Fixed Income

Special Report

Highlights Structurally, EM corporate leverage is elevated and the interest coverage ratio is low. Cyclically, China/EM growth slowdown will lead to corporate spread widening. Rising U.S. dollar corporate bond yields in EM herald lower share prices. The recent underperformance in Mexican financial markets versus their EM peers is not sustainable. We reiterate our overweight position in Mexico. In Indonesia, the central bank is attempting to fight the Impossible Trinity, a battle that by definition cannot be won. Investors should keep underweighting this market. Feature This report focuses on the corporate health of emerging market (EM) companies, as well as the outlook for corporate bonds. We review the key drivers behind credit spreads and provide an up-to-date snapshot of overall corporate health. We also illustrate the travails in China's offshore corporate bond market, which are of high importance to the broad EM outlook. With respect to scope of coverage and data comparability, please refer to Box 1. BOX 1 Data Relevance And Its Application As there is no aggregate financial dataset for EM corporate bond issuers, we use corporate financial data provided by Worldscope for the EM equity universe - the constituents of the MSCI EM equity index. While from an individual country perspective this makes a difference, from an EM sector perspective the differences are not substantial. Excluding the technology sector, it is often the case that the same companies have both publicly traded stocks and bonds. This is especially true in sectors such as basic materials, energy, industrials, telecom, utilities and financials. This is why, in this report, we focus our attention on sectors rather than countries, and why we examine the EM companies' financial health excluding technology and banks. Banks' relevant financial ratios vary greatly from those of non-banks. For the technology sector, the largest tech names in the equity space have minimal bonds outstanding, so using financial data from the equity space for credit analysis is inappropriate. In short, the analysis below on corporate health is pertinent to both equity and corporate bond investors. However, its emphasis is on creditworthiness and ability to service debt, which is more attuned to credit investors. Drivers Of EM Credit Spreads Cyclical swings in EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads are driven by changes in borrowers' revenues, cash flow and profits. Hence, the business cycle is one of the important drivers of corporate creditworthiness. When global and EM growth accelerate, revenue and free cash flow improve, causing credit spreads to narrow (Chart I-1). The EM business cycle drives EM sovereign spreads too (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Corporates: Cash Flow From Operations And Credit Spreads Chart I-2EM Sovereign Spreads Move In Tandem With Business Cycle This is why we spend a lot of time gauging the global business cycle outlook and cover this topic extensively in our reports. For now, the growth outlook for China/EM and global trade remains gloomy: Chart I-3China Is A Major Risk For EM Profits China's credit and fiscal spending impulse projects further weakness in the mainland's business cycle and EM corporate earnings (Chart I-3). China's slowdown is no longer limited to the industrial sector - household spending growth has downshifted considerably since early this year, as we discussed in last week's report.1 Weakening sales of consumer goods and autos in China are one of the primary reasons behind the ongoing slump in the global technology and semiconductor sectors. Consistently, plunging growth in Taiwanese electronics exports points to both weaker global trade and EM tech earnings in the months ahead (Chart I-4). In short, even though we have excluded technology from our analysis of corporate financial health, hardware tech companies' profits remain at risk. The latter is not relevant for EM corporate bond investors, but it is critical for the EM equity space. Chart I-4Taiwanese Shipments Foreshadow A Relapse In EM Tech Earnings Other pertinent financial market indicators for EM credit spreads are commodities prices, EM exchange rates and EM local rates. The basis is as follows: (1) Energy and materials make up 25% of the J.P. CEMBI EM corporate bond index, and commodities prices drive their revenues and in turn credit spread fluctuations (Chart I-5, top panel); (2) Outside the resource sector, corporate bond issuers by and large do not feature exporters, and their capacity to service foreign currency debt is greatly affected by exchange rate movements (Chart I-5, bottom panel); (3) Financials make up 30% of the J.P. CEMBI EM corporate bond index, and their credit spreads are greatly influenced by domestic interest rates and banking system health (Chart I-6). We exclude financials from our corporate health analysis because their financial ratios differ vastly from those of non-financials. Chart I-5Drivers Of Credit Spreads: Commodities And Currencies Chart I-6EM Bank Credit Spreads Will Widen If Local Bond Yields Rise Overall, we expect global trade to weaken, commodities prices to drop further and EM currencies to depreciate. The latter will push up local interest rates. In turn, several EM banking systems remain saddled with bad assets from previous credit booms that have not been recognized, and banks have not been recapitalized. These factors point to a widening in bank credit spreads. All in all, EM corporate and sovereign spreads will widen further. A Snapshot Of EM Corporate Health The following financial ratios - which are calculated for EM companies excluding technology and financials - do not justify currently tight corporate spread. Leverage measured as net debt (total debt minus cash assets) divided either by EBITDA or cash flow from operation2 (CFO) remains elevated (Chart I-7, top panel). Among 9 sectors, only energy, basic materials and consumer discretionary have seen their leverage fall over the past two years. Chart I-7EM Corporate Health: Leverage And Interest Coverage Ratios Interest coverage ratios computed as EBITDA- or CFO- to- interest expense are well below their 2007 and 2011 levels (Chart I-7, middle panel). These figures corroborate that neither EM corporate indebtedness nor companies' ability to service debt using cash from operations is back to levels that prevailed before the global financial crisis in 2008 when EM financial markets were in a secular uptrend. Crucially, this is inconsistent with presently still-tight EM corporate spreads (Chart I-7, bottom panel). This mispricing, in our opinion, reflects the global search for yield that was induced by the crowding out of investors from DM bond markets by global central banks' QE programs. A contraction in corporate profits and cash flows from operation - for the reasons discussed above - will cause issuers' credit matrixes to deteriorate. With respect to cross-sectional analysis, Table I-1 presents interest coverage ratios (computed as an average of EBITDA- and CFO-to-interest expense ratios) for mainstream countries and all sectors. The cells in red present pockets of distress where the interest coverage ratio is below 3. The cells in blue illustrate segments where moderate financial stress is present: these are sectors with an interest coverage ratio of above 3 but below 5.5. Table I-1Interest Coverage Ratios On a positive note, the rally in commodities and cutbacks in capex have allowed energy and basic materials companies to drastically improve their leverage and interest coverage ratios in the past 2 years. However, even though their present financial health is great, their cash flow from operations is set to deteriorate again as commodities prices continue to relapse. The key motive behind our negative view on credit markets in Latin America, Russia, the Middle East and Africa - which is de facto the EM universe excluding emerging Asia - is because with the exception of Turkey, they are very exposed to commodities prices. As commodities prices drop and these nations' currencies depreciate, their sovereign and corporate credit spreads will widen. We are not implying that these issuers are facing default risks. Simply, lower revenues from commodities and higher debt servicing costs due to currency depreciation warrant a re-pricing of risk. Within credit portfolios, we recommend favoring defensive low-beta credit, excluding banks, versus riskier high-beta ones. We are underweight EM banks within the EM equity space and recommend the same strategy for the EM credit universe. Based on the matrix in Table I-1, credit portfolios should overweight consumer services, tech, energy and basic materials and underweight industrials, utilities and healthcare. China's Corporate Health And Credit Market There has been little deleveraging among Chinese companies. On the contrary, the country's massive credit and fiscal stimulus in 2016 bailed out many indebted companies, lifting corporate debt levels and augmenting the misallocation of capital. In particular: Chart I-8China's Corporate Debt Is Enormous China's corporate debt remains enormous, at $19.5 trillion, or RMB 140 trillion. It is the highest in the history of any country (Chart I-8). Some 95% of corporate debt is in local currency terms. My colleague Jonathan LaBerge from China Investment Strategy has calculated that Chinese state-owned enterprises' adjusted return on assets, has fallen below the cost of capital (Chart I-9). This indicates that these companies have for now exhausted profitable investment opportunities and should arguably scale back on their investment expenditures. Further borrowing and investing by these enterprises will augment the amount of bad assets held by Chinese banks and reduce the country's overall productivity and hence, potential growth. Yet, denying these debtors financing will result in a major slump in capex, and probably labor market weakness. Chart I-9Chinese SOEs: Capital Misallocation Chart I-10Leverage And Interest Coverage For Chinese Companies Dissecting sectoral data, indebtedness is elevated for industrials, utilities and property developers. Consistently, the interest coverage ratio is extremely low for industrials, utilities and property developers (Chart I-10). Financial health of Chinese materials has improved tremendously due to de-capacity reforms - the shutdown of excess capacity that has boosted both steel and coal prices. Interestingly, this has occurred at the expense of utilities and some other heavy consumers of steel and coal. Notably, steel and coal prices are beginning to relapse (Chart I-11). For reasons discussed in our previous report,3 these commodities prices will drop further and will hurt producers' cash flow and profits, causing their creditworthiness to deteriorate. Chart I-11Steel And Thermal Coal Prices Offshore corporate bond yields and spreads are surging, foreshadowing rising borrowing costs and reduced availability of financing (Chart I-12A). The problem is especially acute for property developers (Chart I-12B). In a nutshell, Chinese corporate U.S. dollar bond yields are at their highest levels of the past five-six years. The same is true for emerging Asian corporate bond issuers. Chart I-12AChinese Offshore Aggregate Corporate Bonds Chart I-12BChinese Offshore Property Developers Not only do Chinese corporate bonds now account for 32.5% of EM and 56% of emerging Asian corporate bond indexes, but investment expenditures by Chinese companies are also critical to companies elsewhere in Asia and globally. Chinese gross fixed capital formation accounts for 6% and 5.4% of global GDP in nominal and real terms, respectively. By contrast, these numbers are 4.6% and 4.3% for the U.S. We have deliberated at great length on why China's growth will likely continue to downshift, despite the policy stimulus, and we will not repeat our arguments today.4 The financial health of Chinese companies will worsen due to dwindling sales and cash generation. This, along with less credit/financing available onshore and offshore, will erode their capacity to undertake large investment expenditures. Consequently, capital expenditures in general and construction in particular will suffer substantially. This is the main rationale behind our negative view on resources, raw materials and industrials worldwide. Investment Observations And Conclusions Apart from Turkey and Argentina, there has been no liquidation and capitulation in EM assets in general and the credit space in particular. It would be unusual if this extended selloff ends without capitulation. EM credit markets appear technically vulnerable. In particular, the excess returns on EM sovereign and corporate bonds are splintering below their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-13). Odds are there will be more downside. Chart I-13A Bad Signal Rising U.S. dollar corporate bond yields in both EM overall and in emerging Asia herald lower share prices (Chart I-14). So long as the drop in U.S. Treasury yields is offset by widening EM credit spreads, EM corporate bond yields will continue to rise and EM share prices will sell off. However, as and when EM corporate (or sovereign) yields start falling, irrespective of whether because of declining U.S. Treasury yields or narrowing EM credit spreads, EM equity prices will rally. EM sovereign and corporate bond yields are an imperative indicator to watch for equity investors. Chart I-14Rising Corporate Yields = Lower Share Prices We continue to recommend defensive positioning in EM sovereign and corporate bonds. In terms of asset allocation, EM dollar-denominated sovereign and corporate bonds should not be compared with EM local currency bonds or equities or U.S. Treasurys.5 These are credit instruments, and they should be a part of a credit portfolio with U.S. and European corporate bonds. Credit portfolios should presently be underweight EM sovereign and corporate bonds relative to U.S. corporate bonds (Chart I-15A & Chart I-15B). Chart I-15AEM Sovereign Credit Versus U.S. Credit: Relative Excess Returns Chart I-15BEM Corporate Credit Versus U.S. Credit: Relative Excess Returns Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Mexico: Is The Underperformance Overdone? Despite having a sound macroeconomic backdrop,6 Mexican financial markets have lately substantially underperformed their emerging market peers due in large part to domestic politics. Odds are that Mexican risk assets will continue to sell off in absolute terms, especially given the broad turmoil in the EM universe, which we expect to continue. That said, the recent underperformance of Mexican markets versus their EM peers is overdone, and odds are that Mexican stocks, local bonds and sovereign credit will outperform their EM peers over the coming six to 12 months: First, the Mexican authorities have been pursuing orthodox macro policies, including very tight monetary and fiscal policies. The central bank hiked its policy rate again last week in the face of a currency relapse, and the fiscal stance has been tight. Currently, the real policy rate is 4% and the 10-year local currency government bond yield is 5.5%, both deflated by core consumer price inflation (Chart II-1, top and middle panel). Real rates are very high by historical standards and are now above most other EMs. Chart II-1Mexico: Tight Monetary And Fiscal Policies The government's non-interest expenditures deflated by core consumer price inflation have been contracting (Chart II-1, bottom panel). Such a tight monetary and fiscal policy mix will not change considerably with AMLO taking the office and it should benefit the currency. We expect the peso to start outperforming its EM peers on a total-return basis. Second, the Mexican peso is very cheap - close to one standard deviation below fair value, according to the unit labor cost-based real effective exchange rate (Chart II-2). The latter is our favorite currency valuation measure. Chart II-2The Mexican Peso Is Cheap Third, economic growth is improving, as the effects from monetary and fiscal tightening are diminishing (Chart II-3). This should at the margin support Mexican financial markets versus their EM peers where growth is slowing. Chart II-3Mexico: A Moderate Cyclical Recovery Fourth, Mexico's business cycle is much more leveraged to the U.S. economy than to China's. In line with our view that U.S. growth will fare better than China's growth, the Mexican economy will likely outperform other EMs that are more leveraged to China. Finally, an important rationale behind our recommendation to maintain an overweight stance on Mexico is that Mexican risk assets are defensive plays within the broad EM universe. In other words, whenever there is broad EM turbulence and an ensuing flight to quality, Mexican risk assets tend to outperform their EM peers. This is even more likely to happen now that Mexican sovereign spreads are already elevated and local currency government bonds offer a very attractive yield relative to other EMs (Chart II-4). Chart II-4Mexican Domestic And U.S. Dollar Bonds Offer Value Still, a few words are warranted on the recent domestic political developments. Our view is that the latest measures announced by the incoming administration regarding the new airport and banking fees are more indicative of a strategy to test the markets before the AMLO administration takes office, rather than declaring war against both markets and investors. It is noteworthy how fast the AMLO government came out after each of these announcements to calm investors. This suggests to us that fears of Mexico taking an irreversible sharp political turn to the left are overblown. AMLO is likely to be pragmatic and deliberate in the way he pushes forward his policies. In a nutshell, our bias is that these announcements represent an attempt by the AMLO administration to promote competition and reduce rent-seeking activities in the economy. This can be negative for shareholders of incumbent large companies, as it will hurt corporate profits of oligopolies. However, in the long term these polices will be positive for overall economic growth as they will reduce the cost of doing business, appease structural inflation and boost the nation's competitiveness. From a structural perspective, these policies are positive for the currency and local bonds. One way to play this theme is to favor small-cap over large-cap companies. Given the oligopolistic structure of some industries, Mexican large-cap companies are much more likely to be hurt by the incoming administration's open competition policies than small-cap companies. As such, small-caps will likely outperform large-caps in Mexico over at least the next six to 12 months (Chart II-5). Moreover, small-caps are currently trading at a significant discount compared to large-caps, with the former trading at multiples that are half of the latter. Chart II-5Mexico: Small-Caps Will Outperform Large-Caps Investment Conclusion Dedicated EM investors should overweight Mexican equities, local currency bonds and sovereign credit within their respective universes. Concerning the exchange rate, we are maintaining our long MXN / short ZAR position. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Indonesia: Defying The Impossible Trinity? Indonesian stocks are attempting to rally and have lately outperformed the EM equity benchmark. The outlook for this bourse remains negative and we recommend investors to fade this rally and outperformance. Critically, Indonesian domestic interbank rates and corporate U.S. dollar bond yields are rising. Historically, this is a negative signal for share prices (Chart III-1, rates and yields are shown inverted). Chart III-1Rising Rates/Yields = Falling Stocks Weakening rupiah and rising interest rates are forcing the central bank (BI) into a policy dilemma: Should it defend the currency and allow interest rates to rise further or should it cap interest rates and let the currency find a market equilibrium? It appears the BI is trying to do both - to stop the currency from depreciating, while also capping or bringing down interbank rates simultaneously. This defies the Impossible Trinity thesis which stipulates that a central bank of a country with an open capital account has to choose between controlling either the exchange rate or interest rates. On the surface, it would seem that the BI has been focused on targeting a stable rupiah. The monetary authorities have sold foreign exchange reserves (Chart III-2, top panel), and raised the key policy rate. Chart III-2Aggressive Monetary Policy Tightening... Selling of foreign exchange reserves is a form of tightening as it drains the banking system's excess reserves at the central bank. Shrinking interbank liquidity, however, pushes up interbank rates and borrowing costs (Chart III-2, bottom panel). Higher borrowings costs not only make the currency more appealing to investors, but they also curb domestic demand and, thereby, improve the current account balance. This is an ultimate mechanism of how policy tightening leads to exchange rate stability. Yet the full picture of BI's policies is a lot murkier. While on the one hand, the central bank has sold its foreign exchange reserves and hiked policy rates to defend the rupiah, it has also offset some of the tightening by injecting local currency reserves into the banking system. Chart III-3 shows that the BI purchased/redeemed back central bank certificates from commercial banks, which has led to a sharp increase in commercial banks' excess reserves. Chart III-3... And Liquidity Injections By Central Bank Central bank liquidity injections are akin to monetary easing aimed at capping or even bringing down interbank rates. Hence, they come as a contradiction to the central bank's restrictive policies. If the BI chooses to stabilize the rupiah, then interbank rates and borrowing costs in general will have to rise and the economy will take a hit. Corporate earnings will then contract which will be bearish for the equity market. If the central bank opts to cap interbank rates, it has to inject as much liquidity (excess reserves) into the banking system as required. In this scenario, the currency could depreciate triggering capital flight and selloffs in equity and local bond markets. The BI can continue the muddle-through policy - offsetting or sterilizing its foreign exchange interventions by turning the backdoor liquidity taps on. These injections of local currency liquidity into the banking system could encourage speculation against the rupiah and allow banks to lend more, maintaining robust imports and a large current account deficit. It is not certain, but if the market perceives that interest rates are lower than warranted, the currency could very well depreciate amid this policy mix. In this scenario, the result could be a mix of gradual currency depreciation and somewhat higher interest rates. Financial markets will still do poorly in dollar terms. Overall, odds are high that the rupiah will resume its depreciation and interest rates will move higher. Indonesia's balance of payment dynamics remain a risk to the exchange rate. The current account deficit is still large and exports are heading south (Chart III-4). Chart III-4Current Account Deficit Is Large First, Chart III-5 illustrates that the sharp slowdown in the average manufacturing PMIs of Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Germany are pointing to an imminent contraction in Indonesian export volumes. Chart III-5Exports Are Heading South Second, thermal coal prices seem to be breaking down. Chart III-6 shows that the stock price of Adaro - a large Indonesian coal producing company - has already fallen by 45% in U.S. dollar terms since January, and is heralding a dismal outlook for coal prices. Chart III-6Coal Prices Are To Break Down Lower coal prices will shrink Indonesia's coal export revenues. The latter accounts for 12% of total Indonesian exports. In terms of the outlook for banks, which is a key equity sector, their share prices have been surprisingly resilient. Rising interest rates, however, will cause their NPLs to move higher hurting banks' profits, and pulling their share prices down (Chart III-7). Chart III-7Bank Stocks Are At Risk Finally, overall Indonesian equity valuations are still not attractive either in absolute terms or relative to the EM benchmark. Meanwhile, foreigners own 32% of the equity market and 37% of local currency bonds. As the rupiah slides, foreigners will rush to the exits, amplifying the currency depreciation. Bottom Line: The path of least resistance for the rupiah is down. Continue underweighting Indonesian equities and bonds and continue shorting the rupiah versus the U.S. dollar. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "On Domino Effects And Portfolio Outflows," dated November 15, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Cash flow from operations represents net cash flow from operating activities & excludes net cash flow financing and investing activities. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms," dated October 17, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Stimulus, Deleveraging And Growth," dated October 25, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Emering Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Strategic Asset Allocation For Emerging Markets," dated May 7 2013, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO," dated June 28 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The relative performance of developed market (DM) versus emerging market (EM) equities just corresponds to the relative performance of healthcare versus financials. On a six month horizon, DM will underperform EM. Within Europe, overweight Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic, but steer clear of energy-heavy Russia. Wait for the 10-year BTP yield to move closer to 3 percent before buying Italian assets, either in absolute or relative terms. Buy the pound on any sharp sell-offs during the Brexit psychodrama. Our medium-term expected value of pound/euro equals 1.18. Chart of the WeekDeveloped Vs. Emerging Markets = Healthcare Vs. Financials Feature They say that to capture the Zeitgeist at any moment, all you need to do is name the top five companies in the world. So here are the top five companies in the developed equity markets (DM): Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook (Table I-1). Table I-1Developed Markets: Top 5 Companies These five names do perfectly capture the spirit of our time and should not surprise you. Now look at the top five companies in the emerging equity markets (EM): Tencent, Taiwan Semiconductor, Samsung Electronics, Alibaba, and Naspers (Table I-2). Table I-2Emerging Markets: Top 5 Companies What may surprise you is that technology titans dominate in EM markets too. In fact, the technology sector's weighting in EM, at 25 percent, is even larger than in DM, at 19 percent. If technology looms even larger in EM than in DM, what is the defining sector difference between the two regions? The answer is that emerging markets have almost no healthcare stocks, and an offsetting substantial overweighting to financials (Table I-3). Table I-3Developed Markets Versus Emerging Markets: Sector Weights Developed Vs. Emerging Markets = Healthcare Vs. Financials The following is a very different way of looking at the DM versus EM investment decision and, as such, may differ from the BCA house view. As we have demonstrated time and time again on these pages, an equity market's dominant sector skew is of critical importance to investors (Chart I-2). This is because equity sector skews almost always drive regional and country relative performance. Crucially, this fundamental truth applies at the highest level too: the relative performance of DM versus EM. The Chart of the Week should leave you in absolutely no doubt that the relative performance of DM versus EM just corresponds to the relative performance of healthcare versus financials. Chart I-2Developed Versus Emerging Markets: Sector Weight Differences Nevertheless, this striking observation raises a fascinating question: what is the direction of causality? Does healthcare versus financials drive DM versus EM, or in fact does DM versus EM drive healthcare versus financials? The answer is sometimes the former, and at other times the latter. For example, a major slump in emerging economies would undoubtedly drag down global equities. In the ensuing synchronized bear market, the more defensive healthcare sector would almost certainly outperform the financials, and under these circumstances the direction of causality would clearly be from DM versus EM to global sector performance. On the other hand, absent a major bear market, if a reappraisal of sector relative valuations and growth prospects caused a rotation in sector leadership, the causality would run in the other direction: from global sector performance to DM versus EM. Such a reappraisal of sector relative valuations and growth prospects appears to be underway at the moment, and is likely to persist for the next few months. This is because the very sharp down-oscillation in global credit growth which occurred from February through September has now clearly flipped into an up-oscillation. For investors, these oscillations in global credit growth provide excellent tactical opportunities because the oscillations are very regular and therefore predictable; and the cyclical versus defensive sector performance closely tracks the oscillations. So after healthcare's strong outperformance versus financials from February through September, sector relative performance has now flipped into a reverse configuration (Chart I-3). Chart I-3An Up-Oscillation In Global Credit Growth Technically Favours Financials To be clear, this is likely a tactical opportunity lasting no more than six months or so. Nevertheless, from a DM versus EM perspective, it would imply a countertrend move within a structural trend - in which the outperformance of DM versus EM temporarily ends, or even flips into an underperformance (Chart I-4). Chart I-4An Up-Oscillation In Global Credit Growth Technically Favours EM For European equity investors, the important implication is that developed Europe versus emerging Europe closely tracks broad DM versus broad EM (Chart I-5). Of course, 'emerging Europe' is a misnomer because Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and even Russia are developed economies and markets. Nevertheless, as they fall within the MSCI EM index, they tend to move with EM. Chart I-5Developed Europe Vs. Emerging Europe = Developed Markets Vs. Emerging Markets The upshot is that on a tactical horizon, emerging Europe is likely to outperform developed Europe. However, given our high conviction view that non-energy commodities will continue to outperform energy, focus on Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic and steer clear of energy-heavy Russia. European Psychodrama 1: Italy Vs. The EU In the low-level game of chicken between Italy and the EU Commission over Italy's 2019 budget, the bond market will determine who swerves first. If the 10-year BTP yield rises and stays well above 4 percent, the weakened capital position of Italian banks from lower bond prices combined with deteriorating funding conditions will weigh on bank lending and economic growth. This will put pressure on the Italian government to swerve first and concede ground to the EU's demands. That said, it is hard to know the exact level of yields at which the government would reach its pain threshold. On the other hand, if the 10-year BTP yield falls and stays well below 3 percent, the bond market's insouciance would embolden the Italian government. Moreover, this apparent vote of confidence would be based on sound economics. Italy likely has a very high fiscal multiplier, meaning that a modest increase in its budget deficit to 2.4 percent would more than pay for itself through higher economic growth. Under these circumstances the EU would be under pressure to swerve first and give Italy some room for manoeuvre. The long-term investment opportunity is the Italy versus Spain sovereign 10-year yield spread. At 200 bps, the spread is at its all-time widest, and incongruous with the vanishing gap between the non-performing loans ratios in Italy and Spain. Nevertheless, our recommendation is to wait for the 10-year BTP yield to move closer to 3 percent before buying Italian assets, either in absolute or relative terms (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Remain Neutral Italian Assets Until The 10-Year BTP Yield Moves Closer To 3 Percent European Psychodrama 2: Brexit In the psychodrama called Brexit, every new plot twist and turn has the potential to move the pound up or down by a few cents in a day. The next such major twist is the passage of the withdrawal bill through the U.K. parliament in early December. The ultra Brexiteer Conservative MPs and Northern Ireland Unionists will almost certainly vote against the agreement that Theresa May has forged with Brussels. This is because the agreement conjures up the Brexiteers' worst nightmare: a potentially indefinite customs union with the EU27, making it impossible for the U.K. to strike free trade deals with the rest of the world. Hence, for Theresa May to get her agreement through parliament, she will require the support of a substantial number of Labour MPs. But the substantial numbers just aren't there. The upshot is that she is likely to lose the vote, at which point the pound will tumble. For medium-term investors, this would be the moment to buy the pound, and we now explain why. On a six month horizon, the crucial question is: what will happen when the Article 50 process for the U.K. to leave the EU expires at 11pm on March 29, 2019? There are only three possibilities: 1. The U.K. doesn't leave the EU. At this advanced stage on the timeline, not leaving the EU on March 29 2019 effectively means an extension of the Article 50 process. This would require the U.K. to apply for an extension, and for the EU27 to agree to it. But realistically, the EU27 would only agree to it to facilitate a general election and/or a second referendum which could reverse Brexit. Probability = 45%. With the parliamentary arithmetic pointing to a rejection of May's Brexit deal as it stands, an amendment to the withdrawal bill forcing a second referendum, or a lost vote of no confidence in the government could lead to this outcome. Pound/euro = 1.20, because of the realistic prospect of reversing Brexit (Chart I-7). Chart I-7British Public Opinion On Brexit Is Shifting 2. The U.K. enters a transition period to leave the EU with a negotiated agreement. Theresa May's proposed withdrawal deal, or a variation of it, is approved by the U.K parliament (and the EU27) Probability = 45%. Appropriate amendments to the withdrawal agreement might sufficiently reduce the parliamentary rebellion. Pound/euro = 1.20 because the removal of the 'no deal' outcome would liberate the BoE to hike interest rates. 3. The U.K. crashes out of the EU with 'no deal'. Probability = 10%. This outcome would be the result of a gridlock in the U.K. parliament, with no majority formed for any Brexit strategy. Unlikely, but not impossible. Pound/euro = 1.00 because the U.K. economy would face months of severe disruption and uncertainty. Based on these three possible outcomes on March 29 2019, our expected value of pound/euro equals 1.18. Meaning that any sharp sell-off during the ongoing psychodrama constitutes a medium-term buying opportunity. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* Supporting the thesis in the main body of this report, the 130-day fractal dimension of EM versus DM recently hit its lower bound, suggesting an oversold extreme and a likely countertrend move. For a short-term trade, position for a 2.5% profit with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, long Portugal / short Hungary hit its stop-loss and is closed, leaving four open trades. 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-8 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 Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

Highlights As investors increasingly look at allocating assets based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations, these strategies are becoming less niche. We look at different ESG investing strategies, in both equities and bonds, and analyze their historical risk-adjusted returns and performance in bear markets and recessions. We find that ESG indices have at least performed in line with, and often outperformed, aggregate indices, with lower volatility. However, performance varies from region to region and between asset classes. Markets with the worst ESG standards tend to see the biggest improvement in performance when ESG factors are considered Feature Increasing investor interest in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing poses a big question for money managers: how does an allocation to ESG investments affect the return and volatility profile of a traditional portfolio? This Special Report addresses the following issues: What are the risk-return characteristics of ESG investments from a top-down perspective? Do ESG investments provide recession/bear market protection? What are the unique challenges that money managers using an ESG strategy need to account for? A Brief Overview Of ESG To begin, we need to define what exactly ESG investing means. We see it as any investment activity that recognizes a certain set of principles to screen for environmental, social, and governance standards. ESG investing, as a term, is relatively new. However, the core concept can be traced back several decades. During the 20th century, ethical investing (EI) emerged, as investors applied faith-based criteria to their investments. From the 1980s, socially responsible investing (SRI) allowed investors to focus on social and environmental goals, in addition to their ethical beliefs. This was mainly due to an increased global awareness of environmentalism that emerged in this period, following events such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 and claims of labor-rights abuses in various industries. In the early 2000s, ESG investing arose from investors' increasing awareness of the need to include corporate governance as an additional screening to SRI investing. The inclusion of the governance factor was also due to numerous corporate scandals, such as Enron's bankruptcy in 2001. Simply put, ESG is a broader concept than the previous incarnations of ethical investing. Throughout the early 2000s, various global initiatives started supporting the cause of ESG investing. The United Nations launched the Principles for Responsible Investing (PRI) in 2006 to promote ESG investing among institutional investors.1 Based upon six pillars, the PRI aims to encourage the use of ESG factors by investors in their investment process. Currently, most of the demand for ESG investing comes from larger financial institutions, particularly pension funds, whereas smaller investment institutions and retail investors lag in their interest. The Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (GSIA) has released a global standard classification to distinguish between the different ESG strategies as summarized in Table 1. Negative screening, positive screening, and corporate engagement are the most used strategies, while themed investing and targeted-situation investing have relatively less allocation. Figure 1 illustrates various examples of which types of investments might fall under ESG.2 Table 1Global Standard ESG Classification* Figure 1Types Of Investments That Fall Under ESG* The total market size of "sustainable investing" is difficult to quantify, due to the wide range of securities that could fall under this ambiguous label. According to the 2016 Global Sustainable Investment Review, published bi-annually by the GSIA, global ESG assets under management (using a very broad definition of ESG) totaled $22.9 trillion dollars as of 2016, a 25% increase from 2014.3 The development of cleaner energy sources, changing social norms, interest by millennials in environmental and social issues, and regulation are among the drivers of this growth. The increasing number of ETFs and mutual funds that define themselves as "socially conscious", standing at 279 as of Q3 2018, also demonstrates the growing interest in ESG investing.4 Additionally, the number of active managers integrating ESG factors in their investment strategy has grown (Chart 1). Chart 1Growing Interest... Increasing investor demand has translated into further transparency from companies. According to the Governance & Accountability Institute, the number of S&P 500 firms that disclose their sustainability, corporate governance and social responsibility performance more than quadrupled between 2011 and 2017 (Chart 2).5 Chart 2...More Transparency However, transparency is not the only barrier to the growth of ESG investing. The term ESG is still utilized and defined in different ways, confusing investors. A joint survey by the UN and the CFA Institute showed that 43% of U.S. equity and fixed income investors cited a lack of historical data, and 41% limited understanding and knowledge of ESG issues as the top barriers to incorporating ESG.6 Additionally, due to the lack of a standardized reporting system, investors cannot properly assess and compare ESG metrics across firms.7 ESG factors tend to be hard to quantify. Inconsistent ESG ratings due to differences in data analysis and reporting contribute to the lack of comparability. Investors should do their own thorough due diligence before investing. Various funds that screen for "socially responsible" criteria do sometimes include controversial stocks. For example, Vanguard's SRI European Stock Fund includes Royal Dutch Shell and British American Tobacco plc amongst its top 10 holdings.8 Risk-Return Characteristics9 To compare returns across regions, we use the MSCI ESG Leaders Index, which MSCI describes as using a best-in-class strategy and excluding companies involved in the alcohol, gambling, tobacco, nuclear power, and weapons businesses. It also minimizes sector-based tracking error by targeting 50% of the market capitalization within each GICS sector.10 MSCI assigns companies an ESG rating ranging from AAA to CCC; companies must maintain a rating above BB to be eligible for inclusion. We use the Bloomberg Barclays MSCI Socially Responsible Indices for our fixed-income comparisons. These indices use a negative screening process to exclude issuers involved in businesses that are in conflict with social and environmental values. Historical data for ESG indices tend to be limited; the earliest data-point for the MSCI ESG Leaders Index is September 2007. We analyze historical metrics for two periods: one starting September 2007, and the other starting July 2009 to show returns after the negative impact of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Tables 2 and 3 show that equity investors have enjoyed higher risk-adjusted returns on equity ESG indices thanon standard equity indices. However, this is not the case across all regions. The global ESG equity index outperformed in both periods, with lower volatility (Chart 3). In the U.S. and U.K., ESG indices underperformed their conventional counterparts, but in the euro area, China and Canada they significantly outperformed, while achieving lower volatility (charts for all countries shown in the Appendix). Emerging markets are perhaps the biggest surprise, since here the ESG index outperformed by over 3.5% annually in both periods. However, EM outperformance was mainly driven by China (Chart 4). Table 2Equities: Risk-Return Profile (September 2007 - October 2018) Table 3Equities: Risk-Return Profile (July 2009 - October 2018) Chart 3ESG Equities: Global Outperformance Chart 4China Drove EM Outperformance A study conducted by MSCI ESG Research showed that stock selection had the biggest contribution to the excess return of the emerging markets ESG equity indices, followed by sector-selection tilts. In fact, stock-selection added value in most regions, except the U.S. The MSCI ESG Leaders Index excludes firms such as Amazon (for its labor practices), Apple (supply-chain issues), and Facebook (privacy and data security) from both the U.S. and the global ESG indices, which resulted in its relative poor performance during the strong technology market of the past few years. Some argue that the regions with the worst ESG standards tend to see the biggest improvement in performance when ESG factors are considered. However, a debate then arises as to whether ESG ratings can be taken at face value, or should simply be an input into a broader analysis.11 One of the most surprising results from Tables 2 and 3 is the finding that the global ESG index has lower volatility, given the more idiosyncratic risk of ESG indices, which have on average only about half the number of constituents of aggregate market indices. The concentration - based on a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) - of the top 10 ESG constituents is about four times that of the broad indices. ESG equity indices trade at lower PE multiples than traditional indices. Chart 5 shows that, on average, ESG equities' outperformance has been mainly driven by stronger relative earnings growth rather than relative multiple expansion. Earnings contributed 48% to total return growth for the ACWI ESG index, compared to 41% for its counterpart. PE expansion contributed 21% of the ESG index's total return, compared to over 30% for the ACWI index. Chart 5Drivers Of Return The conclusions are not very different for fixed income (Table 4). There is little difference between returns for corporate SRI bonds and investment grade bonds. Despite the slight sector tilts towards financials and banks in SRI Bond Indices, the indices have largely tracked each other (Chart 6). Table 4Bonds: Risk-Return Profile (July 2009 - October 2018) Chart 6ESG Bonds: No Difference In Performance Only a limited amount of research has been conducted into the importance of ESG factors for credit portfolios, but several papers concluded that ESG scores do not significantly impact performance, though there was some evidence that bonds of companies with higher ESG scores actually trade at wider spreads.12 Recession/Bear Market Protection Despite the efforts of ESG providers to limit sector-based tracking error, ESG equity indices still tend to have sector tilts due to over- and under-weighting firms based on their ESG scores. Sectors such as Information Technology, Financials, Communication Services, and Healthcare usually are favored relative to Materials, Industrials, and Energy. However, the magnitude of these tilts differs from region to region, and understanding the scope of these tilts is important when considering an ESG allocation. For example, the Chinese MSCI ESG Leaders Index is heavily skewed towards Communication Services (one stock, Tencent, in particular). Simply put, the sector composition/index construction of ESG indices alters their cyclicality and, therefore, performance. To understand this, it is important to observe this behavior over as many cycles as possible. To analyze this, we looked at the U.S. MSCI KLD 400 Index, one of the oldest ESG indices, with data starting in 1990. In 2001-2002 (the aftermath of the tech bubble), the KLD 400 underperformed the S&P 500 due to the former's larger exposure to tech. On the other hand, during the 2007-2008 GFC, the KLD 400 had a smaller drawdown than the S&P 500 (Chart 7). Chart 7Sector Tilts Matter Additionally, Table 5 shows that an ESG allocation has tended to at least perform in line with equities overall, if not slightly outperform them, during bear markets. The MSCI KLD 400 outperformed the S&P 500 by an annualized average of 1% in the past five bear markets.13 Table 5Bear Market Protection? We performed a risk-return analysis of a portfolio consisting of 60% conventional equities and 40% investment-grade bonds, compared to similarly weighted ESG-focused equity and fixed income indices. The results for the three regions for the period July 2009 and October 2018 are shown in Chart 8. Chart 8Portfolio Performance (Jul 2009 - Oct 2018) The global and the euro area multi-asset ESG portfolios outperformed the conventional portfolios by 2 and 10 bps a year respectively while achieving slightly lower volatility. The U.S. ESG portfolio, on the other hand, slightly underperformed due to the underperformance of the ESG equity index in a strong tech market of the past nine years. Conclusion From the above analysis, we would draw the following conclusions: There is little evidence that ESG investing detracts from performance. In fact, there is some evidence that it can provide some outperformance and bear-market protection depending on the ESG index composition. Consideration of ESG factors in taking investment decisions needs to go beyond simply looking at ESG scores. Incorporating ESG analysis will increasingly become a core step in assessing risk for both equity and fixed-income investors. Index methodology and construction, as well as sector composition, play a big role in evaluating expected performance. ESG indices are growing. As of end of 2017, there were 42 ESG-focused equity indices by the major three providers as shown in Appendix Table 1. We expect to see more as ESG becomes increasingly acknowledged. Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see https://www.unpri.org/pri/about-the-pri 2 Please see https://www.ussif.org/files/Publications/Retail_Investor_Guide.pdf 3 Please see http://www.gsi-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/GSIR_Review2016.F.pdf 4 Please see Charles Schwab, Socially Conscious Funds List https://www.schwab.com/public/file/P-9561751/. Based on data from Morningstar, Inc. 5 Please see https://www.ga-institute.com/press-releases/article/flash-report-85-of-sp-500-indexR-companies-publish-sustainability-reports-in-2017.html 6 Please see ESG Integration In The Americas: Markets, Practices, And Data https://www.unpri.org/download?ac=5397 7 Please see CFA Financial Analysts Journal, Third Quarter 2018, Volume 74, Issue 3 https://www.cfapubs.org/doi/pdf/10.2469/faj.v74.n3.full 8 Please see https://global.vanguard.com/portal/site/loadPDF?country=ch&docId=14053 9 It is important to note that, in this report, we make no assumptions regarding the methodology or ESG ranking scores of the indices discussed, but rather take them as given by their providers (MSCI and Bloomberg Barclays). 10 Please see https://www.msci.com/eqb/methodology/meth_docs/MSCI_ESG_Leaders_Indexes_Methodology_June_2017.pdf 11 Please see http://www.whebgroup.com/what-do-esg-ratings-actually-tell-us/#_edn4 12 Please see https://static.macquarie.com/dafiles/Internet/mgl/global/shared/sf/images/corporate/asset-management/investment-management/understanding-esg-in-credit-portfolios.pdf?v=3 13 Bear markets defined as a drawdown of 15% lasting more than three months. Appendix Appendix Table 1ESG Equity Indices Appendix Chart 1ESG Equities: U.S. Appendix Chart 2ESG Equities: Euro Area Appendix Chart 3ESG Equities: Emerging Markets Appendix Chart 4ESG Equities: Canada Appendix Chart 5ESG Equities: U.K. Appendix Chart 6ESG Bonds: U.S. Appendix Chart 7ESG Bonds: Euro Area

Highlights Global Yields: Global bond yields appear to be settling into a new trading range, with the downside limited by tight labor markets but the upside capped by slowing global growth momentum. 2014/15 Redux?: The domestic U.S. economy is much stronger today compared to the 2014/15 period when slowing global growth and a rapidly rising U.S. dollar prompted selloffs in global credit markets and, eventually, a dovish shift by the Fed. U.S. financial conditions need to tighten more before the Fed can signal a pause. New Zealand: The RBNZ will continue to maintain a dovish policy stance over at least the next year, amid softening economic growth and underwhelming domestic inflation. Stay long 5-year New Zealand government bonds versus both U.S. Treasuries (hedged into USD) and German sovereign debt (hedged into EUR). Feature Dear Client, There will be no Global Fixed Income Strategy report published next Tuesday, November 27th. Instead, you will be receiving a Special Report this Thursday, November 22nd. The report - authored by BCA's Chief Emerging Markets strategist, Arthur Budaghyan - will discuss the outlook for Emerging Market hard currency debt. Best regards, Rob Robis Chief Strategist On the surface, it appears that uncertainty is increasing in global fixed income markets. Government bond yields have dipped over the past couple of weeks, most notably in the U.S. where the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield is back down to 3.05% as we go to press. Corporate credit spreads have also been drifting wider, especially in the U.S. where there is growing concern that economic momentum has peaked, at least temporarily. The problem for bond markets is that while global growth momentum has clearly slowed, it has not been by enough to alleviate inflation pressures coming from tight labor markets. This story is clearly most visible in the U.S., but also in the majority of major developed market economies. Central bankers are sticking to their guns and focusing on their belief in the Phillips Curve model to forecast inflation. Until there are signs that more turbulent financial markets are feeding into actual weaker economic growth, bond yields will not be able to fall by enough to help bail out flailing equities and corporate credit. There are now 83% of OECD countries with an unemployment rate below the estimated full employment NAIRU. As expected with such a backdrop, our Central Bank Monitors are calling for tighter monetary policy across the developed economies. This is also showing up in an unusual divergence between rising global real bond yields and falling global leading economic indicators (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekYields Are Less Responsive To Slowing Growth By most conventional measures, monetary policy settings are not restrictive across the major economies. Actual policy interest rates remain below conventional measures of equilibrium like a Taylor Rule, while government bond yields - adjusted for inflation expectations - are less than trend real GDP growth (Chart 2). Those gaps are smallest in the U.S., where the Fed has been raising interest rates for the past three years, but remain wide in other countries. Chart 2Global Interest Rates Are Still Below Equilibrium Levels If global growth is merely shifting from above-trend (falling unemployment) to trend (stable unemployment), then central bankers will not be able to move back to a more dovish posture that could trigger a major fall in bond yields. Trading ranges are more likely to result in such an environment, where yields struggle to break higher because of shaky risk assets but cannot break lower because of low unemployment. We are likely in one of those ranges now, measured by a 3-3.25% range on the 10-year U.S. Treasury. Without a friendly boost from falling bond yields, we continue to recommend a cautious stance on global spread product, while maintaining an overall below-benchmark stance on global duration exposure. Will It Be 2014/15 All Over Again? Watch The USD & China Two months ago, we published a comparison of the current macro backdrop to that of the 2014/15 period.1 Back then, the Fed was forced to alter its plans to deliver a series of rate hikes after the end of its quantitative easing program, thanks to a sharply rising U.S. dollar that triggered major financial market selloffs and, eventually, slower U.S. growth. We concluded that such an outcome could occur again in the next few months, but it would take a much larger tightening of financial conditions to get the Fed to stand down this time given tighter U.S. labor markets and stronger U.S. inflation pressures. The way we presented that comparison between today and four years ago was though "cycle-on-cycle" charts, showing financial and economic data today overlapped with data from that 2014/15 period. The two episodes were indexed to the trough in the U.S. dollar in May 2014 and February 2018. This week, we update a few of those charts, but also add a few new indicators to assess if there has been enough financial and economic damage to trigger a shift to a more dovish Fed. U.S. Economy: The domestic U.S. economy appears healthier today versus the 2014/15 period, judging by the more robust readings from the NFIB Small Business Optimism index and the high level of job openings from the JOLTS data (Chart 3). Yet there are similarities seen in the latest decline in the Conference Board survey of U.S. CEO confidence, and the sharp fall in the ISM Manufacturing New Orders index. We suspect that this divergence in business optimism reflects U.S.-China trade tensions, which should have a greater impact on larger corporations that sell globally compared to smaller companies with a more domestic customer base. Chart 3U.S. Growth Today Vs. 2014/15: Stronger Domestic Economy U.S. Inflation: U.S. core CPI inflation is much faster now than at the similar point in the 2014/15 cycle, as is the growth in Average Hourly Earnings (Chart 4). This is due to the much lower unemployment rate today in the U.S., which is putting more upward pressure on domestically-generated prices and wages. Yet while the ISM Prices Paid index is also at a higher level today than 2014/15, the upward momentum has peaked and the latest decline in commodity prices is following an ominously similar path to four years ago (bottom panel). Chart 4U.S. Inflation Today Vs. 2014/15: Faster Core/Wage Inflation Emerging Markets (EM): EM economic growth has been decelerating at a similar pace to 2014/15, with the aggregate EM (ex-China) PMI produced by our EM strategists now sitting right at the boom/bust 50 line (Chart 5). China's economic growth appears to be holding up better today when looking at the more elevated Li Keqiang index. A possible reason for that is the much larger and faster easing of Chinese monetary conditions today compared to 2014/15, thanks to the sharp weakening of the yuan. Chart 5EM Growth Today Vs. 2014/15: China Drag Is Smaller (For Now) Global Financial Markets: Here, the current cycle is sticking very close to the 2014/15 script when looking at the rising U.S. trade-weighted dollar, widening spreads for U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate bonds and EM USD-denominated sovereign debt, and the tightening of U.S. financial conditions (Chart 6). Although it should be noted that the trade-weighted dollar would have to rise another 10% from current levels, and U.S. IG spreads would have to widen another 60bps, to generate similar moves compared to 2014/15. Chart 6Financial Markets Today Vs. 2014/15: Following A Similar Script U.S. Treasury Yields: Nominal U.S. Treasury yields are at much higher levels today than four years ago, an obvious consequence of the Fed's tightening cycle and more elevated U.S. inflation expectations (Chart 7). Yet the amount of tightening discounted over the next 12-months in the U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) is similar to 2014/15, as is our estimate of the market-implied level of the terminal real fed funds rate (around 0.5%).2 One major difference: there is a large net short position in the Treasury market today, while positioning was fairly neutral during 2014/15 (bottom panel). Chart 7U.S. Treasuries Today Vs. 2014/15: Higher Yields But Similar Fed Pricing Summing it all up, the broader range of evidence we present here confirms our conclusion from two months ago. There needs to be a much larger tightening of U.S. financial conditions before the Fed can signal a pause on its planned rate hikes, because of a much healthier domestic U.S. economy and a more entrenched acceleration of inflation (especially wage growth). If China's economy can continue to outperform the 2014/15 path - still a big "if" given U.S.-China trade uncertainties and with Chinese policymakers less willing to reflate the domestic credit bubble to boost growth - then the odds of U.S. growth converging down to non-U.S. growth will be reduced. We will continue to monitor these charts and relationships in future Weekly Reports but, for now, we see nothing yet to change our bearish views on U.S. Treasuries and our cautious view on U.S. corporate credit. Bottom Line: The domestic U.S. economy is much stronger today compared to the 2014/15 period when slowing global growth and a rapidly rising U.S. dollar prompted selloffs in global credit markets and, eventually, a dovish shift by the Fed. U.S. financial conditions need to tighten more before the Fed can signal a pause. New Zealand Update: Fade The Recent Bump In Yields We have been structurally positive on New Zealand (NZ) government bonds for some time, dating back to mid-2017. Our view was based on an assessment that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) would be unable to make any upward change in policy rates due to sub-par economic growth and inflation that would struggle to meet the RBNZ's target of 2% (the midpoint of the 1-3% target band). So far, that scenario has fully played out, and NZ government bonds have significantly outperformed their global peers as a result (Chart 8). Chart 8Sticking With Our Successful Long NZ Trades Our preferred trades, which are part of our Tactical Overlay shown on page 14, have been yield spread trades for NZ government bonds versus U.S. and German equivalents.3 Specifically, we have been recommending long positions in 5-year NZ bonds vs. 5-year U.S. Treasuries and 5-year German government debt. The trades have performed well, but have given back some of the gains in recent weeks. This has mostly come via a surge in NZ yields (+29bps higher since the recent low on September 7th) that has driven yield spreads wider versus the U.S. and Germany (+23bps and +34bps, respectively, since September 7th). These increases are likely to prove unsustainable, given the sluggish momentum in NZ growth and inflation. The latest read on year-over-year real GDP growth came in at below-potential pace of 2.8% in the 2nd quarter of 2018. The manufacturing and services purchasing managers' indices (PMIs) have both fallen sharply throughout 2018, although the latest data points suggest some stabilization above the 50 level on the PMIs (Chart 9). Similar trends can be seen in the RBNZ surveys of business confidence and capacity utilization, which both remain near the post-2008 lows but may also be stabilizing. Chart 9Sub-Par Growth In New Zealand In the November Monetary Policy Statement (MPS) that was released after the RBNZ meeting earlier this month, a cautious view on growth was outlined.4 The pickup in Q2 GDP growth was dismissed as driven by temporary factors, and policymakers expressed concern that deteriorating business confidence could be signaling a more prolonged period of slowing domestic demand. The central bank did also highlight growth risks coming from slowing exports if U.S.-China trade tensions intensify. It is difficult to find an obvious trigger for faster NZ growth at the moment. Both consumer spending and residential investment were fueled by rising immigration and population growth from 2013 to 2017, but those trends have since begun to reverse. The RBNZ projects net monthly immigration to NZ to slow to levels last seen in 2014 and in line with the current growth rate of consumer spending around 3% (Chart 10). Business investment growth has already stalled (middle panel), while the RBNZ'S Business Outlook surveys indicate a negative outlook for export growth (bottom panel). Chart 10Where Will NZ Growth Come From? Against this sluggish growth backdrop, the RBNZ must continue to run an accommodative monetary policy to support growth. This can be done given the persistent undershooting of NZ inflation versus the RBNZ target. Headline CPI inflation did accelerate to 1.9% in Q3, but core inflation at 1.2% continued to languish near the bottom end of the RBNZ target range. The gap between the two inflation measures can be attributed to previous increases in global energy prices, which caused a blip up in the tradeables portion of the NZ CPI (Chart 11). Yet the recent decline in oil prices, combined with a bounce in the NZ dollar, suggests that the bump in tradeables inflation is likely to reverse in Q4 (middle panel). Non-tradeables inflation, which is driven by domestic factors such as wage growth, has remained stable at just over 2%, even with the NZ unemployment rate at a 10-year low of 4.5% that is below the OECD's NAIRU estimate. Chart 11Stubbornly Low NZ Inflation With an obvious trigger from higher inflation, the RBNZ will be forced to maintain a highly accommodative policy stance. This is especially true given the RBNZ's mandate, which now includes maximizing sustainable employment alongside keeping inflation between 1-3%. We think that means the RBNZ is more likely to tolerate a move to the upper end of that inflation band if the growth outlook was less certain, as is currently the case. Our RBNZ Monitor sits close to the zero line, indicating no pressure to either hike or cut interest rates. In the November MPS, the RBNZ stuck to its forecast that the Official Cash Rate (OCR) would remain unchanged at 1.75% until mid-2020, consistent with the signal from our RBNZ Monitor. The market is differing on this, with the NZ OIS curve currently discounting almost one full 25bp rate hike by the end of 2019, and a faster pace of hikes after that (Chart 12). Chart 12Market-Priced RBNZ Hikes Will Not Happen We continue to recommending fading any pricing of RBNZ rate hikes over the next 6-12 months. Given our still bearish views on U.S. Treasuries, we are maintaining our recommended long NZ 5-year/short U.S. 5-year position (on a currency-hedged basis into U.S. dollars). We have been running our long NZ/short Germany position on an UN-hedged basis - atypical for the Global Fixed Income Strategy service, where our views are almost always currency-hedged into U.S. dollars - since the trade's inception last year, based on a currency view that was more bearish on the euro than the New Zealand dollar. The NZD/EUR cross instead fell substantially, which more than fully eroded the gains on the bond side of the trade until the recent 7.5% pop in that exchange rate. After that move, the return on our unhedged trade is nearly back to flat. We are using that as an opportunity to switch our NZ/Germany trade to a more typical currency-hedged basis, moving the exposure into euros from New Zealand dollars. Bottom Line: The RBNZ will continue to maintain a dovish policy stance over at least the next year, amid softening economic growth and underwhelming domestic inflation. Stay long 5-year New Zealand government bonds versus both U.S. Treasuries (hedged into USD) and German sovereign debt (hedged into EUR). Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "EM Contagion? Or Just QT On The Q.T.?", dated September 11th 2018, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. 2 This is calculated by subtracting the 5-year U.S. CPI swap rate, 5-years forward, from the 5-year U.S. OIS rate, 5-years forward. 3 We freely admit that a position held for over one full year should not be described as "tactical", as the name of our overlay portfolio suggests. Yet we have seen no reason to close these trades early given our market views on NZ. 4 The full Monetary Policy Statement can be found here: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/ReserveBank/Files/Publications/Monetary%20policy%20statements/2018/mpsnov2018.pdf 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 Duration: The Fed will need to see further significant tightening in broad indexes of financial conditions before backing away from its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. With only 54 bps of rate hikes priced into the curve for the next 12 months, investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Credit Spreads: A likely deceleration in U.S. economic growth during the next few quarters is a near-term risk for credit spreads, while waning demand for C&I loans could signal that the market's default outlook is too benign. We see a high risk of spread widening during the next few months, and would advocate only a neutral allocation to spread product on a 6-12 month horizon. TIPS: Breakeven inflation rates remain low because investors are much less fearful of high inflation than in the past. This will change over time as inflation continues to print near the Fed's target and expectations slowly shift to price more two-way risk into the inflation market. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Feature More Pain Required Fed Chairman Jerome Powell spoke at the Dallas Fed last week, amidst some expectation that he might try to assuage financial market concerns about the pace of monetary tightening. Instead, the Chairman struck a balanced tone that the market took as slightly dovish. A rate hike next month remains fully discounted, but investors are now split on whether the Fed will move again in March (Chart 1). The April 2019 fed funds futures contract implies a funds rate of 2.525% by next April, just barely above the lower-end of the 2.5% - 2.75% target band consistent with two more rate hikes. Chart 1Markets Doubt The Gradual Pace Of Hikes Chairman Powell's remarks did not alter our view of the Fed's reaction function, which we expect will result in continued quarterly rate hikes until a preponderance of evidence is consistent with a significant slow-down in U.S. economic activity. As we discussed in last week's report, it is highly likely that the combination of a waning fiscal impulse and a stronger U.S. dollar will cause U.S. growth to slow during the next few quarters.1 What remains uncertain is whether the slow-down will be severe enough for the Fed to pause its +25 bps per quarter tightening cycle. With only 54 bps of rate hikes priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months, we are inclined to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month investment horizon. However, we do not anticipate a significant move higher in yields during the next few months. We also think credit spreads can widen further in the near-term as growth slows, and we recommend only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries on a 6-12 month horizon, given the less attractive risk/reward trade-off in corporate credit. Another reason to get defensive on credit spreads before increasing portfolio duration is that further spread widening and tighter financial conditions are likely a necessary pre-condition for the Fed to slow its pace of rate hikes. Chairman Powell noted last week that financial conditions are an important input to the Fed's assessment of future economic growth, and also stressed that the Fed takes a broad view of financial conditions - encompassing not just the stock market but also the level of rates, credit spreads and other factors. With that in mind, we observe that there has been very little tightening in broad indexes of financial conditions during the past few months. In fact, the Chicago Fed's National Financial Conditions Index shows that financial conditions remain far more accommodative than when the Fed started hiking rates in December 2015 (Chart 2). Chart 2More Pain Needed For The Fed To Pause We conclude that much more financial market pain will be required before the Fed takes a dovish turn. As such, we are inclined to get more defensive with respect to credit, but to remain bearish on rates for now. Last week's release of the Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey provided one more negative datapoint for corporate credit. While banks continue to ease standards on commercial & industrial loans, respondents reported that demand for such loans waned during the past three months (Chart 3). If the demand slow-down continues, then lending standards will eventually start to tighten and we will see more corporate defaults. For now, the slow-down in loan demand is a tentative signal that could be reversed next quarter, but it bears close monitoring as a potential warning that we are moving into the late stages of the credit cycle. Stay tuned. Chart 3Tighter Lending Standards Ahead? Bottom Line: U.S. economic growth will decelerate from a high level during the next few quarters, but the Fed will need to see further significant tightening in broad indexes of financial conditions before backing away from its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. Investors should get more defensive on credit spreads, but maintain below-benchmark duration. Stick With TIPS We have been recommending overweight positions in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for some time, targeting a range of 2.3% to 2.5% for both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates. This range is consistent with prior periods when core inflation was well-anchored around the Fed's target.2 This recommendation suffered a set-back last week when long-maturity breakevens finally capitulated to the trend in other financial market indicators that have been pointing to weakness in global demand for several months (Chart 4). In fact, for most of this year falling commodity prices and a strengthening dollar have been signaling that global demand is on the decline. But until last week, TIPS breakevens had mostly bucked the trend. Chart 4Held Down By Global Demand The reason is that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain under the influence of two competing forces. Signals of waning global demand on the one hand, and rapidly rising U.S. inflation on the other. Last December, the 12-month rate of change in core PCE inflation stood at 1.64%. As of September it stands at 1.97%, within a hair of the Fed's 2% target. Likewise, year-over-year core CPI inflation has increased from 1.76% as of last December to 2.15% as of October. Survey measures of realized and expected price changes have similarly strengthened (Chart 5). Chart 5Pulled Up By U.S. Inflation The combination of strong U.S. inflation and waning global growth has left long-dated breakevens relatively trendless for most of the year. And although we think year-over-year U.S. core inflation will flatten-off during the next few months (see Box), we would remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 6-12 month investment horizon. BOX Core Inflation: Grappling With Base Effects Year-over-year core CPI inflation was 2.15% in October, down slightly from 2.17% in September. Meanwhile, our Base Effects Indicator ticked up from 3 to 4 but it remains below the critical 5.5 level (Chart 6). Chart 6Expect Year-Over-Year Core CPI To Flatten-Off In our Weekly Report from September 4, 2018, we showed that when our Base Effects Indicator - an indicator derived from near-term rates of change in core CPI - is below 5.5, 12-month core inflation is much more likely to fall than rise during the next six months. While pipeline inflation measures and the tightness of the labor market both suggest that the uptrend in core inflation will remain intact, we expect that year-over-year core inflation will flatten-off during the next six months, at levels close to the Fed's target. Our view is that as long as inflation remains sufficiently close to the Fed's target, over time, investors will start to price two-way risk back into the inflation market. It simply takes time for expectations to fully adapt to the new economic reality. Expectations Are Slow To Adapt To illustrate why we remain optimistic that TIPS breakevens have further upside, we created what we call our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year breakeven rate (Chart 7). The model combines both forward-looking and backward-looking measures of inflation, and is premised on the idea that investors are slow to fully adapt their expectations to a changing environment. Chart 7Adaptive Expectations Model For example, even though core inflation is now close to the Fed's target on a 12-month rate of change basis, investors remain scarred by the past decade when it was stubbornly low. The long period of low inflation makes it much more difficult for investors to believe that the regime is finally shifting. Our Adaptive Expectations Model includes three variables: The 120-month rate of change in core CPI inflation (annualized) The 12-month rate of change in headline CPI inflation The New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge (full data set measure) The 120-month rate of change is included to capture the impact from investors' long memories when it comes to inflation. The 12-month rate of change is included to capture the more recent trend in prices and the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge is included to provide a forward-looking measure of inflationary pressures in the economy. Notice in Table 1 that the 120-month rate of change in core CPI carries much greater importance in our model than the other two variables. Table 1Adaptive Expectations Model Regression Output (2003 To Present) Turning back to Chart 7, we see that the current 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is more or less in line with our model's fair value. We also see that two of the model's three variables (12-month headline CPI and the Underlying Inflation Gauge) have returned to pre-crisis levels. It is only the 120-month rate of change in core CPI that is preventing breakevens from reaching our target range. In other words, even though inflation is more or less back to target levels, investors still doubt whether we have transitioned out of the prior low-inflation regime. The Fear Of High Inflation Is Missing Digging further into the data, we see that the real difference between today and the pre-crisis period is that investors are now much less worried about significantly higher inflation. A break-down of individual responses from the Survey of Professional Forecasters shows that, as in 2004, most forecasters think inflation will average between 2.01% and 2.5% during the next 10 years. But today, only 7% of forecasters think inflation will average above 2.51%. In 2004, 32% of forecasters thought inflation would average above 2.51% over the next 10 years (Chart 8). Chart 8High Inflation Is Less Of A Worry This assessment of likely inflation outcomes is backed-up by the economic data. The St. Louis Fed's Price Pressures Measure is a macro model designed to output the probability that inflation falls into different ranges over the next year.3 Here again, we see that the probability of inflation being between 1.5% and 2.5% is similar to its pre-crisis level, but the probability of inflation exceeding 2.5% is much lower (Chart 9). Chart 9Price Pressures Even looking at only the post-crisis period shows that it is the upper-tail of the inflation expectations distribution that is lagging. The Fed's Survey of Primary Dealers has been asking respondents to place probabilities on different long-run inflation outcomes since 2011. Chart 10 shows how the most recent responses - from September - compare to the post-2011 range. It shows that respondents are more certain than at any time since 2011 that inflation will be between 2.01% and 2.5% on average during the next 10 years, but are also more doubtful that inflation will be 2.51% or higher. Chart 10Primary Dealer Inflation Expectations Bottom Line: Even though 12-month inflation has more or less returned to the Fed's target, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below levels that have been historically consistent with that target. Breakevens remain low because investors are much less fearful of elevated inflation (> 2.5%) than in the past. This will change over time as inflation continues to print near the Fed's target and expectations slowly adapt to the new regime. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on a 6-12 month horizon. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Sweet Spot On The Yield Curve", dated November 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For details on how we arrive at that range please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2015/11/06/introducing-the-st-louis-fed-price-pressures-measure/   Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification