC, China’s short-term credit expansions and contractions suddenly became as large as those in Europe and the U.S. More recently, China’s cycle is dwarfing the others, so now it is the European and the U.S. credit cycles that are irrelevant! This means that whenever China’s short-term credit cycle turns down, as it did in late 2015, early 2017, and 2018, the global economy feels a chill. The point is that this short-term cycle is a near-perfect oscillator. Down-oscillations will occur every eighteen months or so, and any of them has the potential to turn nasty. Though we are currently in an up-oscillation, the next down-oscillation is due later this year. And I predict that it will pose a big risk to the global economy. Risk 2 is Trade Imbalances (Slide 4). This slide (Slide 5) has a mischievous title ‘Where President Trump Is Right About Europe’. The red line shows where the president is absolutely right: Europe is running a massive – a record-high – trade surplus with the United States. It is an undeniable fact. But the president is wrong about the underlying cause. The underlying cause is not unfair trade practices or tariffs, the underlying cause is the other line, the blue line, which shows the divergent monetary policies of the ECB and the Fed. Image Image The trade imbalance and monetary policy divergence are moving together tick for tick, and the transmission mechanism is of course the exchange rate. The divergent monetary policies have depressed the euro, and a depressed euro obviously makes German cars cheaper for American consumers. That is the reason that the president is seeing so many BMWs driving down Fifth Avenue! My point is that these record-high imbalances are being used to justify economic nationalism – retaliatory tariffs, restricted trade, and potentially all-out trade wars. Alternatively, this chart suggests that the imbalances would correct with large-scale movements of exchange rates. But to me, either of these options poses a big risk to the global economy. Risk 3 Is Technological Disruption (Slide 6). To understand why, I want to introduce you to a concept known as Moravec’s Paradox (Slide 7). A professor of robotics, Hans Moravec, noticed something odd. He realized that things that we find very hard are actually very easy for AI. Things like complex mathematics, speaking multiple languages, or advance pattern recognition. Typically, as few people have these skills, they are well-paid skills. Image Image Whereas things that we find very easy are incredibly difficult for AI. Things like human movement and recognizing, and responding to, emotional signals. Typically, as everybody has these skills, they are low-paid skills.  Moravec’s Paradox means that the current wave of technological progress is much more disruptive than previous waves. The steam engine destroyed low-paid jobs, forcing workers up the income ladder. But the current wave of technology, led by AI, is destroying well-paid jobs forcing workers down the income ladder. Image You can see it in the data. While job creation in most major economies is on the face of it very strong, just look at what type of jobs are being created (Slide 8). Food delivery, bar work, care work and social work. Now you’ll agree that this is not highly paid work with career prospects!  In essence, the current wave of technology is revealing a huge misallocation of capital. You might have invested huge amounts of time and money in say, becoming a linguist. Only to find that AI can translate languages much better than you – and your employment opportunities are limited to lower-income work. Well that misallocation of capital is very disruptive.  In my opinion, it’s one of the main reasons why even though economies are growing and unemployment is very low, people don’t feel good. Making them susceptible to simplistic fixes such as ‘take back control’ and economic nationalism. My point is that the current wave of AI-led job disruption has much further to run, and the populist backlash will remain a big risk to the global economy. But now I want to turn to what I believe is the biggest risk of all. Risk 4 Is Higher Bond Yields (Slide 9). Most people believe that economic downturns cause financial market downturns. But the truth is the complete opposite: the causality almost always runs the other way! In the vast majority of cases, it is financial market imbalances and mispricing that cause economic downturns and crises. Take the last three economic downturns – in 2001, in 2008 and in 2011. They all had their roots in financial mispricing – the dot com bubble, the U.S. mortgage market, and euro area sovereign debt. Likewise for the Great Depression in the 30s, Japan’s recession in the early 90s. I could go on. You get the point… What is the financial vulnerability today that could cause an economic downturn? (Slide 10) The answer is that the very rich valuation of equities and other risk-assets is highly sensitive to bond yields. Which means that substantially higher bond yields pose a very big risk to the global economy. Image Image You see, at very low bond yields, the bond price can no longer go up much but it can go down massively (Slide 11). The latest advances in financial theory now conclusively show that this unattractive ‘negative’ asymmetry is what defines ‘risk’ for investors. The crucial point is that at low bond yields, bonds become as risky, or more risky, than equities (Slide 12). And this necessarily means that equities no longer need to deliver a superior return, a risk-premium, over the low bond yield (Slide 13). As bond yields decline this means equity valuations get an exponential boost because both components of the equity’s required return – the risk-free component and the risk-premium component – are collapsing simultaneously (Slide 14). Image Image Image Image But if bond yields rise substantially, the process would go into vicious reverse and equity valuations would fall off a cliff. Other risk-assets too, and bear in mind that if we include real estate – as we should – global risk-assets are worth $400 trillion, five times the size of the global economy!   Our research shows that the point of vulnerability is if the global 10-year bond yield approaches 2 percent, which is about 50 basis points above where it stands right now. And that, to me, is by far the biggest risk to the global economy. Image So to summarise, the biggest risks to the global economy are: China’s credit cycle; trade imbalances and technological disruption and their associated populist backlash; and the biggest risk is higher bond yields (Slide 15). In the near future I think alarm bells should start to ring if China’s credit cycle has tipped into a down-oscillation and/or the global 10-year bond yield is 50 bps higher. Don’t worry, the alarm bells are not ringing right now but they might be later this year. Finally, given the title you gave me, this presentation has necessarily focussed on the key risks. But I don’t want you to get too negative. I also have another presentation called ‘The Biggest Positives For The Global Economy Are…’ And for balance, I hope you invite me to present that next time! Thank you. How Do The Risks Translate Into A European Investment Context? Risk 1: China’s Credit Cycle, is highly relevant to European investors, for two reasons. First, the European economy is very open, meaning that exports make a substantial contribution to GDP growth. This is especially true in Europe’s engine economy, Germany, but it is also important for other major economies like Sweden. And it is evidenced in large trade surpluses as, for example, illustrated in Slide 5. Therefore, whenever China’s credit cycle enters a down-oscillation, as it did last year, Germany cannot escape the nasty chill coming through its all-important net export channel. Second, the European equity market is over-exposed to global growth sensitive sectors and companies – specifically, Industrials, Materials, and Financials. These sectors tend to have a very high operational gearing to global growth. Meaning that a small change in global growth has a disproportionate effect on these companies’ profits and share price performance. The upshot is that in a credit cycle up-oscillation, Europe’s global-growth sensitive stock markets and sectors benefit from a sharp burst of outperformance. The opposite applies in a credit cycle down-oscillation. It follows that if China’s credit cycle is due to tip into a down-oscillation later this year, it would be time to close our successful relative overweighting to European equities and to the global growth sensitive cyclical sectors. Risk 2: Trade Imbalances, is also highly relevant to European investors, for the obvious reason that European economies – especially Germany – are running huge trade surpluses. This puts these economies squarely in the cross-hairs of a retaliatory salvo involving tariffs, trade barriers, or worse, an all-out trade war. Clearly, Europe’s ‘exporting champions’ are the most vulnerable to this risk. The issue is important for the exchange rate too. We showed conclusively that Europe’s trade imbalance is the consequence of the depressed euro. It follows that another way to correct this imbalance is via a stronger euro. In this sense, the fundamentals imply euro upside from here. Risk 3: Technological Disruption, manifests through disruption in the jobs market, the lack of feel good, and the ensuing backlash leading to populism and nationalism. This is particularly relevant to Europe because its collection of nations, each with its own political processes, provides more scope for a political tail-event. A lull in the major political-event cycle is a good thing for Europe. In this regard, the upcoming EU parliamentary elections is not a big risk given the EU parliament’s inability, by itself, to drive policy. The risk increases approaching a meaningful political event, and this includes the date of Brexit. Therefore, this risk is likely to rise somewhat towards the end of the year. Risk 4: Higher Bond Yields, is clearly very relevant to Europe because many of the core euro area bond yields are at their lower bound. This means that the negative asymmetry of returns has its maximum impact on, for example, German bunds. It follows that German bunds are a sell in the near-term. Nevertheless, the upside to yields is ultimately limited given the aforementioned vulnerability of risk-asset valuations to higher bond yields. Therefore, the better long-term strategy is to short German bunds relative to U.S. T-bonds. Finally, a 50 basis points rise in 10-year yields from current levels would be a trigger to flip to underweight European equities.  Fractal Trading System* Crude oil is at a technical reversal level. The best way to play this is on a hedged basis versus metals: short WTI, long LMEX. Set the profit target at 5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, we are pleased to report long AUD/CNY achieved its profit target at which it was closed. This leaves five open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Short WTI / Long LMEX Short WTI / Long LMEX The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: 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. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * 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 Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart I-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

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