Fixed Income

Highlights Global Growth: Early leading indicators (credit impulses, our global LEI diffusion index) are signaling that the worst of the global economic downturn should soon end. Okun’s Law: In the developed economies, the observed relationships between economic growth and changes in unemployment suggest that the current pullback in global growth will not be severe enough to create slack in labor markets and reduce inflation pressures. Global Bond Allocation: Within dedicated global government bond portfolios, stay underweight the U.S. and Canada, neutral core Europe, and overweight the U.K., Japan and Australia. Remain tactically overweight global credit versus government bonds, at least until mid-year, with policymakers likely to stay cautiously dovish until global uncertainties recede. Feature Is This Risk Rally Too Good To Last? The mood of financial markets has improved significantly over the past few weeks, led by the dovish shift from central bankers that has revived investor risk appetite. Some positive headlines on U.S.-China trade negotiations have also generated hope over prospects for a deal, further fueling the bullish sentiment. The global economic picture remains muddled, though. Non-U.S. growth continues to languish, while the actual near-term state of the U.S. economy is proving difficult to determine given the data issues surrounding the 35-day U.S. government shutdown. Given lingering uncertainties, both political and economic, policymakers do not want to rock the boat by saying anything that might be interpreted as hawkish. With monetary policy no longer a near-term headwind, there is a window for continued outperformance of global risk assets in the next few months. That means higher global equity prices and stable-to-tighter global corporate credit spreads. Yet the seeds for the next wave of market turbulence may already be sewn. There are signs that the global growth downturn may soon end. Credit impulses are starting to pick up in several major economies, while our diffusion index of global leading economic indicators – itself a longer leading indicator – has clearly bottomed (Chart of the Week). The epicenter of global economic weakness, China, continues to deploy monetary and fiscal stimulus measures aimed at stabilizing growth. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy still appears to be in good shape, underpinned by solid consumer fundamentals. Chart of the WeekSunnier Days Ahead? Sunnier Days Ahead? Sunnier Days Ahead? A combination of easier financial conditions and faster economic growth will eventually prove to be incompatible with stable monetary policy, especially with surprisingly firm inflation in the major developed economies. Central bankers will respond by moving away from their current dovish bias, led by the U.S. Federal Reserve. With government bond markets now discounting both stable monetary policy and too-low inflation expectations, the path for global bond yields is eventually higher. While headline inflation rates are cooling in response to the lagged impact of weaker oil prices, the pullback has been far more muted so far compared to similar sharp oil-driven moves in the past (Chart 2). This is because domestically-driven inflation rates for services and wages are much sturdier today in many countries. If BCA’s bullish oil view for 2019 comes to fruition, then the current decline in headline/goods inflation rates may prove to be very short-lived and with little pass-through into core/services inflation. Chart 2Sticky Global Inflation, Despite Lower Oil Prices Sticky Global Inflation, Despite Lower Oil Prices Sticky Global Inflation, Despite Lower Oil Prices This dynamic is not the same in every country, however. When looking at the individual trends of goods inflation and services/wage inflation in the major developed economies, the largest gaps between the two exist in the U.S. and Canada (Chart 3). There, wage growth is accelerating and services inflation rates remain sturdy, despite sharp drops in goods inflation. Chart 3Domestic Inflation Pressures Most Acute In The U.S. & Canada Domestic Inflation Pressures Most Acute In The U.S. & Canada Domestic Inflation Pressures Most Acute In The U.S. & Canada Our recommended government bond allocation at the country level reflects these underlying inflation trends. We are more bearish on bond markets with the most intense domestic inflation pressures – and where future interest rate hikes are most likely – and vice versa. We remain underweight the U.S. and Canada, where wage growth and services inflation are both above the inflation targets of the Fed and Bank of Canada, and where market-based measures of inflation expectations like CPI swap rates have already bottomed (Chart 4). We remain neutral on core Europe (Germany, France) where wage growth has perked up, core/services inflation remains closer to 1% than the 2% target of the ECB, and inflation expectations continue to drift lower. Finally, we remain overweight the U.K., Japan and Australia, all of which have an underlying inflation picture that is muted enough to keep policymakers on hold for at least the next 6-9 months. Chart 4Favor Bond Markets Where Domestic Inflation Pressures Are Weakest Favor Bond Markets Where Domestic Inflation Pressures Are Weakest Favor Bond Markets Where Domestic Inflation Pressures Are Weakest Bottom Line: Early leading indicators (credit impulses, our global LEI diffusion index) are signaling that the worst of the global economic downturn should soon end. Central bankers will remain cautious and dovish in the near-term, however, implying that the current outperformance of global equity and credit markets has more room to run – but also setting up the next upleg for bond yields later this year. Okun’s Law Revisited Central bankers remain wedded to the idea that there is an “exploitable” relationship between unemployment and inflation, a.k.a. the Phillips Curve. A logical extension is that unless policymakers can credibly forecast a reduction in labor demand that pushes unemployment rates beyond levels associated with full employment, inflation will not be expected to decline. Policymakers will have a difficult time staying dovish without believing that inflation pressures are diminishing. One way to measure the relationship between economic growth and changes in economic slack is by using a concept that you may remember from an old macroeconomics class – Okun’s Law. More an empirically observable rule of thumb than any rule based in actual economic theory, Okun’s Law simply measures how much unemployment rates change relative to swings in real GDP growth. Past estimations for the U.S. economy have shown that the long-run coefficient in the Okun’s Law regression is around 2, which means that a 2% fall in real GDP growth should be associated with a 1% increase in the unemployment rate (and vice versa). That coefficient is not the same over shorter time horizons, though, as the unemployment/GDP growth relationship can be impacted by other cyclical factors like changes in hours worked or labor productivity. Charts 5 and 6 show annual real GDP growth (the percentage change over four quarters) versus the change in the unemployment rate over twelve months for the major developed economies (the U.S., U.K., euro area, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden) dating back to 1980. There is a reasonably strong relationship between the two series in the charts, although the “fit” does vary from country to country. Chart 5The Okun’s Law Relationship … The Okun's Law Relationship... The Okun's Law Relationship... Chart 6… Still Holds For Most Countries ...Still Holds For Most Countries ...Still Holds For Most Countries That can be seen in the individual country scatterplots shown in Charts 7 to 14, which plot each quarterly data point of the change in unemployment and real GDP growth. The darker dots represent the period from 1980-2010, while the lighter dots are the post-2010 era. The actual estimated regression, and its R-squared, are also shown in the charts (the equation can be defined as “the estimated change in the unemployment rate for a given pace of real GDP growth”). Chart 7 Chart 8 Chart 9 Chart 10 Chart 11 Chart 12 Chart 13 Chart 14 For most countries shown, the R-squareds are reasonably good (between 0.55 and 0.70) for a single-factor model like this. The coefficients on the change in real GDP are all between -0.35 and -0.45, which means that a fall in real GDP growth of 3.5 to 4.5 percentage points is consistent with a rise in the unemployment rate of 1 percentage point. The lone country where the Okun’s Law relationship has a relatively poor historical fit is in Japan, which is due to the lack of GDP variability relative to swings in the unemployment rate, especially over the past decade. We can use these estimates of the Okun’s Law coefficient to conduct a “back of the envelope” thought experiment that answers the following question that relates to the current economic and financial market backdrop: how much of a decline in GDP growth is necessary to raise unemployment rates back to full-employment (NAIRU) levels? As we have consistently noted in recent Weekly Reports, global central bankers can only turn so dovish, even after the severe market turbulence seen at the end of last year and with elevated political uncertainty in many locations. Why? Because unemployment rates remain below levels that are consistent with stable inflation. Without a meaningful weakening of labor markets that pushes unemployment rates back above “full employment” levels, policymakers will not be able to lower their inflation forecasts and signal a need for easier monetary policy. In Table 1, we present the estimated Okun’s Law regressions from 1980, along with the real GDP growth rate that falls out of those equations if we assume the employment gaps are closed.1 We also show the consensus 2019 real GDP growth forecasts taken from Bloomberg, as well as the expected change in central bank policy rates over the next year taken from our Central Bank Discounters. The conclusion from the Table is that it would take significant declines in real GDP growth to raise unemployment rates enough for policymakers to become less worried about inflation pressures. Table 12019 Consensus Growth Forecasts Are Well Above Levels That Would Eliminate The Unemployment Gap Hope Springs Eternal Hope Springs Eternal In the U.K., where the unemployment rate is furthest below the OECD’s estimate of the full-employment NAIRU rate, a whopping -3.3 percentage point cut to real GDP growth is needed to raise unemployment back to 5.6%. The required GDP fall is lower in the U.S., with only a -1.6 percentage point decline in real GDP growth need to push the unemployment rate back to the OECD NAIRU estimate of 4.3%. Falls in real GDP growth of between -1.5 and 2.0 percentage points are necessary in most of the other countries to close the “unemployment gap”, except for Japan. Given the weak estimated Okun’s Law relationship in Japan, we are reluctant to put much weight on the results of this thought experiment for Japan. Those “required” declines in real GDP growth are nowhere close to the 2019 consensus Bloomberg forecasts for each country. This is even true in the U.S., where the consensus expects real GDP growth to decline by -0.9 percentage points in 2019. Unsurprisingly, markets are discounting very little change in monetary policy over the next year according to our Central Bank Discounters, with modest odds of a rate cut now discounted in Australia (-19bps), New Zealand (-11bps) and the U.S. (-8bps) and a full 25bp hike now priced in Sweden. Summing it all up, our simple Okun’s Law thought experiment shows that it would take a significantly larger decline in global growth than the consensus, or BCA, expects for central banks to shift even more dovishly in the direction of interest rate cuts. This puts a cyclical floor underneath global bond yields, given that relatively stable policy rates are now discounted. Bottom Line: The observed relationships between economic growth and changes in unemployment suggest that the current pullback in global growth will not be severe enough to create slack in labor markets and an easing of inflation pressures in the developed economies.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Given the declining productivity trend seen in all countries over the past 20 years, we have made a downward adjustment to those Okun’s Law estimated coefficients. In other words, we do not think that it will take the same magnitude of GDP loss to generate the same increase in unemployment when labor productivity is low. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Hope Springs Eternal Hope Springs Eternal Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Spread Product Valuation: Corporate bond spreads don’t look especially cheap relative to average historical levels. But they are far too elevated for the current phase of the economic cycle. Valuations in other spread products are not nearly as attractive. Investors should remain overweight corporate bonds (both investment grade and junk) within U.S. fixed income portfolios. Corporate Defaults: Slowing corporate profit growth during the next 12 months will cause corporate leverage to flatten-off and will lead to a slightly higher default rate than most baseline forecasts suggest. Junk spreads currently offer adequate compensation for the extra default risk, but that cushion will evaporate quickly if spreads tighten during the next few months. Mexican Sovereign Bonds: Mexico’s USD-denominated sovereign debt is attractively priced relative to similarly-rated U.S. corporate credit. U.S. fixed income investors should take the opportunity to add USD-denominated Mexican bonds to their portfolios. Feature Corporate bonds have been on fire since the start of the year. High-yield excess returns have already made back all of their lost ground from 2018, and investment grade credits are on their way (Chart 1). With the Fed’s rate hike cycle on hold and some signs of credit easing in China, the near-term backdrop is amenable to further spread compression. Especially from current elevated levels. Chart 1Corporate Bonds Having A Good Run In 2019 Corporate Bonds Having A Good Run In 2019 Corporate Bonds Having A Good Run In 2019 On the flipside, some indicators of corporate default risk are starting to deteriorate and we can easily envision a more difficult environment for corporate spreads in the second half of this year. Especially if the Fed re-starts rate hikes, as we expect.1 In this week’s report we illustrate the extent of undervaluation in corporate spreads, and also detail our concerns related to budding default risk. We conclude that investors should maintain an overweight allocation to corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) for now, but be prepared to trim exposure once spreads reach more reasonable levels. Finally, we identify an opportunity in USD-denominated Mexican sovereign bonds. Too Cheap For Phase 2 In our Special Report from mid-December that laid out our key themes for 2019, we described how we split the economic cycle into different phases based on the slope of the yield curve (Chart 2).2 We define the three phases of the cycle as follows: Chart 2Expect To Stay In Phase 2 For Most (If Not All) Of 2019 Expect To Stay In Phase 2 For Most (If Not All) Of 2019 Expect To Stay In Phase 2 For Most (If Not All) Of 2019 Phase 1: From the end of the prior recession until the 3-year / 10-year Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps Phase 2: When the 3/10 slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps Phase 3: From when the 3/10 slope inverts until the start of the next recession Dividing the cycle this way reveals a reliable pattern in corporate bond excess returns versus Treasuries. Excess returns tend to be highest in Phase 1. They tend to be quite low but still positive in Phase 2, and they tend not to turn negative until Phase 3. We argued in December that we are currently in Phase 2 and that we will probably stay there for most, if not all, of 2019. The main reason that excess returns are lower in Phase 2 than in Phase 1 is that corporate bond spreads are much tighter in Phase 2. Most of the cyclical spread compression occurs in Phase 1, in the immediate aftermath of the recession. With that in mind, consider the data presented in Chart 3. The chart shows 12-month breakeven spreads for each corporate bond credit tier as a percentile rank relative to history.3 For example, a percentile rank of 50% means that the breakeven spread has been tighter than its current level half of the time throughout history. Chart 3 also divides the historical data into two samples, showing how breakeven spreads rank relative to the entire history of available data, and also how they rank relative to other Phase 2 periods only. Chart 3 When the full historical sample is considered, only the B-rated and Caa-rated credit tiers have breakeven spreads above their historical medians. However, when we focus exclusively on Phase 2 environments we see that spreads for every credit tier other than Aaa look extremely cheap. Essentially, Chart 3 shows that today’s spread levels are more consistent with periods when the economy is either just exiting or entering a recession. Absent that sort of macro environment, there would appear to be an obvious buying opportunity in corporate bonds. Interestingly, other spread products don’t look nearly as cheap as corporate bonds. Chart 4 shows the same data as Chart 3 but for all non-corporate U.S. spread products with available data prior to 2000. It shows that Agency MBS and Consumer ABS spreads are close to median Phase 2 levels. USD-denominated Sovereign debt looks somewhat cheap. Meanwhile, Domestic Agencies and Supranationals both look expensive. What’s clear is that right now corporate credit offers the most attractive opportunity in U.S. fixed income. Chart 4 Bottom Line: Corporate bond spreads don’t look especially cheap relative to average historical levels. But they are far too elevated for the current phase of the economic cycle. Valuations in other spread products are not nearly as attractive. Investors should remain overweight corporate bonds (both investment grade and junk) within U.S. fixed income portfolios. Default Cycle At A Turning Point?  Another valuation tool in our arsenal is the High-Yield default-adjusted spread. This is the excess spread available in the high-yield index after accounting for expected 12-month default losses. It can also be thought of as the 12-month return earned by the High-Yield index in excess of a position in duration-matched Treasuries, assuming that default losses match expectations and that there are no capital gains (losses) from spread tightening (widening). Expected default losses are calculated using the Moody’s baseline default rate forecast and our own forecast of the recovery rate. Combining the Moody’s baseline default rate forecast of 2.4% and our recovery rate forecast of 45% gives expected 12-month default losses of 1.3%. Those expected default losses are then subtracted from the average High-Yield index option-adjusted spread to get a default-adjusted spread of 274 bps. This is slightly above the historical average of 250 bps (Chart 5). In other words, junk investors are currently being compensated at slightly above average levels to bear default risk. Chart 5A Look At The Default-Adjusted Spread A Look At The Default-Adjusted Spread A Look At The Default-Adjusted Spread Another way to conceptualize the default-adjusted spread is to ask what default rate would have to prevail over the next 12 months for junk investors to earn average historical excess compensation. This spread-implied default rate is denoted by the ‘X’ in the second panel of Chart 5. It is currently 2.8%, slightly above Moody’s baseline expectation. Is The Baseline Default Rate Forecast Reasonable? If we view the Moody’s 2.4% default rate forecast as reasonable, then we should conclude that junk bonds are attractively valued. However, some macro indicators suggest that 2.4% might be too optimistic. Chart 6 shows a model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate based on gross leverage, which we define as total debt over pre-tax profits, and C&I lending standards. Chart 6A Simple Model Of The 12-Month Trailing Speculative Grade Default Rate A Simple Model Of The 12-Month Trailing Speculative Grade Default Rate A Simple Model Of The 12-Month Trailing Speculative Grade Default Rate Gross leverage has improved during the past few quarters as profit growth has outpaced corporate debt growth (Chart 6, panel 2). This has acted to push down the fair value reading from our default rate model. On the other hand, commercial & industrial (C&I) lending standards tightened in the fourth quarter of last year (Chart 6, bottom panel). A net tightening in C&I lending standards is consistent with a higher default rate. Overall, the fair value reading from our default rate model is currently 3.5%, above the current 12-month trailing default rate of 2.6%. For the purposes of valuation, where the default rate will be 12 months from now is more important than where it is currently. To get a sense of where the fair value from our model is headed we need forecasts for corporate profit and debt growth. Profit growth will almost certainly moderate from its current lofty levels (Chart 7). Pressures on revenues and expenses both point in that direction. Total business sales and the ISM Manufacturing PMI have both fallen sharply from their recent highs (Chart 7, panel 2), suggesting lower corporate revenue growth going forward. Meanwhile, wages continue to accelerate (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Forecasting Profit Growth Forecasting Profit Growth Forecasting Profit Growth Using a model based on nominal GDP growth, wage growth, industrial production and the trade-weighted dollar, if we forecast that nominal GDP growth slows to the same rate as wage growth over the next 12 months, then the model predicts that profit growth will fall into the mid-single digits (Chart 7, top panel). This would be more or less consistent with the recent growth rate in corporate debt, meaning that gross leverage would flatten-off and the fair value reading from our default rate model would stabilize near 3.5%. In summary, if profit growth moderates in line with our expectations during the next 12 months, then it is likely that the corporate default rate will be somewhat higher than the current Moody’s forecast of 2.4%, possibly as high as 3.5%. But even a 3.5% default rate would still translate to a default-adjusted junk spread of 211 bps. Positive compensation for default risk, though less than average historical levels. In that case we would still expect solid positive excess returns from junk bonds. However, it will be important to monitor our default-adjusted spread during the next few months. If junk spreads tighten in the near-term, as we anticipate, then the excess compensation for default risk will evaporate quickly. Bottom Line: Slowing corporate profit growth during the next 12 months will cause corporate leverage to flatten-off and will lead to a slightly higher default rate than most baseline forecasts suggest. Junk spreads currently offer adequate compensation for the extra default risk, but that cushion will evaporate quickly if spreads tighten during the next few months. Buy Mexican Bonds While most spread products have benefited from the Fed’s pause, delivering excellent year-to-date returns. We notice that the spreads on Mexico’s USD-denominated sovereign debt have not tightened alongside other comparable credits (Chart 8). This presents an attractive opportunity. Chart 8Mexican Bonds: An Attractive Opportunity Mexican Bonds: An Attractive Opportunity Mexican Bonds: An Attractive Opportunity When we compare 12-month breakeven spreads between the USD-denominated sovereign debt of different emerging market countries versus the spreads on equivalently-rated U.S. corporate bonds, we see that Mexico has now joined Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Poland as the only countries that offer attractive compensation relative to the U.S. corporate sector (Chart 9). Chart 9 Why has this happened? Our Emerging Markets Strategy service postulates that many investors fear that the new political regime will bring fiscal profligacy, but in fact, the AMLO administration is proving to be less populist and more pragmatic than expected.4 The 2019 budget, for example, targets a primary surplus of 1% of GDP, and envisages a decline in nominal expenditures in 29 out of 56 categories. This commitment to sound fiscal policy should benefit Mexican sovereign bond spreads. More fundamentally, our Emerging Markets strategists note that the Mexican peso is very cheap as measured by the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs. This is not surprising given that the peso has been relatively flat versus the dollar during the past two years, despite interest rates being much higher in Mexico than in the U.S. The Mexican 10-year real yield is currently 4.1%, well above real GDP growth which was 2.6% during the past four quarters (Chart 10). Contrast that with the U.S., where the 10-year real yield is a meagre 0.8% versus real GDP growth of 3% during the past four quarters. In other words, interest rate differentials favor a stronger peso, which is positive for USD-denominated sovereign spreads. Chart 10Good Time To Add USD-Denominated Mexican Bonds To A Portfolio Good Time To Add USD-Denominated Mexican Bonds To A Portfolio Good Time To Add USD-Denominated Mexican Bonds To A Portfolio Though the Mexican/U.S. interest rate differential remains wide, it is likely to compress going forward. Elevated Mexican interest rates relative to growth signal that monetary policy is restrictive. A fact that is already evident in decelerating Mexican money supply (Chart 10, bottom panel). Meanwhile, low U.S. real yields relative to GDP suggest that further Fed tightening is necessary before U.S. rates are similarly restrictive. Bottom Line: Mexico’s USD-denominated sovereign debt is attractively priced relative to similarly-rated U.S. corporate credit. U.S. fixed income investors should take the opportunity to add USD-denominated Mexican bonds to their portfolios. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caught Offside”, dated February 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3      The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required over the next 12 months for the corporate bond to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. We use the breakeven spread instead of the average index spread because it takes into account the changing duration of the bond indexes. 4      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting China’s Stimulus”, dated January 17, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Investors like to hear non-consensus views, … : Part of our role is to help clients think about all of the potential outcomes, including ones that may not be as improbable as commonly believed. … but it seems that our Fed/rates call is starting to strike them as a little too non-consensus: Clients are having a hard time seeing the potential for inflation after ten years of errant predictions that it’s just around the corner. From our perspective, the probability of higher-rate outcomes is considerably higher than the probability of lower-rate outcomes, … : An investor with a low-duration bias has a whole lot more ways to win than an investor with a high-duration bias. … so we’re staying the course: We continue to recommend underweighting Treasuries and maintaining below-benchmark duration exposure, which aligns with our constructive take on markets and the economy. It’s too early to get defensive if a recession is at least a year away. Feature BCA clients like to hear contrarian calls, and there is little that’s more deflating from a strategist’s perspective than to be told in a meeting that his/her views are the same as everyone else’s. Except for the handful of strategists who make their living from provocative views that have almost no chance of coming to fruition, however, the calls have to be plausible. For many investors, our inflation concerns seem to be straining the bounds of plausibility. Even if BCA has only lately begun to beat the inflation drums, investors have had enough of warnings about inflation and interest-rate spikes that have repeatedly failed to come to pass. Regular readers are familiar with our contention that the sizable injection of fiscal stimulus into an economy already operating at capacity is a sure-fire recipe for inflation. They are also familiar with our view that an extremely tight labor market will necessarily give rise to robust wage gains. We have repeatedly argued that the Fed will respond to the combination of inflation pressures by hiking the fed funds rate above its equilibrium level, bringing the curtain down on the expansion and the equity bull market. With a Special Report examining the links between wage gains, consumer price inflation, and the Fed’s reaction function on the way, we’re instead devoting this week’s report to several other reasons why an investor would want to maintain below-benchmark duration in a fixed-income portfolio. Oil Prices Will Rise There is a good reason for devising core price indexes that smooth out the volatility inherent in food and energy prices. Core indexes provide a better read on the underlying inflation trend, and are a better predictor of moves in headline inflation than the headline indexes themselves. Inflation-linked Treasuries (TIPS) are tied to headline CPI, however, leaving the long-run inflation break-evens at the mercy of swings in oil prices (Chart 1). As we have previously written, our commodity strategists view the October-November swoon as a one-off event disconnected from market fundamentals that will quickly be unwound1 (Chart 2). Chart 1As Oil Goes, So Go Inflation Expectations, ... As Oil Goes, So Go Inflation Expectations, ... As Oil Goes, So Go Inflation Expectations, ... Chart 2... And Oil Prices Are Poised To Rise ... And Oil Prices Are Poised To Rise ... And Oil Prices Are Poised To Rise One need not fear that a rise in oil prices, while giving a fillip to headline inflation, would slow the economy and thereby offset inflation’s upward pressure on rates. Now that the U.S. is the world’s largest oil producer, its economy and financial markets are no longer negatively correlated with oil prices (Chart 3). It is still true that falling oil prices amount to a tax cut for American businesses and households, but they now also amount to fewer high-paying jobs in the oil patch, reduced earnings in an important domestic industry, and tighter monetary conditions as fracking bond spreads widen. Chart 3No Longer A Contrary Indicator No Longer A Contrary Indicator No Longer A Contrary Indicator Bottom Line: Higher oil prices will push headline inflation and inflation expectations higher, while also boosting the economy at the margin. The combination promotes higher bond yields, all else equal. The Economy’s Improved. Yields Haven’t Budged. Though we attributed the bulk of the fourth-quarter selloff to misplaced fears that the Fed was pulling the rug out from under the expansion, the economy was finding it harder and harder to produce positive surprises. By late January, however, the expectations bar had been reset low enough that new releases began surpassing it, day in and day out (until the end of last week). So far, though, the 10-year Treasury yield has stubbornly failed to reflect the improvement (Chart 4). Chart 4Surprises Turned Around, But Yields Didn't Surprises Turned Around, But Yields Didn't Surprises Turned Around, But Yields Didn't Financial conditions tightened sharply upon the sudden widening in corporate bond spreads and the sudden drop in equity prices. We viewed the seize-up as equivalent to at least a quarter-point increase in the fed funds rate and thereby found pausing to be a perfectly logical course of action for the Fed. The swiftness of the subsequent bounce in risk assets – the S&P 500 has retraced more than two-thirds of its losses and high-yield bonds have retraced close to 60% of their spread widening – has gone a long way toward undoing last quarter’s tightening. With the recovery in financial conditions, all three components of our Fed monitor now point to a need for tighter monetary conditions (Chart 5). Chart 5The Fed Can Pause, But It Can't Stop The Fed Can Pause, But It Can't Stop The Fed Can Pause, But It Can't Stop Adaptive Expectations’ Sluggish Response Investors’ inflation outlooks adhere closely to an adaptive expectations framework in which future predictions are largely a function of inflation’s recent path (Chart 6). This is not unreasonable; one could do a lot worse than pick the Patriots to reach the Super Bowl or only South American and European (ex-England) teams to win the World Cup. Adaptive expectations can fall prey to the recency bias, however, in which individuals overemphasize the most recent data points to the exclusion of older, potentially more representative data when forming their future views. From a recency-bias perspective, adaptive expectations can trap investors like the mythical frog contentedly lingering in a pot of water that’s only slowly brought to a boil. Chart 6Inflation Forecasts Take Their Cue From The Past ... Inflation Forecasts Take Their Cue From The Past ... Inflation Forecasts Take Their Cue From The Past ... We are skeptical of the notion that there will be no more inflation because there’s been no inflation since the crisis. The trend may be your friend, but not once the output gap has closed and the unemployment gap is persistently negative. Using the 10-year CPI forecast from the Philly Fed’s Survey of Professional Forecasters as an inflation-expectations proxy, one could argue that the lion’s share of the outsized gains in the pre-crisis phase of the bond bull market resulted from excessively generous inflation compensation (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7... Which Is Great For Investors When Inflation Trends Lower ... Which Is Great For Investors When Inflation Trends Lower ... Which Is Great For Investors When Inflation Trends Lower The excessive compensation was a by-product of adaptive expectations. After the experience of the mid-seventies and early eighties (Chart 8), investors and issuers both assumed inflation would be higher than it turned out to be. Today’s bond-market participants, conditioned by ten years of soggy post-crisis readings, could well assume that inflation will be lower than it ultimately turns out to be. That may leave long-maturity bondholders with insufficient compensation, just like their early-fifties forebears. Chart 8Long Stretches Of Low Inflation May Be Bad For Future Treasury Returns Long Stretches Of Low Inflation May Be Bad For Future Treasury Returns Long Stretches Of Low Inflation May Be Bad For Future Treasury Returns Reversal Of Globalization The apex of globalization has been a key theme of our Geopolitical Strategy service since its launch. We cannot go as far as they sometimes do, arguing that globalization did more to bring inflation to heel than Paul Volcker, but it surely has been an important factor in limiting wage gains for low- and semi-skilled workers (Chart 9), and has helped to stymie retail price increases. The imposition of new tariffs have exacerbated globalization’s reversal, but it had already begun before the 2016 presidential election. The Reagan-Thatcher-Koizumi policies that were ascendant after the fall of the Berlin Wall, boosting global growth while tamping down inflation, have been in retreat in the developed world ever since the crisis. Chart 9China Syndrome China Syndrome China Syndrome Decomposing Core CPI When assessing inflation’s future direction, our U.S. Bond Strategy colleagues decompose the core CPI series into its primary components: Shelter (42% of the index); Goods (25%); Services, excluding shelter and medical care (25%); and Medical Care (8%). They then look at the drivers for each of the largest three components for an advance read on their future direction. Home price appreciation and the rental vacancy rate power their shelter costs model. With home price appreciation decelerating but still positive, and the rental vacancy rate hovering around its all-time lows, the model projects that shelter costs will remain well above 3% (Chart 10, top panel). Chart 10Core Inflation Isn't About To Melt Core Inflation Isn't About To Melt Core Inflation Isn't About To Melt Core goods inflation lags non-oil import prices by about a year and a half. The path of import prices suggests that core goods inflation will have a tailwind for much of the rest of the year before facing a headwind next year that will push it back to its current levels (Chart 10, second panel). Wage growth is the best predictor of core services inflation, ex-shelter and medical care (Chart 10, third panel). We expect continued upward pressure on services inflation, as labor-market slack continues to be absorbed, keeping wage growth accelerating. The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Simplicity is a virtue in investment recommendations, models, and rationales, and our U.S. Bond Strategy colleagues’ golden rule of bond investing is elegantly simple.2 If Fed rate hikes exceed market expectations over a given time horizon, overweight duration positions will underperform over that horizon, and if Fed hikes fail to meet market expectations, overweight duration positions will outperform. Now that the money market has entirely priced out any rate-hike prospects over the next two years (Chart 11), overweight duration positions face a challenging backdrop. How will the fed funds rate surprise to the downside from here? Chart 11The Money Market Is Calling For A Rate Cut The Money Market Is Calling For A Rate Cut The Money Market Is Calling For A Rate Cut It can’t unless the Fed carries out more than one 25-basis-point cut in the next year or so. Given the underlying strength of the economy, gathering inflation pressures, and the swift unwinding of much of the tightening in financial conditions, rate cuts are a stretch. Against the current backdrop, the golden rule is a stern warning away from the longer-maturity reaches of the Treasury curve. Investment Implications We continue to stay the course with our fixed-income recommendations. If the Fed’s pause will extend the expansion for a few more months, it will extend the shelf life of our underweight Treasuries and overweight spread product recommendations, as well. As outlined above, we see many more potential catalysts for higher interest rates than we do for lower rates. We reiterate our recommendation that investors maintain below-benchmark duration across fixed-income segments. The expansion, and the bull markets in risk assets, will eventually end, but it’s too soon to position portfolios for it.   Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see the U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “What Does Oil’s Slide Mean?,” published November 26, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing,” published July 24, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights In their current form and size, perpetual bonds issuance and the central bank bills swap program are unlikely game-changers for the banking system in China. However, this mechanism constitutes monetization of banks’ capital and bad assets, i.e., recapitalization of banks, by the PBoC via quantitative easing. Hence, this scheme can be presently viewed as a bazooka that has not yet been loaded by the government. If the authorities pursue this program on a large scale without forcing banks to acknowledge and write off bad assets, banks would regain power to expand their balance sheets, fostering a cyclical economic recovery. Nevertheless, the growth model based on continuous “out of thin air” money and credit expansion inevitably leads to falling productivity growth and rising inflation. Therefore, the economic outcome over the course of several years would be stagflation, which is profoundly bearish for the currency. Feature The Chinese authorities recently launched a Central Bank Bills Swap (CBS) program to boost liquidity and facilitate issuance of commercial banks’ perpetual bonds. Box I-1 on pages 12-13 elaborates on the scheme and provides more detail about the program. Under the CBS program, Chinese banks can buy each other’s perpetual bonds, then exchange these bonds for central bank bills and pledge those bills at the People Bank of China (PBoC) to receive funding. Insurance companies are also allowed to purchase perpetual bonds, but they cannot pledge them with the central bank for funding. What are the macro implications of this program? Can the government use this scheme to recapitalize the banking system? Does the CBS program amount to quantitative easing? Will it be sufficient to boost credit growth in China in 2019? We have conditional answers to these questions – i.e., they all depend on the extent to which the scheme is actually utilized by the authorities. On the one hand, the CBS program could potentially become a proverbial bazooka used by the government to recapitalize the banking system via the PBoC monetizing banks’ bad assets. By doing so, the PBoC would be expanding its balance sheet by injecting excess reserves into the banking system – i.e., quantitative easing. Consequently, it could help banks accelerate credit and money growth, in turn helping the economy. The long-run collateral damage in this scenario, however, would be an RMB depreciation. On the other hand, the authorities could limit the usage of the scheme via various regulatory approvals and norms. In such a case, the impact of the program on money/credit growth and the real economy as well as on the exchange rate would be limited. In other words, it might end up being no more than a tool to help the four large banks meet BIS's TLAC requirements. At the moment, there is not enough information to determine whether the program will be a game changer for the banking system in China, leading to a surge in credit and broader economic recovery. Both total assets and broad credit growth among banks remain very weak for now (Chart I-1). In other words, it is a bazooka that has not been loaded, and may never be loaded because of the potential for seriously negative ramifications over the long term. Chart I-1Chinese Banks: Total Assets And Broad Credit Growth Chinese Banks: Total Assets And Broad Credit Growth Chinese Banks: Total Assets And Broad Credit Growth Consequently, we maintain our view that China’s growth will continue to disappoint in the first half of 2019, and that China-related plays, including many emerging markets (EM), remain at risk of a renewed selloff. Bank Recapitalization? In theory, the issuance of perpetual bonds along with the CBS program can be used to recapitalize the banking system. Each bank can buy perpetual bonds issued by other banks up to 10% of their core Tier-1 capital. These banks can get cheap financing from the PBoC by swapping these perpetual bonds with central bank bills, and then pledging those bills at the central bank to get funding. Hence, under this scheme, the PBoC will be financing purchases of perpetual bonds, which means the monetary authorities will indirectly be funding banks’ recapitalization. It is an “open secret” that Chinese banks would be considerably undercapitalized if they were forced to recognize non-performing assets. The non-performing loan (NPL) ratio currently stands at 1.9%, and the special-mention loans ratio is at 3.2%; and the sum of both is at 5.1% of total loans (Chart I-2, top panel). NPL provisions presently amount to 3.4% of total loans. Chart I-2Chinese Banks Are Massively Under-Provisioned Chinese Banks Are Massively Under-Provisioned Chinese Banks Are Massively Under-Provisioned When expressed as a share of total risk-weighted assets, the aggregate NPLs and special-mention loans are equal to 4.2% (Chart I-2, bottom panel). At 2.8% of risk-weighted assets, NPL provisions are extremely inadequate. Assuming non-performing assets turn out to be 10% of total risk-weighted assets, some 40% of banks' capital would be wiped out, according to our simulation presented in Table I-1. This is after accounting for existing provisions and assuming a 20% recovery rate of non-performing assets. Chart I- Provided that risk-weighting assigns a zero weight to banks’ claims on the government, a 50% risk weight to claims on households and a 100% weight to claims on companies, the assumption of 10% of non-performing assets in total risk-weighted assets is reasonable. This is especially the case when the enormous credit boom of the past 10 years is taken into consideration. As a result, in this scenario the capital adequacy ratio (CAR) will drop from its current level of 13.8% to 9.4%. This will bring the CAR below the regulatory minimum of 11%. To raise the CAR to the regulatory minimum of 11%, the banking system would require RMB 2 trillion of capital. This is greater than the maximum potential demand for perpetual bonds that we estimate to be up to RMB 1.4 trillion. To estimate this number, we assumed all banks purchase perpetual bonds in amounts equal to 5% of their core Tier-1 capital and all insurance companies buy perpetual bonds in an amount equal to 5% of assets. This is not an underestimation of potential demand for perpetual bonds since there are currently limitations on banks’ ability to issue and purchase these bonds as elaborated in Box I-1 on pages 12-13. In short, it is not clear if perpetual bond issuance and the CBS will be sufficient to undertake full recapitalization of the banking system and allow banks to accelerate their balance sheet expansion to finance an economic recovery. Bottom Line: In their current form and shape, perpetual bonds and the CBS program are unlikely to be a game-changer for the banking system in China. However, if the authorities eliminate limitations and change regulatory norms, the scheme could potentially be used to recapitalize China’s banking system. This is why this scheme can presently be viewed as a bazooka that has not yet been loaded by the government. Does CBS Represent QE? Its Impact On Liquidity And Money Supply The CBS program is a form of quantitative easing (QE). It will expand the PBoC’s balance sheet and banking system liquidity (excess reserves at the central bank), as elaborated in Box I-1 and Diagram I-1 on pages 12-14. If pursued on a large scale, this scheme would constitute monetization of banks’ capital and their bad assets by the central bank. The mechanism is already in place, but the extent to which authorities will use it to recapitalize banks remains unclear. Even though the CBS program will expand banking system liquidity – i.e., excess reserves at the central bank – it will not – however - affect broad money supply. The basis is simple: Banks’ excess reserves at the central bank are not part of the broad money supply in any country. Banks use excess reserves to settle payments between one another and with the central bank. Banks do not lend out excess reserves. Further, only a central bank can create excess reserves, and it does so “out of thin air.” In brief, excess reserves rather than corporate and individual deposits constitute genuine banking system liquidity. Barring lending to or buying assets from non-banks – which does not typically occur outside of QE programs – central banks do not create broad money or deposits.1 Money/deposits, the ultimate purchasing power for economic agents, is created by commercial banks “out of thin air,” as we have discussed and illustrated in our series of reports on money, credit and savings.2 Having adequate capital and liquidity as well as positive risk appetite, banks can expand their balance sheets, i.e., originate loans and buy various securities. When banks make loans or purchase assets from non-banks, they simultaneously create deposits and new purchasing power. Chart I-3 demonstrates that in recent years, excess reserves in China’s banking system have been flat, yet banks’ assets and the supply of money has expanded tremendously. The opposite can also occur: Banks’ excess reserves can mushroom, but banks may actually be reluctant to grow their balance sheets. This was the case after the Lehman crisis with U.S. banks and in the wake of the European debt crisis with euro area banks. Chart I-3China: Excess Reserves And Broad Money China: Excess Reserves And Broad Money China: Excess Reserves And Broad Money Finally, we have elaborated at great length in our past reports that China’s money and credit excesses do not stem from its high household savings rate. Rather, like any credit bubble in any country, China’s leverage is due to the creation of credit/money “out of thin air.”2 Bottom Line: Perpetual bond issuance and the CBS program will expand the banking system’s excess reserves, but not broad money supply. Besides, it is not certain that excess reserves will accelerate loan growth. Credit origination by banks depends on many other factors such as banks’ willingness to expand their risk assets, loan demand and the regulatory regime and norms. Deleveraging Has Not Yet Started One cannot discuss the potential for a monetary bazooka in China without an update on the status of deleveraging. The fact is that deleveraging in China has not even begun: Credit is still expanding faster than nominal GDP growth. The most common way to measure leverage/debt is to compare it with the cash flow that is used to service debt. Nominal GDP is a measure of cash flow in an economy from a macro perspective. The debt-to-asset ratio is a poor measure of leverage because asset valuations are often subjective: Assets are valued by debtors themselves. Besides, apart from distressed credit investors, one does not want to be a creditor to a country or company that has to sell assets to service its debt. Stock and bond prices of debtor countries or companies tailspin when the latter have to sell assets to service debt. The top panel of Chart I-4 illustrates that China’s enterprise and household domestic credit/debt is still expanding at an annual rate of close to 10% at a time when nominal GDP growth has slowed to 8%. Chart I-4China: Deleveraging Has Not Even Begun China: Deleveraging Has Not Even Begun China: Deleveraging Has Not Even Begun Consistently, the debt to GDP ratio has not declined at all (Chart I-4, bottom panel). In this context, a rhetorical question is in order: Should China ramp up money/credit growth and monetize banks’ NPLs, given that deleveraging has yet to take place? Economic Ramifications Of Deploying The Bazooka What would be the economic ramifications if the Chinese authorities once again promote and allow unrelenting money/credit expansion “out of thin air” to bail out zombie banks and companies? Cyclically: If the authorities compel banks to acknowledge NPLs and write them off as and when the PBoC finances their recapitalization, banks may not be in a position to accelerate loan growth. This scenario entails that credit growth and hence cyclical sectors in China would remain weak for a while. In contrast, if the authorities pursue recapitalization of banks without forcing them to acknowledge and write off bad assets, banks would regain their power to expand their balance sheets, fostering a cyclical economic recovery. Structurally (in the long term): The growth model based on continuous “out of thin air” money and credit expansion inevitably breeds economic inefficiencies, falling productivity growth and rising inflation. In short, the economic outcome over the course of several years would be stagflation. Chart I-5 illustrates that China’s ICOR (incremental capital-to-output ratio) is rising, or inversely that the output-to-capital ratio is falling. This entails worsening economic efficiency and slowing productivity growth. Chart I-5Symptoms Of Rising Inefficiencies Symptoms Of Rising Inefficiencies Symptoms Of Rising Inefficiencies Chart I-6 shows a potential stylized roadmap for the Chinese economy in the years ahead if the credit and money bubbles are inflated further without corporate restructuring, bankruptcies, the imposition of hard budget constraints and meaningfully improved capital/credit allocation. The red line represents potential GDP growth, and the dotted red line is our projection. Chart I-6 In any economy, the potential growth rate is equal to the sum of growth rates of the labor force and productivity. China’s labor force is no longer expanding and will begin shrinking in the coming years (Chart I-7). Hence, going forward, the sole source of potential GDP growth in China will be productivity growth. Productivity growth has been slowing and will continue to do so if structural market-oriented reforms are not implemented (Chart I-8, top panel). Besides, the industrialization ratio has already risen a lot (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7China: No Tailwind From Labor Force China: No Tailwind From Labor Force China: No Tailwind From Labor Force Chart I-8China: Productivity Is Slowing China: Productivity Is Slowing China: Productivity Is Slowing With the potential GDP growth rate in China declining, future fiscal and credit stimulus may lead to higher nominal – but not real – growth. The latter will be constrained by a slowing rate of potential real GDP growth. Higher nominal but weaker potential (real) growth entails rising inflation. The combination of higher inflation along with the need to maintain very low nominal interest rates to assist debtors is bearish for the currency. In such a scenario, there will be intensifying depreciation pressure on the yuan from the tremendous overhang of RMBs in the banking system (Chart I-9). The PBoC’s foreign exchange reserves of $3 trillion will not be sufficient to backstop the enormous amount of RMB (money) supply of RMB 210 trillion – which is equivalent to US$30 trillion (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Helicopter Money In China Helicopter Money In China Helicopter Money In China Chart I-10PBoC FX Reserves Are Equal To 10% Of Broad Money Supply PBoC FX Reserves Are Equal To 10% Of Broad Money Supply PBoC FX Reserves Are Equal To 10% Of Broad Money Supply If broad money supply continues to expand at an annual rate of close to 9-10% or above, downward pressure on the yuan will escalate immensely, and the Chinese authorities will have no choice but to close the capital account completely and also heavily regulate current account transactions. Bottom Line: If the authorities do not restrain the PBoC’s financing of perpetual bond issuance via the CBS and in the interim do not force banks to write off bad assets, the upshot will be the monetization of banks’ bad assets by the PBoC. This will constitute the ultimate socialist put for banks and zombie debtors, as well as for the entire economy. Business cycle swings, bankruptcies and deflation are inherent features of a market-driven/capitalist economy. A socialist put via promoting unlimited money and credit creation entails long-term stagflation – lower productivity growth and rising inflation. This is very bearish for the currency. Investment Conclusions To be sure, the above analysis suggests that the bazooka has not been loaded and the Chinese economy is not about to stage an imminent recovery. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team maintains its bearish stance on China-related plays worldwide. We are closely monitoring China’s money and credit aggregates as well as indicators from the real economy to gauge when China’s business cycle will revive. So far, these indicators continue to point south. EM risk assets and currencies have recently been boosted by the Federal Reserve’s dovish turn. But as we argued in last week’s report, this will prove short-lived. Global trade, China’s growth and commodities prices are the key drivers of EM financial markets, not the Fed. Provided our negative outlook for these three factors due to the ongoing slowdown in China, we continue to recommend a negative stance on EM in absolute terms, and underweighting EM stocks and credit versus their U.S. peers. The dollar’s weakness stemming from the downshift in U.S. interest rate expectations is running out of steam. Chart I-11 shows that the broad trade-weighted dollar is trying to find support at its 200-day moving average. Conversely, the EM stocks index and copper prices are struggling to break above their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-11, middle and bottom panels). Chart I-11Dollar And EM / Commodities: Mirror Images Dollar And EM / Commodities: Mirror Images Dollar And EM / Commodities: Mirror Images We believe the dollar is poised for a breakout, and EM and copper are due for a breakdown. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com   Box 1 Issuance Of Perpetual Bonds And CBS Program The authorities are promoting the issuance of perpetual bonds and the CBS program as a scheme for the country’s big-four banks to raise capital to meet BIS ’s Total Loss-absorbing Capacity (TLAC) requirements for globally systemically important banks. Limitations and other details on the perpetual bonds issuance and CBS program: 24 out of 30 banks listed on the A-share market are presently qualified to issue perpetual bonds as their assets exceed RMB 200 billion, a threshold established by the PBoC. Perpetual bonds will boost the Tier-1 capital of issuing banks. Banks are allowed to purchase perpetual bonds issued by other banks in amounts up to 10% of their core Tier-1 capital. Only primary dealers (46 banks and 2 brokers) can exchange qualified perpetual bonds they hold for PBoC bills, with a maximum exchange period of three years. The incentive for banks to purchase perpetual bonds will for now be low because these bonds consume large amounts of capital. The risk weights for these perpetual bonds ranges between 150-250%. How Does It Work? As Diagram I-1 on page 14 illustrates, when Bank B purchases perpetual bonds from Bank A, the former transfers excess reserves to the latter. The amount of outstanding deposits, i.e., money supply, is not affected at all. Hence, there is no direct impact on the broad money supply. Chart I- Banks do not require deposits to make loans and buy securities. Banks need excess reserves at the central bank to pay for or settle payments with other banks. When Bank B transfers excess reserves to Bank A, the aggregate amount of excess reserves in the banking system does not change. Bank B can swap these perpetual bonds with central bank bills, and then pledge these bills at the PBoC to get excess reserves. As it does so, Bank B will replenish its excess reserves. Consequently, the amount of excess reserves in the banking system will expand, as will the PBoC’s balance sheet. Overall, the issuance of perpetual bonds and CBS swaps lead to both bank recapitalization and banking system liquidity (excess reserves) expansion. Why has the PBoC decided to fund the issuance of perpetual bonds? Without PBoC funding, demand for perpetual bonds might be very low, and yields on them could spike. Higher yields could lure away capital from other corporate bonds, producing higher borrowing costs in credit markets. On the positive side, the monetary authorities will not only recapitalize a number of large banks but will also do so by capping borrowing costs in the credit markets and injecting more liquidity into the banking system. On the negative side, yields of these perpetual bonds will not be determined by the market. Rather they will be artificially suppressed by potential open-ended PBoC funding. This will preserve China’s inefficient credit allocation system and misallocation of capital in general. In a market economy, the authorities will typically force banks to raise capital in securities markets or privately. More issuance, especially when it comes from many banks simultaneously, typically pushes down the prices of bank stocks and bonds. The basis is securities issuance often dilutes existing shareholders and is also negative for bondholders. This threat of dilution and losing money incentivizes existing shareholders and bondholders of a bank to impose discipline on the bank’s management. Consequently, banks would be better run and capital allocation would be more efficient than it would otherwise be in a system where such oversight and incentives are absent. In brief, the market mechanism deters banks from risky and speculative behavior and contributes to the long-term health of the banking system, as well as the efficiency of capital allocation in the real economy. By allowing banks to purchase each other’s bonds, and with the PBoC financing it, China is not imposing the much-needed market discipline on bank shareholders, bondholders and by extension, bank management. This does not promote efficient capital allocation and higher productivity growth in the long run. Footnotes 1      Money supply is the sum of all deposits in the banking system. Hence, we use terms money and deposits interchangeably. 2      Please see the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses”, dated October 26, 2016, Special Report “China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB?”, dated November 23, 2016, Special Report “Do Credit Bubbles Originate From HIgh National Savings?”, dated January 18, 2017, Special Report “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings Wall'”, dated December 20, 2017 Special Report “Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China and Brazil”, dated March 22, 2018, available at www.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Stay tactically overweight to equities for the time being. Close the overweight to industrial commodities versus equities. The financials, basic resources, and industrials equity sectors can continue to outperform for a few months longer. EM can also continue to outperform DM for a few months longer. Overweight Germany’s DAX versus German bunds. The second half of the year is going to be much tougher than the first half. Feature Chart of the WeekPessimism Was Overdone: The Classical Cyclicals And EM Are Rebounding Pessimism Was Overdone: The Classical Cyclicals And EM Are Rebounding Pessimism Was Overdone: The Classical Cyclicals And EM Are Rebounding Locked In An Intimate Embrace Last week, we highlighted a frustrating truth: for the past 16 months the broad equity market has been on a journey to nowhere. Yet the journey has been far from boring. There have been exciting detours of 10-15 percent in both directions, albeit these moves have been short-lived, lasting no more than three months at a time. The same truth applies to the broad bond market: for the past sixteen months the global long bond yield – defined here as the average of the yields on the 30-year German bund yield and 30-year T-bond – has also ended up going nowhere. On this journey too, there have been exciting detours of up to 50 basis points in both directions, but these moves have also lasted no more than three months before retracing. It follows that for the past 16 months, the strategic allocation to equities, bonds and cash has had zero impact on investment performance, but the tactical allocation to the asset classes has had a huge impact. Yet here’s the thing: the sharp tactical moves in the bond market and in the stock market have been intimately embraced. When the global long bond yield has approached the top of its range, it has catalysed a sharp sell-off in equities; and when the bond yield has approached the bottom of its range, it has catalysed a sharp rally in equities (Chart I-2). In fact, over the past 16 months, asset allocation has boiled down to a very simple trading rule based on the global long bond yield: above 2.2 percent, sell equities; below 1.95 percent, buy equities. Today, the yield stands at 1.85 percent, suggesting a tactically overweight stance to equities. Chart I-2The Sharp Tactical Moves In The Bond Market And Stock Market Are Intimately Connected The Sharp Tactical Moves In The Bond Market And Stock Market Are Intimately Connected The Sharp Tactical Moves In The Bond Market And Stock Market Are Intimately Connected The Persistent Trends Are In Sectors Some investors cannot shift their portfolios quickly enough to exploit the tactical opportunities in the markets. They need trends that persist for at least six months to a year. The good news is that these more persistent trends do exist, but to find them you have to look at equity sectors, and specifically the classically cyclical sectors (Chart of the Week). The financials and basic resources sectors were in strong relative downtrends through most of 2018; but for the last four months these classically cyclical sectors have flipped into very clear uptrends (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). The same is true for industrials, albeit the end of the downtrend has happened more recently (Chart I-5). Chart I-3Financials Are Rebounding Financials Are Rebounding Financials Are Rebounding Chart I-4Basic Resources Are Rebounding Basic Resources Are Rebounding Basic Resources Are Rebounding Chart I-5Industrials Are Rebounding Industrials Are Rebounding Industrials Are Rebounding For the avoidance of doubt, technology is not a classically cyclical sector because the sales of technology products – particularly to consumers – are relatively insensitive to short-term fluctuations in the economy. In fact, the relative performance of technology is an almost perfect mirror-image of financials (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Technology Sector Is Not A Classical Cyclical The Technology Sector Is Not A Classical Cyclical The Technology Sector Is Not A Classical Cyclical Neither is the chemicals sector a classical cyclical. Given that raw material prices are an input cost for chemical manufacturers, the chemicals sector can underperform when raw material prices are rising in a cyclical up-oscillation (Chart I-7). It follows that the three true classically cyclical sectors are: financials, basic resources and industrials. Chart I-7The Chemicals Sector Is Not A Classical Cyclical The Chemicals Sector Is Not A Classical Cyclical The Chemicals Sector Is Not A Classical Cyclical What if your investment process does not allow you to invest in sectors and benefit from their well-defined and longer trends? The good news is that you can play these same trends through regional and country stock market indexes. We refer readers to previous reports for the details, but the crucial message is that regional and country relative performances stem from nothing more than the stock markets’ defining sector skews combined with sector relative performances.1 This revelation of what truly drives regional and country relative performance is bittersweet. It is sweet because it simplifies an investment process that can be very complicated. But it is also bitter because it highlights that the investment industry is still replete with unnecessary layers of complexity. Still, just to drive home the point, we would like the charts to do the talking. The relative performance of financials, the relative performance of Italy’s MIB, and the relative performance of Emerging Markets (EM) versus Developed Markets (DM) are all effectively one and the same story (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8One And The Same Story: Financials And Italy... One And The Same Story: Financials And Italy... One And The Same Story: Financials And Italy... Chart I-9...And Financials And EM Versus DM ...And Financials And EM Versus DM ...And Financials And EM Versus DM What Are The Markets Telling Us, And Do We Agree? Another very common question we get is: what is our forecast for economic growth and profits growth? For example, two questions on everyone’s lips right now are: can Germany avoid a technical recession, and what is our forecast for Germany’s growth from here? These are indeed important questions, but for investors they are not the most important questions. Financial markets are a discounting mechanism. So for investors, the most important question should always be: what is discounted in the current market price, and is that too optimistic or too pessimistic? Over-optimism and over-pessimism on the economy are especially important for the classically cyclical sectors because their profits have a very high operational gearing to their sales: a small change in the sales outcome has a huge impact on the profit outcome and, therefore, the price.  If the price is discounting a booming economy and what actually transpires is that the economy grows modestly, then a seemingly benign outcome of respectable growth will paradoxically cause the price to slump. Conversely, if the price is discounting a very pessimistic outcome and what actually transpires is anything better than the ultra-pessimism, then even a bad outcome will paradoxically cause the price to soar. In this regard, the recent underperformance of Germany’s DAX versus German bunds is at an extreme not far from that during the euro sovereign debt crisis in 2011-12 (Chart I-10). So the important question for investors is: will the actual economic outcome transpire to be as extreme as that? Our answer is that the extreme underperformance of the DAX versus bunds is discounting an overly pessimistic outcome, and on that basis the correct stance is to be overweight the DAX versus bunds.   Chart I-10Overly Pessimistic: The DAX Versus Bunds Overly Pessimistic: The DAX Versus Bunds Overly Pessimistic: The DAX Versus Bunds Turning to the classical cyclicals, these sectors have rebounded because their embedded assumptions for growth reached peak pessimism in October. Since then, the pessimism has abated at the margin because of improving short-term impulses from Chinese stimulus, lower global bond yields, and sharply lower energy prices. Given that positive (and negative) impulse phases reliably tend to last for six to eight months, our expectation is that this tailwind for the classical cyclical sectors – financials, basic resources, and industrials – can continue for a few months longer. Which means that the outperformance of EM versus DM can also continue for a few months longer. In terms of asset allocation, long industrial commodities versus equities worked very powerfully at the end of last year, but the relative merits of the two asset classes are now more evenly balanced. Hence, we are now closing this position in profit. Finally, our major concern is for later in the year when the aforementioned improving short-term impulses will inevitably fade, and even potentially reverse. Bear in mind that the impulses arise from the short-term changes in credit flows, bond yields, and the oil price. It follows that to recreate these positive impulses for later in the year, bond yields and/or the oil price have to keep falling. This is not our base case, so enjoy the positive impulses while they last! As the year progresses the investment environment is going to get much tougher. Fractal Trading System* The sharp underperformance of the Nikkei 225 versus the Hang Seng is at the limit of tight liquidity that has signaled all of the recent trend reversals in this relative position. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long the Nikkei 225 versus the Hang Seng. Set a profit target of 4.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. We now have seven 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. Chart I-11 Long Nikkei 225 Vs. Hang Seng Long Nikkei 225 Vs. Hang Seng 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, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnote 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Oil, Banks, And Bonds: The Oddities Of 2018”, dated November 29, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System 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 II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Uncertainty & Growth: There is currently a strong link between depressed global growth expectations and elevated levels of economic policy uncertainty (U.S.-China trade tensions, Brexit, etc). Monetary Policy: A growing number of central banks have taken “risk management” measures to try and prevent a deeper downturn in actual economic activity by shifting to a less hawkish policy bias – even with tight labor markets. Implications For Bond Yields: We do not expect the current soft patch for global growth to extend into a more prolonged period of weak activity, given that global policy rates remain at highly stimulative levels. This will set up the next wave of rising global bond yields, but likely not until the latter half of 2019 (and focused mostly on U.S. Treasury yields). Feature Central Banks Take Out Some Insurance The list of global central banks taking a more cautious stance on monetary policy expanded last week. The Bank of England and Reserve Bank of Australia both cut their growth forecasts for 2019 and signaled that there was no chance of interest rate increases in the near term. This follows similar guidance provided in recent weeks by the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada and Sweden’s Riksbank. There was even a dovish surprise in the emerging world, with the Reserve Bank of India delivering an unexpected rate cut last week. In Europe, the European Central Bank (ECB) has not yet shifted its already highly-dovish policy guidance (no rate hikes until at least September), but ECB President Mario Draghi recently noted that the downside risks to European growth have increased. The European Commission went a step further and downgraded its growth forecasts for 2019 last week. The Bank of Japan cut its inflation forecast for 2019 last month, also indicating that monetary policy would remain unchanged over at least the rest of the year. The language used by all of these policymakers to explain their dovish turn was eerily similar, highlighting elevated global uncertainty weighing on growth expectations and, through plunging asset prices, tightening financial conditions (Chart of the Week). The sources of that uncertainty are well known to investors: U.S.-China tariff negotiations, slowing global trade, Brexit, domestic U.S. political squabbles (i.e. government shutdowns over “The Wall”). Until those developments begin to get resolved, uncertainty will continue to weigh on economic confidence. Chart of the WeekThe “Risk Management” Approach To Setting Monetary Policy The 'Risk Management' Approach To Setting Monetary Policy The 'Risk Management' Approach To Setting Monetary Policy 21st Century central bankers mostly subscribe to a “risk management” approach to policymaking. This means setting policy dovish enough to cut off downside tail risks to growth during periods of elevated uncertainty about the economic outlook – especially when inflation is below policymaker targets. Yet central bankers remain devoted followers of the Phillips Curve framework. There is a limit to how dovish they can become while unemployment is low and wage growth is increasing. This limits how far government bond yields can fall if growth does not slow enough to cause unemployment to rise. So far, the softer global growth seen in recent quarters has not resulted in any increase in unemployment rates in the major developed economies. Of course, employment is a lagging variable. If the current soft patch for growth extends into a more prolonged slowdown in the coming months, resulting in companies cutting hiring or shedding labor to protect weakening profitability, then there is room for bond yields to continue to fall as markets begin to price in easier monetary policy. That is not our expectation. The U.S. economy remains on solid footing, and we anticipate additional policy actions from China to stabilize economic growth and put a floor under global trade activity. This will eventually cause central bankers to move back to a less dovish policy stance more consistent with trends in unemployment and inflation, with the U.S. Fed leading the way on that front in the latter half of 2019. The eventual result will be higher U.S. Treasury yields, both in absolute terms and relative to government bond yields of the other major developed economies. Bottom Line: There is currently a strong link between depressed global growth expectations and elevated levels of economic policy uncertainty. Central banks are taking the appropriate “risk management” measures to prevent a deeper downturn in actual economic activity by shifting to a less hawkish policy bias – even with tight labor markets. The Link Between Economic Confidence & Monetary Policy The pro-risk rally that opened 2019 endured its first test last week, with several major market prices – including the S&P 500 index, U.S. high-yield spreads, the 10-year Italy-Germany government bond yield differential and the DXY index of the U.S. dollar - bouncing off key medium-term moving averages (Chart 2). Purely from a technical analysis perspective, a test of the primary trends established in the latter half of 2018 (bearish equities and credit, bullish the U.S. dollar) was to be expected, particularly given the severity of the past selloff in global equity markets. Chart 2The First Test For The 2019 Risk Rally The First Test For The 2019 Risk Rally The First Test For The 2019 Risk Rally Investor sentiment towards global growth, however, remains pessimistic. Nervousness over the outcome for the U.S.-China trade talks, with the March 1 deadline fast approaching, is an obvious source of concern given how slowing Chinese import demand has spilled over so dramatically into weaker global trade activity (Chart 3). Yet there are several other dates for investors to fret about in the near term, including the deadline for a deal to avert another U.S. government shutdown (this Friday), the U.S. debt ceiling deadline (also March 1) and “Brexit day” in the U.K. (March 29). Chart 3A China-Led Slowing Of Global Trade A China-Led Slowing Of Global Trade A China-Led Slowing Of Global Trade Yet this current soft patch for the global economy is occurring alongside an extreme divergence between plunging growth expectations and more stable readings on current economic conditions. The fall in expectations is visible in the most countries, according to data series that measure confidence for businesses, consumers and investors. One such set of data that we pay close attention to is the ZEW survey. The ZEW survey, produced by a prominent German economic think tank, is most well-known for the data related to Germany itself. The ZEW also produces similar survey data measuring readings on “current conditions” and “expectations” for other major developed economies: the U.S., U.K., Japan, France, and Italy (as well as an aggregate measure for the entire euro area). This makes the ZEW data useful for conducting cross-country analysis of economic sentiment, as the survey structure and questions are consistent for each country. Looking at the individual country readings from the ZEW data, shown in Charts 4 and 5, it is clear that the depressed readings on global growth sentiment are similar across all major countries. Yet at the same time, the individual ZEW Current Conditions indices, while off their cyclical peaks, are exhibiting more diverse trends. The U.S., in particular, stands out as having a very robust reading on Current Conditions, which lines up with the overall firmness of the U.S. economic data. Chart 4A Co-Ordinated Decline Of Expectations, Not Actual Growth A Co-Ordinated Decline Of Expectations, Not Actual Growth A Co-Ordinated Decline Of Expectations, Not Actual Growth Chart 5The European Growth Slump Is Broad-Based The European Growth Slump Is Broad-Based The European Growth Slump Is Broad-Based The strong correlation between the ZEW Expectations readings suggests that there is a common factor causing market participants to become more worried about the outlook for global growth. These can all be summarized under “uncertainty”, for which we also have data available at the country level from the Economic Policy Uncertainty indices developed by researchers Scott Baker, Nick Bloom and Steven Davis.1 In Charts 6 and 7, we plot the Policy Uncertainty indices against the ZEW growth expectations indices for the individual countries/regions for which the ZEW conducts its surveys. The growth expectations data is shown inverted to correlate with the Policy Uncertainty indices. The visual relationship shows that the current period of elevated Policy Uncertainty has occurred alongside the plunge in growth expectations, seen most strongly in the U.S., U.K. and Italy. Chart 6Uncertainty Slamming Sentiment Hardest In The U.S. & U.K. Uncertainty Slamming Sentiment Hardest In The U.S. & U.K. Uncertainty Slamming Sentiment Hardest In The U.S. & U.K. Chart 7Germany Weathering The Storm Better Than Italy & France Germany Weathering The Storm Better Than Italy & France Germany Weathering The Storm Better Than Italy & France But can this link between uncertain and growth expectations result in an actual slowing of economic activity? Can slumping expectations become a self-fulfilling prophecy? One way to look at this is to see how growth expectations evolve relative to current economic growth. We show those gaps between the Current Conditions and Growth Expectations components of the ZEW survey in Charts 8 and 9. A rising line indicates a wide gap between Current Conditions and Expectations and vice versa. We also add real GDP growth in each panel of the charts, to compare that “ZEW Gap” to actual growth outcomes. Chart 8The “ZEW Gap” Now At Levels That Have Heralded Past Downturns … The 'ZEW Gap' Now At Levels That Have Heralded Past Downturns... The 'ZEW Gap' Now At Levels That Have Heralded Past Downturns... Chart 9… Within Europe Too … ...Within Europe Too... ...Within Europe Too... The current gap between the two measures is at or near the widest levels seen in the history of the ZEW data dating back to the early 1990s. The previous times that the ZEW Gap reached such levels, economic growth slowed for all the countries in the ZEW survey – most notably in the run-up to the recessions in the early 1990s, early 2000s and 2009. The ZEW Gap also accurately signaled the recessions seen within the euro area after the 2011 European Debt Crisis. The first implication of this result is large discrepencies between strong current growth and expectations almost always resolve themselves with actual weaker growth, if not outright recession – not a good sign for the global economy in the coming quarters. Yet one major difference between today and those prior episodes of a wide ZEW Gap is the level of monetary policy accommodation. In those prior episodes that ended in recession, central bankers raised policy rates to restrictive levels that eventually caused the growth slowdown. This can be seen in Chart 10, where we plot the ZEW Gaps vs the “Monetary Policy Gaps”, defined as the difference between actual central bank policy rates and an estimate of neutral rates derived from a simple Taylor Rule formula.2 Chart 10...But Monetary Policy Is Not Tight This Time ...But Monetary Policy Is Not Tight This Time ...But Monetary Policy Is Not Tight This Time Today, central banks are maintaining policy rates far below levels of neutral consistent with long-run potential growth and economies operating at or beyond full capacity – even with inflation rates that are below central bank targets. This should help cushion the blow from weakening growth expectations stemming from the current period of elevated economic uncertainty. The root cause of all recessions is always monetary policy that becomes too restrictive. Typically, that occurs directly through central banks hiking rates above neutral and actively engineering a growth slowdown. It can also occur if an external shock to growth is severe enough to depress economic activity faster than policymakers can identify the slowdown and respond with easier monetary policy. The latter appears to be the outcome that investors are most worried about today. Yet with central banks now turning more dovish in response to elevated uncertainty, at a time when monetary policy appears already highly stimulative, the odds of a monetary policy error crushing growth are low. We are more worried about the opposite outcome, where policymakers are giving more stimulus to a global economy that does not necessarily need it, given that overly tight monetary policy is not the main problem at the moment. In other words, policymakers who have become more dovish today will need to become less dovish later, if and when the current laundry list of uncertainties begin to get resolved. We think that is only a real issue in the U.S. at the moment, though. Our Central Bank Monitors continue to indicate that tighter monetary policy is still required in the U.S. (Chart 11), unlike the Monitors from the U.K., euro area and Japan – the other countries where we have looked at the expectations/uncertainty relationship. Thus, we expect U.S. Treasury yields to have more upside than German Bund, U.K. Gilt or Japanese government bonds over the next 6-12 months. Chart 11The Message From Our CB Monitors - Stay Underweight U.S. Treasuries The Message From Our CB Monitors - Stay Underweight U.S. Treasuries The Message From Our CB Monitors - Stay Underweight U.S. Treasuries Bottom Line: We do not expect the current soft patch for global growth to extend into a more prolonged period of weak activity, given that global policy rates remain at highly stimulative levels. This will set up the next wave of rising global bond yields, but likely not until the latter half of 2019 (and focused mostly on U.S. Treasury yields).   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The full set of global Policy Uncertainty Indices, with data downloads and methodological descriptions, can be found at  www.policyuncertainty.com. 2 Neutral Policy Rate = Potential GDP growth + central bank inflation target + (0.5 x (current inflation minus central bank inflation target)) +( 0.5 * the IMF estimate of the output gap)). Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index A Crisis Of Confidence? A Crisis Of Confidence? Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Treasury Yields & Data Surprises: Our model suggests that positive data surprises are more likely than negative ones during the next couple of months, meaning that the 10-year Treasury yield is biased higher. Positioning data show no long or short consensus among bond investors, but we think below-benchmark portfolio duration will pay off over both short term (0-3 months) and medium term (6-12) investment horizons. Monetary Policy: The Fed cited tighter financial conditions and slower global growth as the two main reasons for pausing the rate hike cycle. Both of those risks appear poised to ease in the coming months. Expect rate hikes to resume in the second half of 2019. Inflation: Year-over-year core inflation appears tame at the moment, but that will change during the next few months as base effects shift from a headwind to a tailwind. Wage acceleration and core services (excluding shelter and medical care) inflation will be the main drivers. Feature It didn’t take very long. Just two days in fact. Two days after Chairman Powell made the Fed’s pause official we learned that the economy added 304k jobs in January (vs. 165k expected) and that the ISM Manufacturing PMI rebounded to a very healthy 56.6 (vs. 54.0 expected). In short, just as the Fed capitulated on rate hikes, the economic data made that decision look offside. Granted, the bond market does not yet see it this way. The economic data surprise index has moved firmly into positive territory, but Treasury yields have so far refused to follow suit, bucking the typical correlation (Chart 1). Still, we can’t help but feel that consensus economic expectations remain overly downbeat, and that this could set the bond market up for a nasty near-term shock. Chart 1Market Set Up For A Surprise Market Set Up For A Surprise Market Set Up For A Surprise Bond Market At Risk In prior research, we documented the strong correlation between economic data surprises and changes in the 10-year Treasury yield.1 We found that if the U.S. economic surprise index ends a given month in positive territory, there is a good chance that the 10-year Treasury yield increased during that month, and vice-versa (Chart 2A). This relationship also holds reasonably well for 3-month and 6-month investment horizons (Charts 2B & 2C). Chart 2 Chart 2 Chart 2 This is a good thing to know, but it is only useful if we can also predict future economic data surprises. That is certainly no easy task. However, we can exploit what we know about market behavior to give ourselves a slight advantage. For instance, we know that investors revise down their economic expectations after a long string of data disappointments, making it easier for future data to surprise on the upside. Similarly, a long string of positive data surprises usually leads to unrealistically strong expectations, setting the market up for a letdown. This dynamic causes the economic surprise index to be a mean reverting series, and we find that we can explain 55% of its historical variation using the following 3-factor auto regressive model: ESIt+1 = 0.87*(ESIt) – 0.25*(ESIt-1) – 0.16*(ESIt-2), where ESIt is the surprise index’s value in the current month Notice that next month’s index value is a positive function of the current month’s value, but a negative function of the values from each of the prior two months. At present, our model predicts that the surprise index will reach 18 one month from now (see the ‘X’ in Chart 1). As shown in Table 1, a reading of 18 from the surprise index coincides with a higher 10-year Treasury yield 53% of the time. Table 1End-Of-Period Surprise Index Levels And Whether The 10-Year Yield Rose Or Fell During That Period (2003 – Present) Caught Offside Caught Offside Bond Market Positioning Investor positioning and data surprises are closely related concepts. When investor economic expectations are downbeat, it is highly likely that bond market participants also carry a lot of duration risk. A large “net long” duration exposure can make the ensuing bond sell-off worse when the data inevitably surprise to the upside. At present, the JPMorgan Duration Survey shows that investors are neither severely long nor short duration risk (Chart 3). Speculators in 10-year Treasury futures are slightly net short (Chart 3, panel 2), and sentiment surveys report that investors are somewhat bearish on bonds (Chart 3, bottom panel). In general, positioning still has a slightly bearish tinge, but is much closer to neutral than it was a few months ago, prior to the sharp plunge in yields. Chart 3Positioning Close To Neutral Positioning Close To Neutral Positioning Close To Neutral Bottom Line: Our model suggests that positive data surprises are more likely than negative ones during the next couple of months, meaning that the 10-year Treasury yield is biased higher. Extreme “net long” bond market positioning would exacerbate any related near-term sell-off, but surveys indicate that positioning is close to neutral. This leads us to expect higher yields in the next few months, but no major market dislocation. The Fed’s Dovish Pivot We have not published a regular Weekly Report since the FOMC signaled a pause in its rate hike cycle on January 30. Since then, many have speculated that the Fed’s rate hike cycle is already over and the market has eagerly taken that message on board. As of last Friday’s close, the overnight index swap curve was priced for 11 bps of rate cuts during the next 12 months and 23 bps of rate cuts during the next 24 months. Data Dependence  Unfortunately for bond bulls, the case for rate cuts is simply not supported by the economic data. In fact, a look at the reasons used to justify the Fed’s dovish pivot reveals that the pause in rate hikes will almost certainly prove temporary. In his post-meeting press conference, Chairman Powell attributed the Fed’s dovish turn to the following factors: Tighter financial conditions Slower global growth Government-related risks (i.e. Brexit, U.S./China trade discussions, and the U.S. government shutdown) Financial Conditions Financial conditions tightened sharply near the end of last year, as can been seen by looking at the three components of our Fed Monitor (Chart 4). Our Fed Monitor is a composite indicator designed to predict whether rate hikes or rate cuts are more likely going forward. It includes 44 variables related to either economic growth, inflation or financial conditions. Chart 4Financial Conditions Have Already Eased Financial Conditions Have Already Eased Financial Conditions Have Already Eased The most important thing to note from Chart 4 is that all of the Monitor’s recent decline was driven by tighter financial conditions. The economic growth and inflation components of the Monitor remain firmly in “tight money required” territory. This is important because financial conditions can ease as quickly as they can tighten. Ironically, now that the Fed has telegraphed a more supportive policy stance, a rally in risk assets during the next few months is much more likely. As that transpires it will drive our Monitor deeper into “tight money required” territory, and rate hikes will be back on the table. Global Growth The second factor that Powell mentioned was the slowdown in global growth, driven principally by weakness in China and the Eurozone (Chart 5). Interestingly, at the European Central Bank’s (ECB) latest press conference, ECB President Mario Draghi also blamed “softer external demand” for the weakness in European economic data. Chart 5Global Growth Slowdown Driven By China Global Growth Slowdown Driven By China Global Growth Slowdown Driven By China The logical conclusion is that China has been the catalyst for the global slowdown and that the Eurozone economy has come under pressure because of that region’s greater reliance on China as a source of demand. The fact that the Eurozone is more sensitive to Chinese growth than the U.S. is a topic that our Foreign Exchange Strategy service has covered in great detail.2 The Fed obviously cares more about the domestic economy than overall global growth, but weakness abroad has a habit of migrating stateside via a stronger dollar.3 It would certainly help the case for rate hikes if Chinese (and hence global) growth at least stabilized. On that front, some timely global growth indicators are sending positive signals. Our China Investment Strategy team’s Market-Based China Growth Indicator has rebounded strongly (Chart 6), global industrial mining stock prices have jumped (Chart 6, bottom panel), and the CRB Raw Industrials index may finally be turning a corner (Chart 6, panel 2).4 Chart 6Global Growth Indicators Sending A Positive Signal... Global Growth Indicators Sending A Positive Signal... Global Growth Indicators Sending A Positive Signal... But for any rebound in those financial market indicators to prove lasting, we will ultimately need to see confirming evidence in the Chinese economic data. Specifically, the money and credit growth data that tend to lead Chinese economic activity (Chart 7). Our China Investment Strategy team’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator – a composite of six money and credit growth indicators – has flattened off at a low level. Looking at its components individually, those that capture the recent RMB depreciation have pressured the index higher (Chart 7, panel 2), while those that measure broad credit growth remain depressed (Chart 7, bottom panel). Our Global Investment Strategy team has argued that Chinese policymakers’ desire to suppress credit growth will soon abate, since credit growth has already fallen close to the rate of nominal GDP growth.5 Chart 7...But A Lot Depends On China ...But A Lot Depends On China ...But A Lot Depends On China Bottom Line: It seems increasingly likely that financial conditions will ease and that the global growth slowdown will moderate in the coming months. Geopolitical tail risks remain, but they are unlikely to impact the Fed’s reaction function if financial conditions are easing and global growth is on solid footing. The end result is that the Fed will resume rate hikes in the second half of this year, and Treasury yields will move higher as a result. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. The End Of QT At January’s press conference, Chairman Powell was also quizzed repeatedly about the Fed’s balance sheet policy. This is not surprising given that the Fed had just announced that it will operate monetary policy using its current “floor system” indefinitely. This means that it will continue to supply the banking system with more reserves than it demands, and will control interest rates by paying interest on excess reserves and through the overnight reverse repo facility. We explained in detail the differences between a floor system and the pre-crisis “corridor system” in a 2014 Special Report.6 Practically, the continuation of the floor system means that the Fed’s balance sheet run-off will end earlier than if it were to return to a corridor system. The latter requires a paucity of bank reserves while the former requires an abundance. Unfortunately, as we discussed in a recent report, and as Chairman Powell explained at his press conference, nobody knows exactly how much more reserve drainage can take place before the Fed’s floor system ceases to function and the Fed loses control of interest rates.7 From Powell’s press conference: [I]n managing the federal funds rate, we’d rather have it set by our administered rates. So that implies you’d want [outstanding bank reserves] to be a bit above what that equilibrium demand for reserves is. And again, there’s no cookbook here, there’s no playbook. No one really knows. The only way you can figure it out is by surveying people and market intelligence and then, ultimately, by approaching that point quite carefully. In other words, the Fed will continue to shrink its balance sheet – draining reserves from the banking system in the process – until it decides that any further reserve drain will cause the funds rate to break through the upper-end of its target band. There is already some evidence of pressure on this front. The effective federal funds rate has been inching toward the upper-end of its target range in recent months, and the 99th percentile of the daily effective fed funds rate has actually been above the target range. This means that, for the past couple months, a few federal funds transactions every day have occurred outside the Fed’s target range (Chart 8). If this situation persists, then it will hasten the Fed’s decision to cease the run-off of its balance sheet. Chart 8Fed Funds Rate Inching Higher Fed Funds Rate Inching Higher Fed Funds Rate Inching Higher Our sense is that the Fed will cease the unwinding of its balance sheet at some point this year or early next year. However, we don’t view that decision as very important from an investment standpoint. It has been the longstanding view of this publication that any possible impact on bond yields from the Fed’s balance sheet policy pales in comparison to the impact from its interest rate policy. We will elaborate on this view in forthcoming research alongside our Global Fixed Income and U.S. Investment Strategy services. For today, we will simply remind readers of our golden rule of bond investing: If Fed rate hikes exceed what is currently priced into the market, then long duration positions will underperform over that time horizon, and vice-versa.8 All other factors are subordinate to that golden rule. Will Tame Inflation Prevent Further Rate Hikes? At January’s press conference, Chairman Powell noted that one reason why the Fed felt comfortable pausing its rate hike cycle was that inflation appeared relatively tame. Once again, the Chairman accurately described the fact that year-over-year core inflation has moderated during the past few months. Year-over-year core CPI inflation is down to 2.21% as of December, from a peak of 2.33% last July. Data on the Fed’s preferred PCE measure has been delayed due to the government shutdown, with a December update expected on March 1. However, this is another situation where the evidence could look a lot different in a few months. The last three monthly core CPI prints have come in at right around 0.2% month-over-month. If that pace is maintained going forward, then year-over-year core CPI will fall a bit further in the near-term, but will then start rising at a rapid pace (Chart 9). By the middle of this year the discussion surrounding inflation could look a lot different. Chart 9Expect Inflation To Pick-Up By The Middle Of The Year Expect Inflation To Pick-Up By The Middle Of The Year Expect Inflation To Pick-Up By The Middle Of The Year Of course, the simple extrapolation in Chart 9 assumes that core inflation will continue to print at a 0.2% monthly rate. Given the low unemployment rate, accelerating wage growth and persistent elevated monthly hiring numbers, we see no reason why this shouldn’t be the case. However, many clients we talk to have strong doubts that core inflation will move higher. This sentiment is reflected in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates that remain well below “well anchored” levels. One of the most common questions we receive from clients is: Where will inflation come from? A good starting point to answer that question is to split core CPI into its main components (Chart 10): Chart 10The Components Of Core CPI The Components Of Core CPI The Components Of Core CPI Shelter (42% of core) Goods (25% of core) Medical Care (8% of core) Services excluding shelter and medical care (25% of core) After making this decomposition we can attempt to identify unique drivers for each component. For shelter inflation, the rental vacancy rate and home price appreciation are the most important variables. Home prices have decelerated in recent months but the rental vacancy rate remains near historically low levels. Taken together, our shelter CPI model shows that shelter inflation should stay near its current level for the next six months (Chart 10, top panel). Core goods inflation tends to track non-oil import prices with a relatively long lag (Chart 10, panel 2). The current message from import prices is that core goods inflation should level off in the coming months, but should not reverse its recent uptrend. The best determinant of trends in core services (excluding shelter and medical care) inflation is wage growth (Chart 10, panel 3). Here we see that services inflation has responded strongly to accelerating wage growth in recent months and is now running at a healthy 2.6% year-over-year pace. With the unemployment rate at 4%, further wage acceleration is probable. Bottom Line: Year-over-year core inflation appears tame at the moment, but that will change during the next few months as base effects shift from a headwind to a tailwind. Wage acceleration and core services (excluding shelter and medical care) inflation will be the main drivers.   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Much Higher For Yields?”, dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China’s Stimulus”, dated August 3, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “An Oasis Of Prosperity?”, dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 The Market-Based China Growth Indicator is a composite measure of financial market variables that are highly levered to the Chinese economy. For further details please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China’s Savings Problem”, dated January 25, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood”, dated June 10, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed In 2019”, dated December 18, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification