Fixed Income

Highlights 2018 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio generated a modest outperformance versus the custom benchmark index of +6bps for all of 2018. Winners & Losers: The outperformance of our model bond portfolio in 2018 mostly came from country selection on our government bond portfolio (underweight U.S. Treasuries, overweight the U.K. and Australia). However, our below-benchmark overall duration stance, as well as our bias favoring U.S. credit over non-U.S. corporates, were drags on performance during the risk-off moves at the end of 2018. Scenario Analysis For 2019: The tactical upgrade to global corporates that we initiated last week is projected to generate outperformance versus the model portfolio benchmark index in the next six months - both from below-benchmark duration positioning and higher exposure to U.S. corporates. Feature 2019 has gotten off to a very busy start, with significant news and market moves forcing us to devote our first two Weekly Reports of the year to analysis and even changes to our views. This week, we belatedly take care of one final piece of housekeeping for 2018 – reporting the performance of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio for the fourth quarter and for the entire calendar year. We also present an updated scenario return analysis for the next six months after the tactical upgrade to global corporate bonds that we initiated last week.1 As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. A Quick Summary Of The Full Year Performance For 2018 The 2018 performance of the model portfolio can really be broken up into two periods: the first ten months of the year and November/December. This is an unsurprising consequence of the severe market moves around year-end that went contrary to our two most significant recommendations – maintaining a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration and overweighting U.S. investment grade corporate debt versus non-U.S. equivalents in Europe and emerging markets (EM). The overall portfolio return in 2018 was +1.10% (hedged into USD), which outperformed our custom benchmark index by +6bps (Chart of the Week).2 That outperformance was considerably higher before the year-end plunge in global bond yields, reaching a peak of +32bps on November 20. In terms of the breakdown of outperformance, our recommended positioning on government bonds (duration and country allocation) contributed +22bps, while our credit tilts (by country and broadly defined credit sectors) were a drag on performance to the tune of -16bps. Chart of the WeekA Small Gain For 2018 After A Q4 Round-Trip The full breakdown of the full-year 2018 performance can be found in the Appendix tables and charts on Pages 14-16. For the government bond portion of the portfolio the full-year outperformers by country were the U.S. (+18bps), Germany (+10bps), Australia (+4bps) and the U.K. (+3bps). These are in line with our long-standing underweight position on the U.S. versus Germany, and our recommended overweights on Australia and the U.K. The laggards were relatively modest, led by our overweight stance on Japan (-4bps) and underweights on France (-3bps) and Italy (-3bps). For the credit portion of the portfolio, the winners were EM USD-denominated corporates (+7bps), U.S. B-rated high-yield (HY) corporates (+3bps) and U.S. Caa-rated high-yield (HY) corporates (+2bps). This was in line with our long-standing bias to favor U.S. junk bonds over EM credit. The losers were our overweights on U.S. investment grade (IG) financials (-15bps), U.S. IG industrials (-8bps), U.S. Ba-rated HY (-4bps), and euro area IG corporates (-2bps). Our overweight tilts on U.S. IG were the issue here. Q4/2018 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: A “Risk-Off” Hit To Our Core Recommendations The detailed data on our model bond performance for Q4/2018 only can be found in Table 1. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2018 Overall Return Attribution The total return of the GFIS model bond portfolio was +1.5% (hedged into USD) in Q4, which underperformed the custom benchmark index by a mere -1bp. The main cause for the slight underperformance is from our below-benchmark duration positioning with the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Index yield falling by 20bps over the full quarter. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated -2bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by just +1bp. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3.   The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturities between 5-7 years (+12bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities between 7-10 years (+5bps) Underweight Germany government bonds with maturities between 7-10 years (+3bps) Overweight U.K. government bonds with maturities between 5-7 years (+2bps) Biggest underperformers Overweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities beyond 10 years (-15bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturities beyond 10 years (-8bps) Underweight Italy government bonds with maturities beyond 10 years (-3bps) Underweight France government bonds with maturities beyond 10 years (-2bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q4/2018. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q4/2018 (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral). Government bonds are dominating the left half of the chart, as yields declined in the final months of 2018. This was a drag on our model portfolio performance. However, the best performing sector was U.K. government bonds, generating a total return of 4.7% in Q4/2018 (on a currency-hedged and duration-matched basis). The GFIS model portfolio benefited from this move, given our long-standing overweight bias for U.K. Gilts. The right side of Chart 4 is occupied by global spread product, where currency-hedged returns were flat-to-negative in Q4. This was due to credit spread widening as investors feared both slower global growth and additional Fed tightening. The riskier parts of the corporate bond universe – high-yield, EM corporates – suffered the largest losses. The total return of Bloomberg Barclays U.S. High-Yield Index (currency-hedged into USD) for Q4 was -2.7%, as the option-adjusted spread (OAS) widened by +206bps. Unfortunately for our model portfolio, our preference for U.S. corporate bonds over European and EM credit hurt performance, although not by as much as the below-benchmark duration stance. We are disappointed by the final result for the year, although we are still pleased to generate even a small positive outperformance given the ferocity of the market moves seen at the end of 2018. We can attribute that to lingering gains from good calls made earlier in 2018, but also from our recommended cautious stance on overall portfolio risk (i.e. tracking error) in a more-volatile investment environment. Bottom Line: The outperformance of our model bond portfolio in 2018 mostly came from country selection on our government bond portfolio (underweight U.S. Treasuries, overweight the U.K. and Australia). However, our below-benchmark overall duration stance, as well as our bias favoring U.S. credit over non-U.S. corporates, were drags on performance during the risk-off moves at the end of 2018. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will benefit from two main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias and our underweight stance on global government bonds versus corporate debt. In terms of specific weighting in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we now have a tactical bias favoring global corporate debt over government debt coming on top of our below-benchmark duration stance (Chart 5). We are sticking with the latter position, about one full year short of the duration of our benchmark index, with global yield curves priced for inflation expectations that are too low and with no rate hikes discounted for 2019 in all major developed markets. Chart 5Portfolio Duration: Staying Below-Benchmark However, we are also keeping our current country allocations on the government bond side of the model portfolio, even after our tactical credit upgrade. That means staying underweight countries where policymakers are only pausing on rate hiking cycles (U.S. and Canada), while overweighting countries that are likely to keep rates on hold for all of 2019 (Japan, U.K., Australia). Our decision to upgrade global credit exposure helps boost the yield of our model portfolio (Chart 6). However, the portfolio is still yielding less than the benchmark thanks to our bear-steepening bias on government yield curves that involves underweights to longer-maturity bonds with higher yields. Chart 6Portfolio Yield: Credit Upgrade Helps Offset Defensive Duration Tilt Importantly, all the changes that were made to our portfolio allocations last week – raising weights on all global corporate bond markets, cutting exposure to government debt in the U.S., Germany and France – did not materially change the tracking error (relative volatility versus the benchmark) of the model portfolio. We do not see the current backdrop as being conducive to taking high levels of overall portfolio risk, even given our tactical view that the U.S. monetary policy will be on hold for the next 3-6 months. We prefer to recommend more relative value positioning via country and credit allocations that help dampen overall portfolio risk and reduce exposure to the kind of volatility spikes that became more frequent in 2018. Thus, we will continue to target a tracking error for the model portfolio of 40-60bps, well below our self-imposed 100bps ceiling (Chart 7). Chart 7Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Staying Cautious Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts In April 2018, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.3 For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis of projected returns for each asset class in the model bond portfolio by making assumptions on those individual risk factors.   In Tables 3A & 3B, we present three differing scenarios, with all the following changes occurring over a six-month horizon. Note that this differs from how we have typically presented these scenario analyses, with projections over the subsequent twelve months. Given that the changes to our recommended allocations introduced last week were tactical in nature (i.e. up to six months), we are shortening our forecast window for this particular scenario analysis to line up with that shorter investment horizon.   The scenarios are all driven by what we believe will be the most important driver of market returns in 2019 – the path of U.S. monetary policy. Our Base Case: the Fed stays on hold, the U.S. dollar remain flat, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index falls to 15, and there is a bear-steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This scenario is the one we laid out in last week’s report, with the Fed taking a pause through at least the March FOMC meeting, allowing market volatility to drift lower as U.S. monetary and financial conditions ease. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed does a surprise +25bps rate hike in March, the U.S. dollar rises by +5%, oil prices increase +20%, the VIX index climbs to 25 and there is a sharp bear-flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This would be the case if the U.S. economy maintains firm growth, the global growth downturn stabilizes, U.S. inflation expectations increase and market volatility increases from a surprisingly hawkish Fed. A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed cuts the funds rate by -25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by -5%, oil prices decline -20%, the VIX index increases to 35 and there is a sharp bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is a scenario where U.S./global growth slows rapidly from the current pace and the Fed has no choice but to ease monetary policy as market volatility surges alongside elevated recession risks. The model bond portfolio is expected to outperform the custom benchmark index by +19bps in our Base Case scenario. This comes from the relative outperformance of credit versus government bonds in an environment of rising bond yields (which also benefits our below-benchmark duration stance), and tighter credit spreads. In the Very Hawkish Fed scenario, our model portfolio is expected to outperform the benchmark by +29bps. This is not only due to our duration tilt and our corporates-versus-governments bias. As in the Base Case, the relative stance favoring U.S. corporates over EM credit would benefit from a backdrop of tightening U.S. monetary conditions and rising market volatility (Chart 8) – both of which are worse for EM credit. Chart 8Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis In the Very Dovish Fed scenario, our portfolio is projected to underperform the benchmark index by -26bps, with falling bond yields (Chart 9) hitting both our defensive duration bias and the overweight on corporates relative to governments. Chart 9UST Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis In all three scenarios, there is a drag on expected performance from the relative carry of the model portfolio versus the benchmark (-17bps). This comes mostly from the below-benchmark overall duration stance that involves reduced exposure to longer-maturity government bonds with higher yields. The drag on carry also comes from the underweight positioning on high-yielding EM debt. We are maintaining that tilt given our concerns that China’s policymakers will be unable to provide enough stimulus to benefit EM economies through greater Chinese demand. Importantly, our recommended allocations win in scenarios that do not involve Fed rate cuts, a very low probability outcome in 2019, in our view. Thus, we expect our current allocations to generate alpha in the first half of the year, even if the Fed returns to a hawkish bias faster than we currently anticipate. Bottom Line: The tactical upgrade to global corporates that we initiated last week is projected to generate outperformance versus the model portfolio benchmark index in the next six months - both from below-benchmark duration positioning and higher exposure to U.S. corporates.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Enough With The Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis”, dated January 15th 2019, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 2 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start”, dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. Appendix     Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Yield Curve Drivers: A rebound in rate hike expectations will cause the curve to steepen somewhat during the next few months, though accelerating wages limit the upside. The yield curve will not invert until after long-dated inflation expectations are fully re-anchored, probably not until late in the year. Yield Curve Positioning: Correlations that have been in place since the financial crisis show that the 5-year and 7-year maturities are most sensitive to changes in near-term rate hike expectations. With the discounter likely to move higher in the coming months, investors should favor yield curve trades that are short that portion of the curve. Investment Recommendation: Close our recommended long 2-year short 1-year/5-year trade for a profit of 2 bps. Replace it with a position short the 7-year bullet and long a duration-matched 2-year/30-year barbell. Feature The yield curve flattened throughout most of 2018, and actually fell enough that talk of curve inversion hit a fever pitch last November, around the same time that the market started to doubt the Fed’s ability to lift rates (Chart 1). As of today, the 2/10 Treasury slope sits at a mere 17 basis points, but we don’t see it falling below zero any time soon.1 Chart 1Too Soon For Curve Inversion In this week’s report we consider the factors that will determine how the slope of the curve evolves over the next few months, and also recommend an investment strategy to take advantage of those movements. Yield Curve: Macro Drivers Driver 1: Rate Hike Expectations The number one factor that will influence the slope of the yield curve in the coming months is the market’s assessment of the near-term path for Fed rate hikes. Chart 2 shows the 5-year rolling correlation between monthly changes in the 2/10 slope and monthly changes in our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter. A positive correlation means that the 2/10 slope steepens when the market prices in more rate hikes and flattens when it prices in fewer hikes. A negative correlation means that the slope flattens when the market prices in more hikes and steepens when it prices in fewer hikes. Chart 2Rising Rate Expectations = Steeper 2/10 Slope The correlation was consistently negative throughout the pre-crisis period because the 2-year yield reacted more to changes in near-term rate hike expectations than the 10-year yield. In other words, a given increase (decrease) in the discounter would lead to a larger increase (decrease) in the 2-year yield than in the 10-year yield, and the curve flattened (steepened) as a result. But this correlation flipped following the Great Recession. Zero-bound interest rates and Fed forward guidance were an important reason for the switch. But even during the past few months, as the 12-month discounter fell from 66 bps in early November to -1 bp currently, the 10-year yield fell by 45 bps and the 2-year yield by only 36 bps. Even with interest rates off zero and the Fed scaling back its forward guidance, the positive correlation between the 2/10 slope and the 12-month discounter persists. We think that the 12-month discounter is close to its near-term bottom. Our Fed Monitor has fallen somewhat in recent months but it remains above zero, suggesting that the economy requires further monetary tightening (Chart 3). A look at the three components of our Monitor gives us even more confidence that the discounter is near its trough. The economic growth component of the Monitor is nicely above zero (Chart 3, panel 3), and the inflation component continues to trend up (Chart 3, panel 4). All of the Fed Monitor’s recent weakness can be attributed to tighter financial conditions (Chart 3, bottom panel). As we discussed in last week’s report, now that the market views Fed policy as much more accommodative, it is only a matter of time before financial conditions ease.2 Chart 3Fed Monitor Still Suggests Tightening In fact, some easing has already begun (Chart 4): Chart 4Financial Conditions Starting To Ease The stock-to-bond total return ratio has bottomed (Chart 4, top panel) High-Yield spreads have peaked (Chart 4, panel 2) The VIX has moderated (Chart 4, panel 3) The trade-weighted dollar has started to depreciate (Chart 4, bottom panel) Ironically, easier financial conditions will give the Fed the green light to re-start rate hikes, probably by June, and this could re-test risk assets in the second half of the year. But between now and then, a move higher in 12-month rate expectations will apply some steepening pressure to the 2/10 slope. Driver 2: Inflation Expectations Instead of looking at nominal yields and rate hike expectations, another approach is to split yields into their real and inflation components. This is potentially revealing in the current environment since a large portion of the recent drop in yields was driven by the cost of inflation compensation. Since the November 8 peak in the discounter, the cost of 10-year inflation protection fell 26 bps and the real 10-year yield fell 19 bps. The cost of 2-year inflation protection declined 46 bps while the real 2-year yield actually rose 10 bps. Based on those numbers, it is evident that when the cost of inflation compensation fell alongside the oil price, it exerted a steepening pressure on the yield curve that was offset by a flattening in the real yield curve. One might conclude that a rebound in inflation will cause the curve to flatten going forward. That is probably true in the event of a pure inflation shock that does not impact global growth. But such a shock is highly unlikely. Oil (and other commodity) prices fell during the past few months because of a slowdown in global growth. A rebound in commodity prices that drives inflation higher will almost certainly occur alongside stronger global growth. In other words, splitting nominal yields into the real and inflation components probably doesn’t get us any closer to figuring out the near-term path for the yield curve. A better way to incorporate the cost of inflation compensation into our thinking about the yield curve is to focus on the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate. That rate is currently 1.99%, well below the range of 2.3%-2.5% that has historically been consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations (Chart 5). Chart 5Inflation Expectations Are Too Low For The Fed It is difficult to believe that the Fed would allow the yield curve to invert with the 5-year/5-year breakeven rate so low. The combination of an inverted yield curve and below-target inflation expectations would signal that the Fed wants to run a restrictive monetary policy before inflation has fully recovered. That would be completely contrary to the Fed’s mandate. From this argument, we reason that the 2/10 slope is unlikely to sustainably fall below zero until the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate is at least above 2.3%. With the 2/10 slope already at 17 bps, this means it is much more likely to stay near its current level or steepen somewhat during the next few months. Driver 3: Wage Growth The third factor driving our yield curve view is the pace of wage growth. Stronger wage growth is tightly correlated with a flatter yield curve, though the yield curve tends to lead wage growth by 6-12 months (Chart 6). Chart 6A Flatter Curve Leads Faster Wage Growth Higher Wage Growth = Flatter Curve In fact, a typical cyclical pattern is for the 2/10 slope to flatten rapidly and then stay at a low (but positive) level for some time as wage growth catches up. In that sense, this cycle is playing out just like every other. The yield curve has already undergone its large flattening and wage growth is now accelerating to catch up. Bottom Line: The three factors discussed above lead us to expect a small amount of curve steepening during the next few months. A rebound in rate hike expectations due to easier financial conditions will cause the curve to steepen, though accelerating wages limit the upside. The yield curve will not invert until after long-dated inflation expectations are fully re-anchored, probably not until late in the year. Yield Curve Positioning In the first section of this report we noted that the 10-year yield fell by more than the 2-year yield between the early-November peak in the 12-month discounter and today. But Table 1 shows that the 5-year and 7-year yields fell by even more. This is the expected result. Table 1Treasury Curve From Peak In 12-Month Discounter To Present Turning once again to the correlations between different segments of the yield curve and our 12-month discounter, we see that yield curve segments out to the 5-year maturity point are all positively correlated with the 12-month discounter. Also, curve segments beyond the 7-year maturity point are all negatively correlated with the discounter. The 5/7 slope has virtually no correlation (Chart 7). Chart 75-Year & 7-Year Are Most Sensitive To Rate Expectations These correlations tell us that we should expect the 5-year and 7-year yields to move the most in response to changes in the 12-month discounter. In other words, if we expect the discounter to move higher in the coming months we should maintain short exposure to this part of the curve. This short exposure should be offset by long exposure at either the very short-end or the very long-end of the curve, where yields will see less upside when the discounter rebounds. To figure out where to focus this long exposure we can turn to our butterfly spread models.3 Table 2 presents the raw residuals from our butterfly spread models. These models are based on regressions of different butterfly spreads versus the slope of the yield curve segment that spans the two wings of the barbell portion of the trade. For example, Table 2 shows a residual of -9 bps for the 5-year bullet relative to the 2/10 barbell. This means that the 5-year appears 9 bps expensive versus the 2/10 barbell, given where the slope of the 2/10 curve is today. Table 3 shows the standardized residuals from the different curve models so that they can be compared against each other. Table 2Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Residuals Table 3Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Notice in Tables 2 and 3 that almost all of the numbers are negative. This means that bullet trades are currently expensive relative to barbell trades. Using our criteria of wanting to be short the 5-year or 7-year part of the curve, we can use the tables to see that a position short the 7-year bullet and long the duration-matched 2-year/30-year barbell has an attractive standardized residual of -1.00. This appears to be the most attractive curve trade for the current environment. As such, today we close our current yield curve recommendation to favor the 2-year bullet over the 1-year/5-year barbell for a gain of 2 bps. This recommendation had been in place since November 5. In its place, we initiate a recommendation to go long a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 30-year maturities and short the 7-year note. Bottom Line: Correlations that have been in place since the financial crisis show that the 5-year and 7-year maturities are most sensitive to changes in near-term rate hike expectations. With the discounter likely to move higher in the coming months, investors should favor yield curve trades that are short that portion of the curve. With that in mind, we close our 2-year over 1-year/5-year trade and initiate a position short the 7-year bullet and long a duration-matched 2-year/30-year barbell. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We don’t expect to see sustained yield curve inversion until late this year. For further details 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 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Buy Corporate Credit”, dated January 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For further details on the models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Please note that country sections on Mexico and Colombia published below. The policy stimulus in China could produce a growth revival in the second half of 2019, but there are no signs of an imminent bottom in China’s growth over the next several months. The lack of policy support for real estate is the key difference between the current stimulus program and previous ones. Crucially, the property market holds the key to consumer and business sentiment and hence, their willingness to spend. Continue to overweight Mexico within EM currency, fixed-income and equity portfolios. Colombia warrants a neutral weighting. A new trade: bet on yield curve flattening. Feature China has been undertaking both fiscal and monetary stimulus since last summer. A key question among investors is: At what point will the cumulative effects of these efforts become sufficient to revive the mainland’s business cycle and produce a rally in China-related plays akin to 2016-’17? This report helps investors dissect China’s stimulus, and reviews the indicators that will likely help identify the turning point in the mainland’s business cycle, as well as in China-exposed financial markets. Chart I-1 conveys the main message: Our credit and fiscal spending impulse is still falling, indicating that the slump in the Chinese industrial sector will persist for now with negative ramifications for EM corporate profits and other segments of the global economy that are leveraged to China. Looking forward, odds are reasonably high that the credit and fiscal spending impulse will bottom sometime in the first half of 2019. Yet, a bottom in China-plays in global financial markets is likely be several months away from now and potential downside could still be substantial. Monetary Stimulus On the monetary policy front, there has been multifaceted easing: Several cuts to banks’ reserve requirement ratios (RRRs) have been implemented; Lower interest rates for SME borrowers and a reduction in funding costs for the banks that originate these loans; The use of preferential liquidity provisions to encourage banks to purchase bonds issued by private companies. Monetary easing in of itself is not a sufficient condition to produce an economic revival. There are two variables standing between easing liquidity/lower borrowing costs, on the one hand, and the performance of the economy on the other: The first one is the money multiplier, which is calculated as a ratio of broad money supply (or banks assets) to excess reserves. It measures the willingness of banks to expand their balance sheets at a given level of excess reserves, assuming there is loan demand. Chart I-2 shows that China’s money multiplier has risen substantially since 2008 but has recently rolled over. A further drop in the money multiplier could offset the positive effect of monetary easing. Chart I-2China: Money Multiplier Is Falling In other words, the central bank is injecting more liquidity into the banking system and interbank rates are falling, but commercial banks may be unwilling or unable to originate more loans due to financial regulations, lack of loan demand or for other reasons. Notably, the growth rate of bank assets (including policy banks) remains lackluster, while non-bank (shadow) credit is decelerating (Chart I-3). Chart I-3China: Bank Credit And Non-Bank Credit The second variable is the willingness of companies and households to spend. This is captured by our proxies for marginal propensity to spend by companies and consumers. Chart I-4 denotes that both propensity measures are dropping, signifying a diminishing willingness to spend among these two sectors. Chart I-4China: Diminishing Propensity To Spend By Consumers And Companies If economic sentiment among businesses and households remains downbeat – which has been the case in China over the past six to nine months – their reduced expenditures could offset any positive impulse from increased credit origination. Economists think of nominal GDP (aggregate spending) as money supply times the velocity of money (Nominal GDP = Money Supply x Velocity of Money). New lending activity among banks increases money supply, while economic agents’ spending raises the velocity of money. If the velocity of money drops more than the rise in money supply, aggregate expenditure (nominal GDP growth) will decline. Chart I-5 illustrates that the velocity of money rose in 2017, supporting robust growth during this period, despite very lackluster money growth. The opposite phenomenon – a decline in the velocity of money offsetting faster money expansion – could be a risk to the positive view on Chinese growth in 2019. Chart I-5Velocity Of Money: Will It Resume Its Decline? Bottom Line: There is so far no clear evidence that the credit cycle has bottomed. Besides, a bottom in the credit impulse is not in and of itself sufficient to herald an economic recovery. Fiscal Stimulus Unlike in previous easing episodes, policymakers this time around have prioritized fiscal over monetary stimulus because of the already high leverage. In the past six months or so, the government has announced the following fiscal measures: A reduction in the personal income tax rate; Subtraction of certain household expenses from taxable personal income; A reduction in taxes and fees paid by small businesses; A potential VAT cut. These measures will certainly have a positive impact on small businesses and consumer spending. This is why we do not foresee a deepening slump in consumer spending. Nevertheless, the tax reductions and other policies benefiting small businesses and households are unlikely to boost industrial output and construction in China. The latter two are crucial for global investors because many countries are leveraged to China’s industrial and construction activity. For the industrial part of the economy, the most pertinent stimulus measure announced so far has been the issuance of local government special bonds. These bonds are used for infrastructure/public welfare projects. Chart I-6A shows the growth rates of aggregate fiscal spending and its components, which are expenditures by central and local governments as well as by government managed funds (GMFs). GMF spending – a form of quasi-government (off-balance sheet) spending – has surged in recent years and now accounts for 8.5% of GDP, which is more than twice larger than central government spending (Chart I-6B). Chart I-6AChina: Fiscal Spending Annual Growth... Chart I-6B…And As % Of Nominal GDP Although the 2019 budget has not yet been released – it will be announced in March during the National People's Congress – there have been some announcements that we can use to gauge the potential fiscal spending impulse in 2019. On the positive side, Beijing has recently authorized local governments to begin issuing bonds in early 2019 before the overall budget is released in March. Local governments are sanctioned to issue RMB 810 trillion of special bonds, which is 60% of their 2018 quotas. This contrasts with the previous years' practice, when local governments only started to issue bonds in April after obtaining directives from Beijing. The earlier-than-usual quota authorization will allow local governments to issue bonds from the beginning of the year. There is no timeline as to when these bonds will be issued, but it is safe to assume that their issuance will occur in the first half of 2019. This, in turn, should boost infrastructure investments throughout 2019. On the negative side, government managed funds (GMFs) derive 85% of their revenues from land sales. Land sales are tumbling due to previous credit tightening and scarce access to financing among property developers. Chart I-7 demonstrates that land sales lag the credit cycle by nine months. As developers are no longer acquiring land, GMF revenues and spending are set to shrink over the next 12 months. This will, to a certain degree, offset the augmented special bonds issuance. Chart I-7China: Credit Leads Land Sales And Quasi-Fiscal Spending We performed a simulation on what would be the aggregate fiscal impulse in 2019 using the following assumptions: Central and local government spending growth rates are held constant at 2018 levels. Local government special bond issuance is RMB 1.62 trillion. This is twice the recently authorized quota. Hence, our simulation assumes a 20% increase in local government special bond issuance in 2019 over 2018, respectively. GMF land revenues drop by 25% – a comparable drop in land sales occurred in 2015. Table I-1 reveals that using these assumptions, the fiscal spending impulse in 2019 will be 0.1% of GDP down from 4% in 2018 (Chart I-8, bottom panel).   Chart I-8China: Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse The next step is to combine this with our credit impulse forecast. We assume the 2019 year-end growth rate of credit to companies and households will be 9% in our pessimistic scenario, 10% in our baseline scenario and 11% in our optimistic scenario, compared with the December 2018 recorded rate of 10%. This entails no deleveraging at all. Under these assumptions, our forecasts for aggregate credit and fiscal impulses are 0.2% of GDP (pessimistic), 2.3% (baseline) and 4.4% (optimistic) (Table I-1). Presently, the credit and fiscal impulse is close to zero (Chart I-8). Bottom Line: China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse will bottom in the first half of 2019 (Chart I-8). However, this does not mean that EM/China plays have already bottomed and investors should chase the latest rebound in China-plays worldwide. We discuss the historical correlation between the credit and fiscal impulse and China-related financial markets below. What Is Different From Previous Stimulus Programs? The lack of stimulus targeting the real estate sector is the key difference between the current stimulus programs and those implemented in the past 10 years. The central government has so far abstained from stimulating the property market due to already existing speculative excesses there. This is very different from the policy easing that took place in 2008-‘09, 2012 and 2015-’16, when the authorities boosted property markets along with other sectors of the economy. Chart I-9 reveals that the 2015-‘17 residential property market revival and following boom was facilitated by the Pledged Supplementary Lending (PSL) program conducted by the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) – which was de-facto the outright monetarization of real estate by the central bank.1 The authorities have so far been reluctant to use this PSL program again, and the odds are that housing sales and new construction will continue to decline (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Residential Property Market Is Deteriorating Chart I-10China: Construction Volumes Are Shrinking Importantly, the property market holds the key to consumer and business sentiment and, hence, their willingness to spend. The latter is crucial to the growth outlook. Overall, a deepening slump in real estate demand and prices could dent consumer and small business confidence as well as their spending. Meanwhile, shrinking construction volumes will dampen industrial sectors (Chart I-10). Investment Implications: A Replay Of 2016-‘17? How does the credit and fiscal impulse relate to financial markets globally that are leveraged to the Chinese economy? The top two panels of Chart I-11 show our money impulse as well as credit and fiscal spending impulse (CFI), while the bottom two panels contain EM share prices and industrial metals prices. There are a few observations to be made: Chart I-11China: Money And Credit/Fiscal Impulses, EM Stocks And Metals Prices First, the CFI has not yet bottomed – i.e., it has not confirmed the upturn in the money impulse. Second, as illustrated in this Chart, the bottoms in the money impulse as well as the CFI in July 2015 preceded the bottom in EM and commodities by six months, and their peaks led the top in financial markets - in January 2018 - by about 15 months. Besides, in 2012-‘13, the rise in both the money impulse and CFI did not do much to help EM stocks or industrial commodities prices. Third, the credit and fiscal impulse leads the global manufacturing PMI by several months as illustrated in Chart I-1 on page 1, as well as mainland’s capital goods imports (Chart I-12). Chart I-12China's Impact On Industrial Goods And Commodities On the whole, investors should consider buying China-related plays only after both the money impulse and the CFI bottom together which has not yet occurred. Besides, even if these indicators rise in tandem, the bottom in China-related financial market plays could be a few months later because these impulses have historically led markets. This is why we believe a final down leg in EM and China-related plays still lies ahead. Typically, the last/capitulation phase in bear markets is considerable and being early can be very painful. Bottom Line: We continue to recommend underweighting/playing EM and China-related risk assets on the short side. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com Mexico: Reiterating Our Overweight Stance Mexican financial markets have rebounded, outperforming their EM counterparts since mid-December. This outperformance has further upside because the AMLO administration is proving to be less populist and more pragmatic, especially relative to investors’ expectations. We are reiterating our recommendations to overweight Mexican markets, especially the currency, local fixed-income and sovereign credit, within respective EM portfolios due to the following considerations: The 2019 budget is a prime example of sensible rather than populist policies by the AMLO administration. The budget targets a primary surplus of 1% of GDP versus 0.8% of GDP in 2018 (Chart II-1). Notably, the 2019 budget envisages an absolute decline in nominal expenditures in 29 out of 56 categories. Chart II-1Fiscal Tightening In 2019 Such a restrained budget follows the conservative fiscal policy of the previous administration. In brief, the nation’s fiscal policy and public debt profile remain sound. Public spending will be increased mostly in the areas that are critical to boosting productivity. These include infrastructure spending, vocational training, promoting “financial deepening” and competition, eliminating graft and improving security. These efforts are critical to boosting business confidence, investment and ultimately productivity. On the revenue side, the budget has become much less reliant on oil revenues than before. The share of oil revenues in total government revenues historically hovered around 30%, but in 2018 it declined to 18%. The 2019 budget assumes an average oil price of $55 per barrel, a conservative projection. Investors have also been somewhat alarmed by the 16% hike in minimum wages, but this should be put into historical context. Chart II-2 illustrates that the minimum wage in real terms (deflated by consumer price inflation) dropped by 70% since its peak in 1976, before rising in the recent years. Chart II-2Historical Perspective On Minimum Wage Importantly, Mexico’s competitiveness problem does not stem from high wages but from a lack of productivity gains. Productivity has been stagnant, and wages in real terms have not risen in many years. Hence, the true test for the nation is to raise productivity, not curb wages. Remarkably, the Mexican peso is very cheap, as measured by the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs (Chart II-3). Hence, the minimum wage hike can be viewed as payback after decades of dramatic declines in the minimum wage in real terms. Chart II-3The Mexican Peso Is Cheap The central bank has overdone it with hiking interest rates: interest rates are currently among the highest of the mainstream EM economies, both in nominal and real terms (Chart II-4). Hence, local rates offer great value relative to other EMs (Chart II-4, bottom panel). Chart II-4High Real And Nominal Interest Rates Tight fiscal and monetary policies will curb domestic demand and promote disinflation. Money and credit growth remain very sluggish (Chart II-5). This is negative for consumer and business spending, but positive for investors in local currency bonds. Chart II-5Monetary Growth Is Weak The basis is that a retrenchment in domestic demand and thereby imports will help stabilize the trade balance amid low oil prices. Hence, this is on the margin a positive for the peso as well as for local currency bonds relative to their EM counterparts. Finally, Mexico will benefit from its ties to the U.S. economy, unlike many other EMs that are more exposed to China. Investment Recommendation We continue to recommend overweighting the peso and local currency bonds within an EM fixed-income portfolio. Currency traders should maintain our long MXN / short ZAR trade (Chart II-6, top two panels). Chart II-6Remain Overweight Mexican Currency And Fixed-Income Credit market investors should continue to overweight Mexican sovereign credit within an EM credit portfolio (Chart II-6, bottom panel). Finally, we are also reiterating our long Mexico position within an EM equity portfolio. While domestic demand growth and corporate profits will continue to disappoint, the declining risk premium on Mexican assets due to a re-assessment among investors of AMLO’s policies warrants a mild overweight in large caps and a sizable overweight in small caps relative to their EM peers. Colombia: Headed Into Another Downtrend The Colombian economy is set to undergo another phase of growth retrenchment: The government is planning to reduce the overall fiscal deficit from 4.5% to 2.4% of GDP by the end of 2019 (Chart III-1). Oil-related revenues make up under 10% of total government revenues, and they are shrinking as both oil production and prices have plunged. Chart III-1Fiscal Policy Will Tighten In 2019 As a result, the government should undertake major fiscal cutbacks and hike taxes to achieve the overall budget deficit target of 2.4%. Such substantial fiscal tightening will hurt domestic demand. Regarding the exchange rate, the central bank is pursuing a “hands-off” approach, which is likely to continue. Therefore, the currency is set to depreciate due to the large current account deficit and lack of sufficient foreign funding. Notably, the current account deficit excluding oil is -7% of GDP (Chart III-2, top panel), and the plunge in oil prices and weak domestic demand will cause FDI inflows to drop meaningfully (Chart III-2, bottom panel). Together, this points to further currency depreciation. Chart III-2BoP Dynamics Are Deteriorating Meanwhile, the central bank is not in a position to ease policy to offset the impact of fiscal tightening, as a weaker exchange rate historically leads to higher inflation (Chart III-3, top panel). In fact, given core inflation is at the upper end of the central bank’s target range (Chart III-3, bottom panel), a considerable currency depreciation could lead to rate hikes. Raising rates amid weakening growth is a recipe for considerable yield curve flattening. Chart III-3Weaker Currency = Higher Inflation Lending rates remain well above nominal GDP growth, and the banking system is still restructuring following years of a credit boom. Credit growth will remain weak, reinforcing weakness in domestic demand stemming from substantial fiscal tightening. Finally, consumer and business confidence seem to be faltering due to the negative attention surrounding Colombian President Iván Duque Márquez’s policies. The negative terms-of-trade shocks and the imminent fiscal tightening will reinforce worsening sentiment among economic agents. Profound cyclical headwinds to growth indicate that the economy is set to return to a growth recession – a very low but slightly positive growth rate. With respect to investment strategy, we recommend the following: First, we are downgrading this bourse from overweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. While overweighting Latin American stocks as a whole within an EM equity portfolio, we believe that Brazilian, Chilean and Mexican share prices offer a better risk-reward profile than Colombian ones (Chart III-4). Chart III-4Colombia Is Unlikely To Outperform LATAM Second, as to sovereign credit investors, we are reiterating an overweight stance because fiscal tightening and monetary policy orthodoxy as well as low government debt levels will help Colombian sovereign credit to outperform. Third, two opposing cross-currents will shape the domestic bond market. On the one hand, weak growth is positive for bonds. On the other hand, currency depreciation is negative. Net-net, investors in local currency government bonds should be slightly overweight or neutral this market within an EM local bond portfolio. For fixed-income investors, we recommend a new trade: position for yield curve flattening (Chart III-5). This is a bet on a considerable growth slowdown amid looming fiscal austerity. Chart III-5Colombia: Bet On Yield Curve Flattening Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China Real Estate: A Never-Bursting Bubble?" dated April 6, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Global Corporates: The Fed is now clearly signaling a near-term capitulation to tightening financial conditions alongside slowing global growth and inflation. A pause in the U.S. rate hiking cycle, after credit spread valuations have cheapened up, opens up a window of opportunity for global corporate bond market outperformance versus government debt over the next 3-6 months. Country Allocation: Move to overweight (4 of 5) on both U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporates, while downgrading U.S. Treasuries to underweight (2 of 5). Upgrade euro area investment grade and high-yield corporates to neutral (3 of 5), while downgrading euro area governments to underweight (2 of 5). Upgrade emerging market U.S. dollar denominated debt (both sovereign and corporate) from maximum underweight to underweight (2 of 5). Feature We downgraded our overall recommended investment stance on global corporate debt to neutral on June 26 of last year.1 That decision reflected our concern at the time that less accommodative central banks, a rising U.S. dollar, weakening global growth momentum and intensifying U.S.-China trade tensions had all significantly worsened the near-term risk/reward tradeoff for owning corporate bonds. This accompanied a firm-wide call at BCA to pare back our recommended exposure to global equities for the same reasons. We now see an opportunity, driven by better value and diminished market volatility after the Fed has clearly signaled a pause on U.S. rate hikes (Chart of the Week), to go back to an overweight stance on corporate credit on a tactical basis (3-6 months). Chart of the WeekTime For A Pause In Corporate Spread Widening To be clear, we still see medium-term risks for corporate credit once global growth stabilizes and a resilient U.S. economy forces the Fed to restart the rate hikes in the latter half of 2019. A move to a restrictive stance by the Fed toward year-end, signaled by an inversion of the U.S. Treasury yield curve, will raise recession risks and be the eventual death knell for this credit cycle. In the meantime, corporate debt is likely to outperform government bonds, justifying a tactical overweight position. This mirrors the recent change in the BCA House View, returning to a tactical overweight stance on global equities. On a regional basis, we prefer taking more of our upgraded credit risk in U.S. corporates over European and emerging market (EM) equivalents. The outlook for growth remains more favorable on a relative basis to Europe or China, the latter being most critical for the outperformance of EM assets. Why The Spread Widening Will Pause: A Patient Fed Is Taking A Break Global corporate bond spreads have widened since we did our downgrade in June, across all countries and credit tiers (Chart 2). Typically, some underperformance of corporate credit should occur when global growth momentum slows, as was the case throughout 2018. Yet the most violent period of spread widening only began once the Fed began signaling that it would continue with its interest hikes and balance sheet runoff, despite softening global growth. This set off yet another clash between policy and the markets – one of BCA’s key investment themes for 2018 that still applies in 2019 – resulting in a sharp selloff in global risk assets, including corporate debt. The result was a tightening of U.S. financial conditions, first through a stronger U.S. dollar (supported by rate hike expectations) and later through lower equity prices and wider corporate spreads. This echoed the 2014/15 period when the Fed was trying to lift rates off the zero bound after ending its quantitative easing program. The Fed was only able to deliver a single rate hike in December 2015 before pausing because of severely slumping global growth (most notably in China) and a sharp tightening in financial conditions, both of which knocked the wind out of the U.S. economy. Turning to 2019, the downturn in cyclical growth indicators like manufacturing purchasing managers indices (PMI) and the global leading economic indicator (LEI) has reached levels last seen after that 2014/15 episode (Chart 3). Importantly, our global LEI diffusion index, which measures the number of countries with rising LEIs compared to falling LEIs and is itself a reliable leading indicator of the global LEI, is bottoming out at the same level that preceded the 2016 LEI revival (middle panel). This suggests that a stabilization of the global LEI could unfold in the next few months, which would also signal a potential rebound in corporate credit returns (bottom panel). Chart 3Credit Returns Already Reflect Slowing Growth Given the many similarities between today and the 2014/15 backdrop, it is sensible to look for other indicators that accurately heralded the end of that period of spread widening to help time a potential increase in recommended exposure to corporates. Over the past several weeks, our colleagues at our sister BCA service, U.S. Bond Strategy, have been following a checklist of market-based signals to determine the timing of a potential peak in U.S. credit spreads.2 These are grouped into two categories: signals of rebounding global growth and signals of Fed capitulation on rate hikes. For global growth, the indicators monitored are shown in Chart 4: Chart 4Checklist For Peak U.S. Spreads: Global Growth the CRB raw industrials index of commodity prices (a broader measure that excludes highly volatile oil prices) the BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator (created by our China Investment Strategy team as a proxy of investor expectations of Chinese growth3) the Global Industrial Mining equity price index For Fed capitulation, the indicators monitored are shown in Chart 5: Chart 5Checklist For Peak U.S. Spreads: Fed Capitulation our 12-month fed funds discounter, which measures the amount of expected Fed rate hikes over the next year discounted in the U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve the price of gold in dollars (a higher price correlating with perceptions of easier U.S. monetary policy and vice versa) the nominal trade-weighted U.S. dollar index Among the growth-focused elements of the checklist, only the China Growth Indicator is in a clear uptrend. Non-oil commodity prices had been stabilizing at the end of 2018 but appear to be rolling over, while it is not yet clear if the downturn in Mining stocks has ended. With momentum in global PMIs and LEIs still having not yet bottomed out, it may be too early to expect a cyclical rebound in non-oil commodities and related equities. At a minimum, that will require even greater signs that China’s economy is regaining some vigor. However, as we discussed last week, Chinese policymakers’ options to stimulate growth are far more limited now than they were in 2015 and 2016 when a rebounding China boosted commodity demand and EM asset performance.4 Within the Fed-focused components of the “Peak Spreads Checklist”, the near-term bullish signal for credit is much stronger. Our fed funds discounter has rapidly priced out all rate hikes for 2019. Since November, gold is up nearly 8% and the nominal trade-weighted U.S. dollar is down 2%. The shift in recent Fed messaging from signaling a “gradual pace” of tightening to exhibiting “patience” on any future policy moves was a highly dovish signal for investors. This alone has been enough to stabilize equity and credit markets, which had been discounting that Fed tightening in 2019 would drive the U.S. into a possible recession. In the constant battle between financial conditions and the Fed, the former has won this latest round. How long will this Fed pause last? Continuing with the comparison to the 2014/15 episode, a critical difference is that underlying trends in U.S. economic growth and inflation are firmer today. This is evident in the BCA Fed Monitor, which is comprised of economic and financial data that indicate pressure on the Fed to tighten or ease monetary policy. Chart 6 shows a “cycle-on-cycle” comparison of the Fed Monitor (and its subcomponents) today versus 2014/15. The Fed Monitor is still signaling a need for the Fed to continue tightening because the Economic Growth and Inflation Components remain elevated. Yet the Monitor has declined from its recent peak thanks entirely to the plunge in the Financial Conditions Component, which has fallen even faster than it did in 2014/15. Chart 6BCA Fed Monitor: Today Vs 2014/15 The implication from our Fed Monitor is that there needs to be more evidence of slowing U.S. economic growth and reduced inflation pressures for the Fed to stay on hold for longer. If the data stay firm, but financial conditions ease because investors expect a prolonged pause from the Fed, then the Fed could quickly return to a hawkish bias later this year. This is now our base case scenario for how 2019 will play out. This is also why we are only upgrading corporate debt on a tactical basis. We do not expect U.S. growth or inflation to slow enough to prevent more Fed tightening later this year – an outcome that will weigh on credit returns as the Fed moves to a restrictive policy stance. Yet even if we are wrong and the U.S. economy decelerates more sharply, that is also a bad outcome for credit because it means weaker corporate profits and rising downgrades and defaults. For bond investors with longer-time horizons than 3-6 months, the credit rally that we are anticipating can actually provide an opportunity to reduce credit exposure for the final leg of the Fed’s monetary policy cycle and the multi-year corporate credit cycle. In other words, selling into the rally rather than chasing it. For now, we are choosing to play for the shorter-term move by upgrading our recommended global credit allocations. Yet we do not envision this turning into a long-term position. The medium-term outlook for corporates is far more challenging given the advanced age of the monetary, business and credit cycles. Bottom Line: The Fed is now clearly signaling a near-term capitulation to tightening global financial conditions alongside slowing global growth and inflation. A pause in the U.S. rate hiking cycle, after credit spread valuations have cheapened up, opens up a window of opportunity for global corporate bond market outperformance versus government debt over the next 3-6 months. The Specific Changes To Our Recommended Asset Allocation As part of our tactical upgrade of global corporate debt, we are making the following changes to our recommended portfolio allocation tables (see Page 13): Upgrade overall global credit exposure to overweight (4 out of 5) Upgrade both U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporate exposure to overweight (4 out of 5), while downgrading U.S. Treasury exposure to underweight (2 out of 5) Upgrade euro area investment grade and high-yield corporate exposure to neutral (3 out of 5) and downgrade euro area government bond exposure to underweight (2 out of 5) Upgrade EM U.S. dollar denominated debt from maximum underweight to underweight (2 out of 5), both for sovereign and corporate debt. The changes all represent a one-notch upgrade from our previous allocations, based on our more positive tactical view on overall global credit risk, while still maintaining our relative preference for U.S. corporates over non-U.S. equivalents. We prefer U.S. credit not only because we expect better relative economic growth momentum in the U.S., but also because our preferred valuation metrics indicate that U.S. corporate bond spreads now look relatively attractive. Our estimate of the default-adjusted spread on U.S. high-yield corporates, which is simply the current spread minus losses from defaults, has risen to 302bps, well above the long-run average of 268bps (Chart 7). That is a function of the high-yield spread now discounting a 2019 default rate of nearly 6%, well above our forecasted default rate of 2.5%.5 Chart 7Too Much Default Risk Priced Into U.S. Junk Corporate credit spreads in the U.S. also look attractive on a volatility-adjusted basis. Our estimates of Breakeven Spreads – the amount of spread widening required for corporate returns to break-even with duration-matched U.S. Treasuries on a one-year horizon – shows that credit spreads have cheapened to levels that are in the upper end of the historical range for both investment grade and high-yield debt (Charts 8 & 9). Chart 8Vol-Adjusted IG Spreads Have Cheapened   Chart 9Vol-Adjusted HY Spreads Are Cheap Credit spreads have also cheapened up in Europe and EM, and a “risk-on” rally from a Fed pause will likely benefit spread product in those regions. However, the performance of U.S. credit versus non-U.S. credit remains largely determined by relative growth trends (Charts 10 & 11). Given our more positive view on U.S. growth on a relative basis, we are maintaining a higher recommended allocation to U.S. corporates versus euro area and EM equivalents, even as we upgrade overall global corporate exposure. This is also a way to provide a partial hedge to the specific risks in the latter regions coming from: Chart 10Global Corporates: Continue Favoring U.S. Over Europe   Chart 11Global Corporates: Continue Favoring U.S. Over EM a) an end of the ECB’s corporate bond buying as part of its Asset Purchase Program, which takes a major buyer out of the euro area corporate market b) a more persistent slowing of Chinese growth momentum and softer non-oil commodity prices, both of which would be negatives for EM assets On a final note, we are also changing the specific weighting in our Model Bond Portfolio on Page 12 to reflect all of the above changes. The allocations to all U.S., euro area and EM corporates are increased – with bigger allocation changes in the U.S. – funded out of reduced weightings in U.S., German and French government bonds. Note that we are not making any changes to our relative U.K. exposures this week, given the unique risk for U.K. financial markets from the Brexit uncertainty. Thus, we are maintaining an overweight stance on U.K. Gilts in the government bond portion of the model portfolio, while remaining underweight U.K. corporates on the credit side.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Time To Take Some Chips Off The Table: Downgrade Global Corporate Bond Exposure To Neutral”, dated June 26th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Checklist For Peak Credit Spreads”, dated November 27th 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem”, dated November 21st 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Three Big Questions To Start Off 2019”, dated January 8th 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 That forecasted default rate is taken from Moody’s, who have a similarly positive outlook on 2019 U.S. growth as BCA. Therefore, we see no reason to use a different default rate assumption in our high-yield valuation estimate. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Corporates: The same indicators that called the early-2016 peak in credit spreads are once again sending a positive signal. Investors should tactically increase exposure to corporate bonds at the expense of Treasuries. Duration: Treasury yields will rise in the coming months as credit spreads tighten and financial conditions ease. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. TIPS: The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has fallen too far, and it is now well below the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations model. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasury securities. Feature We continue to view the 2015/16 episode as the appropriate comparable for current market behavior, and the same indicators that called the early-2016 peak in credit spreads are once again sending a positive signal. As such, we recommend increasing portfolio allocations to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds at the expense of Treasury securities (see the Recommended Portfolio Specification Table on the last page of this report). Importantly, our cyclical view of the credit cycle has not changed. Elevated corporate debt balances and a relatively flat yield curve suggest that we are in the awkward middle phase of the cycle when excess returns from corporate credit tend to be positive, but low.1  However, recent spread widening has been excessive for this middle phase of the cycle, and we expect spreads to tighten from oversold levels during the next few months. Three Reasons To Upgrade Credit (& One Key Risk) Reason 1: Elevated Spreads The first reason to upgrade corporate credit is the attractive entry point (Chart 1). Outside of the Aaa space, 12-month breakeven spreads for every credit tier (encompassing both investment grade and junk) are above their respective historical medians. For example, the 12-month breakeven spread for the Baa credit tier is at 59%. This means that the spread has been tighter than its current level 59% of the time since 1988 and wider than its current level 41% of the time. Historically, spreads tend to hover within the tight-end of their historical range during this middle phase of the credit cycle, and only cheapen significantly when the yield curve inverts and the default rate moves higher. Chart 1Corporate Bonds: Attractive Entry Point Reason 2: Fed Capitulation The 2015/16 roadmap is applicable to the current market because in both cases credit spread widening was driven by the combination of weaker global growth and relatively hawkish Fed policy.2 With that in mind, an important pre-condition for spread tightening is a shift in the market’s expectations for Fed policy. Investor psyche must change from viewing monetary policy as restrictive to viewing it as accommodative. Chart 2 shows the three indicators we’ve been monitoring to signal when this shift occurs. All three called the early-2016 peak in credit spreads, and all are sending a strong buy signal at the moment. Chart 2Fed Capitulation Indicators Send A Strong Signal... Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter, the change in the fed funds rate that is priced into the overnight index swap curve for the next 12 months, has collapsed from an early-November peak of 66 bps all the way to -4 bps (Chart 2, top panel). The gold price has also rebounded smartly (Chart 2, panel 2). Gold tends to rally when the market perceives that monetary policy is becoming more accommodative because the increased risk of future inflation makes gold’s “store of value” characteristics more appealing.3 Finally, the trade-weighted dollar has started to depreciate (Chart 2, bottom panel). This signals that U.S. monetary policy is easing relative to the rest of the world, and is historically correlated with stronger global growth. Reason 3: Imminent Global Growth Rebound The high-frequency global growth indicators that called the early-2016 peak in credit spreads are not sending as strong a signal as the monetary policy indicators, but there has been some positive movement (Chart 3). Chart 3...While There Is Positive Movement In Global Growth Indicators The CRB Raw Industrials index has only flattened-off in recent weeks (Chart 3, top panel), but the Market-Based China Growth Indicator created by our China Investment Strategy team has been rising quickly (Chart 3, panel 2).4  Finally, the price of global industrial mining stocks is no longer in free-fall. Rather, it is showing some signs of stabilization (Chart 3, bottom panel). Of the six indicators shown in Charts 2 and 3, four are sending strong buy signals and the other two are more or less neutral. In sum, we think this is enough of a signal to upgrade exposure to corporate bonds. One Key Risk The key risk to our tactical upgrade is that there is no follow-through from Fed easing to stronger global growth. In 2016, Fed capitulation coincided with a ramp-up in Chinese stimulus efforts. Chart 4 shows that our China Investment Strategy team’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator moved sharply higher in early 2016.5 Moreover, all six components of the indicator participated in the uptrend. At present, only some components of the Leading Index have rebounded and the overall index has merely leveled-off. Chart 4Chinese Growth Is The One Key Risk When it comes to Chinese growth, a trade deal with the U.S. would certainly help matters. However, the risk remains that Chinese policymakers continue to curb credit growth so much that the pass through from easier Fed policy to global growth is weaker than in 2016. Bottom Line: With Fed rate hikes priced out of the market and signs of stabilization in high-frequency global growth indicators, the toxic combination of tight Fed policy and weak global growth is disappearing. This should allow credit spreads to tighten from current oversold levels. The rapid shift in monetary policy expectations makes us think that spread tightening could occur over a relatively short timeframe. As such, we would recommend this upgrade only to tactical (3-6 month) investors. Those with longer investment horizons may be better served by waiting for spreads to tighten and then using that opportunity to reduce cyclical corporate bond exposure. A Note On Portfolio Duration As mentioned above, the market has completely priced out Fed rate hikes. At present, the overnight index swap curve discounts 4 bps of rate cuts over the next 12 months and 17 bps of rate cuts over the next 24 months. This shift in market rate expectations is the main reason for our rosier outlook on corporate spreads, but it’s important to remember that the causation between credit spreads and policy expectations runs both ways (Chart 5). It is the recent spread widening and sharp tightening in financial conditions that caused the Fed to adopt a more accommodative policy stance in the first place (Chart 6). In the background, the U.S. economic data remain robust. The New York Fed’s GDP Nowcast model projects above-trend real GDP growth of 2.5% in 2018 Q4 and 2.1% in 2019 Q1. The corollary is that once credit spreads tighten and financial conditions ease, the Fed will have no further reason to stay on hold. Chart 6Financial Conditions Likely Going To Ease Going Forward If financial conditions ease during the next few months, as we expect, then it is very likely that the Fed will be ready to lift rates again at the June FOMC meeting. The fed funds futures curve currently discounts less than a 20% chance of that happening.  Bottom Line: The U.S. economic data are solid. The sharp fall in rate hike expectations and Treasury yields is purely a reaction to tighter financial conditions. Treasury yields will rise in the coming months as credit spreads tighten and financial conditions ease. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Inflation & TIPS The main reason why the Fed feels comfortable responding to tighter financial conditions by adopting a more dovish policy stance is that inflation remains well contained. Last week’s CPI report showed that core CPI grew by 2.2% in 2018, somewhat below levels that are consistent with the Fed’s target (Chart 7).6 Chart 7Inflation Remains Well Contained Looking at the monthly changes, we also see that core CPI has increased by roughly 0.2% in each of the past three months. This translates to an annualized rate of approximately 2.4%, in line with the Fed’s target (Chart 8). The monthly changes shown in Chart 8 also reveal that the year-over-year growth rate in core CPI will almost certainly decline next month when the strong 0.35% print from last January falls out of the trailing 12-month sample. Chart 8Muted Inflationary Pressures For Now However, after next month base effects start to turn supportive. Our Base Effects Indicator, an indicator that compares rates of change in core CPI ranging from 1 to 11 months, predicts that year-over-year core CPI inflation will be higher six months from now (Chart 9). Chart 9Expect Higher Inflation Six Months From Now The conclusion is that inflationary pressures appear muted right now, and will continue to appear muted through the end of February. However, we expect them to ramp up again as we head into March. Come June, it is quite likely that the Fed will be feeling the pressure to lift rates as inflation approaches target. Coincident with a renewed uptick in inflation, TIPS breakeven inflation rates are also biased higher during the next six months. Slowing global growth and falling oil prices drove long-maturity breakevens lower during the past few months, with the result that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is now 1.83%, 14 bps below the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations model (Chart 10).7  Chart 10Message From Our Adaptive Expectations Model Our Adaptive Expectations model contains three independent variables: The 10-year trailing rate of change in core CPI (Chart 10, panel 3) The 12-month trailing rate of change in headline CPI (Chart 10, panel 4) The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge (Chart 10, bottom panel) Of those three variables, the 10-year trailing rate of change in core CPI carries the largest weight. This long-run measure of core inflation is currently running at an annualized pace of 1.83%. This translates roughly to an average monthly increase of 0.15%. In other words, as long as monthly core inflation prints above the 0.15% level, the fair value from our Adaptive Expectations model will continue to rise. Bottom Line: Core inflation has been steady during the past few months, but base effects will turn positive after next month’s report. This means that we will probably see higher year-over-year core CPI inflation in six months. With the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate already well below the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations model, we expect TIPS will outperform nominal Treasuries during the next six months.   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 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 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “An Oasis Of Prosperity?”, dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Signal From Gold?”, dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For further details on how this indicator is constructed please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5 The Li Keqiang Leading Indicator is a composite indicator of money and credit growth measures designed to predict changes in the Li Keqiang Index (a coincident indicator of Chinese economic activity). For further details on how the Leading Index is constructed please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China’s Business Cycle”, dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 6 The Fed targets 2% PCE inflation. CPI inflation tends to run about 0.4%-0.5% higher than PCE, which means the Fed’s target is roughly 2.4%-2.5% for CPI. 7 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification