Fixed Income

Highlights Duration: The market is only priced for a fed funds rate of 2.83% by the end of 2019. This is well below the range of 3.25% to 3.5% that will prevail if the Fed sticks to its current 25 basis points per quarter rate hike pace. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. The Neutral Rate: Our indicators of the neutral (or equilibrium) fed funds rate are sending conflicting signals. The economic data suggest that the neutral rate might be above 3%, but this is contradicted by weakness in the price of gold. TIPS: Long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain slightly below target levels, but appear to be increasingly taking their cues from the realized inflation data rather than swings in global growth and commodity prices. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Feature In February we published a report that outlined how we expect the cyclical bear market in bonds to evolve. Essentially, we view the bear market as consisting of two stages.1 The first stage is characterized by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations and the second stage deals with determining the neutral (or equilibrium) federal funds rate. In this week's report we track how the two-stage Treasury bear market has progressed since February and consider the implications for portfolio strategy. The First Stage Is Nearly Complete Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are slightly higher than when we published our February report, but they are still not at levels we would consider "well anchored". We showed in our February report that prior periods when core inflation was close to the Fed's 2% target coincided with both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. At present, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 2.10% and the 5-year/5-year forward is 2.19%. As long as TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below the 2.3% - 2.5% target range, nominal Treasury yields have further cyclical upside due to the re-anchoring of inflation expectations. This re-anchoring will play out as the core inflation data are released and investors come to realize that inflation is no longer consistently undershooting the Fed's target. When that re-anchoring occurs and both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward breakevens cross above 2.3%, the first stage of the bond bear market will be complete. One recent development is that TIPS breakevens have risen even as commodity prices have declined (Chart 1). In fact, while breakevens are somewhat higher than when we published our February report, commodity prices - as measured by the CRB Raw Industrials index - are lower. While this shift in correlation is so far only tentative, it could signal that TIPS investors are increasingly influenced by the actual core inflation data and not swings in the global growth outlook. We would not be surprised to see this correlation continue to weaken going forward, especially considering that core inflation looks more and more consistent with the Fed's 2% target. Core CPI for July came in at 2.33% on both a trailing 12-month and 3-month basis, annualized (Chart 2). This is more or less consistent with the pre-crisis period when the Fed's preferred PCE inflation measure was close to the 2% target. Alternative measures of CPI send a similar message (Chart 2, panel 2) and our diffusion index shows that more individual items have accelerated in price than have decelerated in each of the past three months (Chart 2, bottom panel). Taken together, the signals point to further near-term price acceleration. Chart 1Inflation Date Sinking In Chart 2Inflation Picking Up Steam Digging deeper, we see that the outlook for higher inflation pervades each of the main components of core CPI (Chart 3). The reading from our shelter inflation model has stabilized, core goods inflation continues to track non-oil import prices higher, and the rebound in core services inflation is consistent with rising wage growth. Eventually, we would expect the strengthening dollar to exert a drag on import prices (Chart 4), but it will be some time before this is reflected in the CPI data. Another important development is that, after appearing to have turned a corner in 2016, the residential vacancy rate has dipped back down (Chart 4, bottom panel). Such a low vacancy rate will continue to support strong shelter inflation. Chart 3The Components Of Core CPI Chart 4A Headwind And A Tailwind For Inflation Bottom Line: Long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain slightly below target levels, but appear to be increasingly taking their cues from the realized inflation data rather than swings in global growth and commodity prices. Nominal Treasury yields have further upside at least until both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. We also continue to recommend an overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal Treasury securities. We will remove this recommendation when breakeven rates reach our target range and stage one of the bond bear market is complete. Stage 2 Update: Conflicting Evidence On The Neutral Rate Once inflation expectations are well-anchored at levels consistent with the Fed's target, the cyclical bond bear market will transition into its second stage. How much further Treasury yields rise during this stage will depend on how high the Fed is able to lift interest rates before the economy starts to slow. In other words, the cyclical peak in Treasury yields will be determined by the neutral (or equilibrium) fed funds rate - the level of interest rates where monetary policy is neither accommodative nor restrictive, and which is also consistent with stable inflation near the Fed's 2% target. Unfortunately, the neutral rate can only be known with certainty in hindsight. But in a recent report we presented three factors that investors can track in real time that have forewarned of the shift from accommodative to restrictive monetary policy in the past.2 We review the recent trends in each of these signals below. Signal 1: Nominal GDP Growth Vs The Fed Funds Rate Chart 5The Message From Nominal GDP Growth A fed funds rate that is above the year-over-year growth rate in nominal GDP is typically a signal (though often a lagging one) that monetary policy has turned restrictive (Chart 5). An intuition that is confirmed by the fact that the spread between nominal GDP growth and the fed funds rate correlates positively with the slope of the yield curve. But while the flattening yield curve has caused some to worry that the Fed is tightening too quickly, the message from nominal GDP growth is that monetary policy is actually becoming more accommodative (Chart 5, bottom panel). If the Fed continues to lift rates at its current pace of 25 basis points per quarter, the fed funds rate will be between 3.25% and 3.5% by the end of 2019. Nominal GDP would have to decelerate fairly substantially from its current 5.4% growth rate to signal restrictive monetary policy by then. Signal 2: Cyclical Spending Another indicator that has historically coincided with restrictive monetary policy and the cyclical peak in bond yields is when growth in the most interest-rate sensitive sectors of the economy (aka the cyclical sectors) slows as a proportion of overall growth (Chart 6). This is especially true for consumer spending on durable goods. Not only is it well below pre-crisis levels as a percent of GDP, but recent data revisions revealed that the personal savings rate is much higher than previously thought. The savings rate looks especially elevated relative to household wealth, which leaves room for spending to accelerate as it falls to more normal levels (Chart 7). Extremely high consumer confidence supports the view that the savings rate will decline (Chart 7, panel 2), and despite recent increases in interest rates and the price of gasoline, consumer spending on essentials is not yet excessive relative to income (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 6Signal 2: Cyclical Spending Chart 7The Outlook For Consumer Spending Cyclical spending - which includes consumer spending on durable goods, residential investment and nonresidential investment in equipment & software - is currently rising only slowly as a proportion of GDP, but it remains well below average historical levels. This suggests that further catch-up is likely. Much like consumer spending, residential investment also has a lot of room to play catch-up relative to pre-crisis levels (Chart 6, panel 3). However, growth in residential investment has waned in recent months (Chart 8). The slowdown is likely the result of the housing market coming to grips with higher mortgage rates. But while higher rates have definitely impaired affordability, housing remains quite cheap compared to history (Chart 8, panel 2). A further support for housing is that homebuilders are extraordinarily confident in the outlook (Chart 8, panel 3). This is for good reason. The outstanding housing supply is historically low and continues to contract relative to demand as increases in building permits fail to keep pace with household formation (Chart 8, bottom panel). Unlike consumer spending on durables and residential investment, nonresidential investment in equipment & software is roughly consistent with its average historical level as a proportion of GDP (Chart 6, bottom panel). But so far leading indicators are not pointing to a slowdown. On the contrary, surveys of new orders, capital expenditure plans and CEO confidence suggest that investment growth will stay strong for the next few quarters (Chart 9). At some point, given its higher level relative to GDP, investment could be the cyclical sector that first shows some evidence of weakness. But so far this is not the case. Chart 8The Outlook For Residential Investment Chart 9The Outlook For Non-Residential Investment Signal 3: Gold Chart 10Signal 3: Gold The final signal of restrictive monetary policy we consider is the price of gold. The widely accepted perception of gold as a long-run store of value makes it the ideal "anti-central bank" asset. In other words, gold tends to perform well when monetary policy is perceived to be turning more accommodative relative to its neutral level, and it tends to sell off when policy is perceived to be turning restrictive. Gold is also a useful addition to our suite of indicators because it is a price that is set in financial markets. Compared to our other two indicators which are based on economic data, financial market indicators can provide more of a leading signal. The trade-off, however, is that false signals are far more frequent. Most interestingly, we observe that fluctuations in the price of gold have preceded revisions to the Fed's estimate of the neutral fed funds rate in the post-crisis period (Chart 10). This seems entirely logical. The falling gold price in 2014/15 suggested that the market viewed Fed policy as becoming increasingly restrictive, but market expectations for the near-term path of rate hikes were roughly flat during this period (Chart 10, bottom panel). The only explanation is that investors were revising down their estimates of the neutral fed funds rate during this time, resulting in a de-facto policy tightening. Similarly, around the same time that gold put in a bottom in early 2016, neutral rate estimates from both investors and the Fed started to level-off around the 3% level, where they remain today. Going forward, the implication is that if gold were to break out of its trading range to the upside, it would send a strong signal that the Fed is perceived to be falling behind the curve. Such a price movement would make upward revisions to the neutral fed funds rate, and a higher cyclical peak in Treasury yields, more likely. Conversely, if gold continues its recent slide, it could signal that policy is turning restrictive more quickly than many expect. Bottom Line: Trends in our neutral rate indicators since February are sending conflicting signals. The economic data - nominal GDP growth and cyclical spending - have improved and suggest that we should think about a neutral fed funds rate above the current market consensus of 3%. On the other hand, the weakness in the price of gold suggests that investors view monetary policy as becoming increasingly restrictive. Investment Strategy How best to square these conflicting signals when formulating a portfolio strategy? For the time being we strongly advise investors to maintain below-benchmark duration on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. For one thing, the bond bear market remains in its first stage and the market is still not fully convinced that inflation will re-anchor itself around the Fed's 2% target. This alone argues for maintaining below-benchmark duration and an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, at least until long-dated TIPS breakevens reach our target range. Beyond that, while the true neutral fed funds rate remains uncertain, the market is only priced for a fed funds rate of 2.83% by the end of 2019. This is well below the range of 3.25% to 3.5% that will prevail if the Fed sticks to its current 25 basis points per quarter rate hike pace, and is consistent with a neutral rate that is well below 3% (Chart 11). Chart 11The Market Not Buying Into The Fed's Current Rate Hike Pace In other words, current market pricing tilts the risk/reward trade-off firmly in favor of below-benchmark duration, but we will keep a close eye on our neutral rate signals in the coming quarters to see if a more consistent message emerges. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Real Rate "Targeting": Global central bankers are increasingly following the Fed's lead by paying more attention to the appropriate level of real interest rates that will keep inflation stable given low unemployment (r-star). This raises a new potentially bearish element for global bond markets through higher real yields. U.K.: The Bank of England hiked rates last week, despite sluggish growth, slowing inflation and elevated Brexit uncertainties. Additional rate hikes will be difficult to deliver, however, without a change in trend for those factors. Stay overweight Gilts in global hedged bond portfolios. Japan: The conditions for a shift higher in the Bank of Japan's bond yield targets - a weaker yen, core inflation at 1.5% and much higher U.S. bond yields - are still not yet in place. Stay overweight JGBs. Feature Chart Of The WeekA 'New, New Normal' Of Higher Real Rates? Three major central banks met last week and, surprisingly, the most important message did not come from the Federal Reserve. The Bank of England (BoE) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) both delivered policy decisions that appeared more hawkish on the surface, even though the underlying message was far more mixed. The BoE hiked rates by 25bps, while the BoJ tweaked its yield curve control policy by raising the allowable ceiling for the 10-year Japanese Government Bond (JGB) to 0.2%. Yet both central banks signaled - through published research, commentary and outright forward guidance - that the timing of the next policy move is uncertain. This contrasts with the Fed, who continues to signal a slow-but-steady path of U.S. rate hikes over at least the next year. The BoE and BoJ are dealing with the same issues that all the major developed market central banks are facing now - how to reconcile low unemployment and an apparent dearth of spare economic capacity with only modest upward inflation momentum and real interest rates that appear too low (Chart of the Week). Against that backdrop, the communication of central banker strategies to the public, and to the financial markets, is critical to their success, defined by keeping inflation stable around target levels. The Fed has been a leader in introducing nuance into the execution, and communication, of post-crisis policymaking. First, by focusing more on underutilized capacity in the U.S. labor market to justify keeping the funds rate low despite the headline unemployment rate falling below its estimate of "full" employment. Later, by focusing attention on real interest rates and the possibility that the neutral level of that rate (a.k.a. "r-star") can vary cyclically from levels that would previously have been considered consistent with full employment and stable inflation. In both cases, the Fed has provided a framework that allows some wiggle room as it continues to normalize away from crisis-era policy settings. Passionate advocates of the concept like current New York Fed President John Williams have led the Fed's growing focus on r-star. Yet in its latest Inflation Report published last week, the BoE dedicated five full pages to the topic of estimating r-star in the U.K.1 Other central banks have discussed their own estimates of r-star over the past year, as well.2 This is an important point for global bond markets. If other central banks begin to follow the lead of the Fed and elevate the importance of "real rate targeting" into their inflation targeting frameworks, then real bond yields could have significant upside with policy rates still not above realized inflation in the major developed economies. This will especially be true if factors that have kept r-star cyclically depressed in many countries in the post-crisis era - weak productivity growth, fiscal consolidation, excess capacity in labor markets, household deleveraging, among others - continue to slowly dissipate. At the moment, the most important themes for global financial markets relate to the ongoing Fed tightening cycle, the potential for policy stimulus in China in response to slowing domestic growth, and the slowing growth of central bank balance sheets (Chart 2). All three are bond bearish. We could add a fourth item to that list - U.S. protectionism, which can lead to slowing global through diminished trade activity. While there is evidence from many countries that a more uncertain outlook for global trade has negatively affected business confidence, there is also some tentative evidence that the deceleration in global trade activity may be in the process of stabilizing (Chart 3). Yet even if the U.S. - China trade tensions worsen and industrial activity slows further, tariffs and trade barriers represent a supply shock that could result in higher global inflation and prevent a meaningful decline in bond yields. Summing it all up for our government bond investment strategy, we continue to recommend: a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance country allocation (Chart 4) with underweight exposure to countries where central banks can credibly raise interest rates (U.S., Canada) and overweight exposure where rate hikes will be more difficult to deliver (U.K., Japan, Australia) Bottom Line: Global central bankers are increasingly following the Fed's lead by paying more attention to the appropriate level of real interest rates that will keep inflation stable given low unemployment (r-star). This raises a new potentially bearish element for global bond markets through higher real yields. Chart 2The Biggest Market Risks Are Bond Bearish Chart 3Tentative Signs Of Global Trade Stabilization? Chart 4Underweight Countries That Can Credibly ##br##Raise Rates (And Vice Versa) Stay Overweight U.K. Gilts, Even After The BoE Rate Hike The BoE delivered a 25bp rate hike last week, bringing its Bank Rate to 0.75%. The growth and inflation forecasts for the next three years were essentially unchanged, however. The hike was described by BoE Governor Mark Carney as a sign of growing confidence by the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) in its forecast. Thus, another step towards normalizing the Bank Rate from accommodative levels was appropriate. In the press conference following the MPC meeting, Carney noted that the recent pickup in U.K. wage growth was an important development. Carney said that with the economy at full employment,3 the BoE's job is to "manage demand" to control inflation while nominal wage growth expands. Real wage growth has crept back into positive territory in recent months (Chart 5). Numerous indicators were presented in the August 2018 Inflation Report to suggest that U.K. labor markets are growing increasingly tight - including faster wage growth for those switching jobs than those staying in jobs (bottom panel) and survey data showing greater pay increases in sectors facing recruitment and retention difficulties. The BoE did downplay the recent cooling of realized U.K. inflation, which has been more a product of the stability of the pound than an easing of domestic inflation pressures. While this is true, market-based measures of inflation expectation like CPI swaps have also been following the path of the pound, rather than typical forces like oil prices, since the collapse in the pound after the 2016 Brexit vote (Chart 6). On the margin, however, the more stable pound means that U.K. inflation will be more influenced by domestic factors, like tight labor markets and wage pressures. Chart 5Mixed Signals From The U.K. Labor Market Chart 6U.K. Inflation Following The Pound, Not The Labor Market As discussed earlier, the BoE did devote a significant section of the latest Inflation Report to the topic of the neutral real rate or r-star. The BoE noted that there was a longer-term and shorter-term r-star, and that the latter had to be deeply negative in recent years given the shocks from the 2008 Financial Crisis and recession to the 2016 Brexit vote to the fiscal austerity of recent Conservative governments. As the impacts of those shocks fades, the shorter-term r-star increases, requiring faster BoE rate hikes. Or as it was described in the Inflation Report: "The expected rise in r* over coming years, combined with the absorption of spare capacity over the forecast period, means that - even as inflation is projected to fall back toward 2% - the Bank Rate is likely to need to rise gradually to keep inflation at the target. But the persistence of the fall in the trend real rate means that any rises in the Bank Rate are expected to be limited, and interest rates are likely to need to remain low by historical standards for some time to come." That sounds like the BoE wanting to have its cake and eat it too, talking up rate hikes while making the case for rates to stay low for longer. The longer-run r-star estimates shown in the Inflation Report (between 0.5% and 1.5%) when added to the 2% BoE inflation target, suggests that the neutral nominal Bank Rate is between 2.5% and 3.5%. That does imply that there is a lot of scope for additional BoE rate hikes without even reaching a level that could be considered "'neutral' from a longer-term perspective" (Chart 7). It will be difficult for the BoE to deliver on any additional rate hikes, however, while both the economy and inflation are decelerating. The current pricing in the U.K. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve shows that there are only 42bps of hikes discounted by the end of 2020. That represents a very low hurdle to overcome, even if the U.K. economy remains sluggish and the Brexit outcome turns ugly. From a strategy perspective, we think that Gilt yields can rise above the current shallow path of the forward curve over the next 6-12 months, suggesting that a below-benchmark duration stance in the U.K. is appropriate. Yet with U.K. growth slowing and leading indicators suggesting more of that is to come, and with still no resolution to the Brexit negotiations with the March 29, 2019 "Brexit Day" looming in the distance, Gilt yields are likely to stay relatively subdued versus global peers. We continue to recommend an overweight stance on Gilts in hedged global bond portfolios (Chart 8). Chart 7U.K. Real Rates Are WAY Below Longer-Run R-Star Chart 8Stay Overweight U.K. Gilts Bottom Line: The Bank of England hiked rates last week, despite sluggish growth, slowing inflation and elevated Brexit uncertainties. Additional rate hikes will be difficult to deliver, however, without a change in trend for those factors. Stay overweight Gilts in global hedged bond portfolios. Bank of Japan: Zero Pressure On The 0% Target Global bond yields got a bit of a jolt recently from the most unlikely of sources - Japan, the place where bond volatility goes to die. Amid media speculation that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) was considering an upward adjustment to its JGB yield target, the 10-year JGB took several runs at breaching the BoJ's implied pain threshold of 0.10%, resulting in the BoJ intervening with offers of "unlimited" purchases to quell the selloff. Yet at the monetary policy meeting last week, the BoJ only delivered modest changes: The allowable range for the 10-year JGB yield was widened to -0.20% to +0.20% New forward guidance was introduced indicating no rate hikes until at least 2020 A shift in the BoJ's equity ETF purchases to favor ETF's that target a broader index We were not surprised by the outcome, given that there was absolutely no reason why the BoJ should have even considered a change in policy settings. Back in February, we outlined the three things that we believed must ALL occur before the BoJ could plausibly raise its yield target for the 10-year Japanese government bond (JGB).4 Five months later, none of those conditions has been met (Chart 9): 1) The USD/JPY exchange rate must at least get back to the 115-120 range. USD/JPY has struggled to reach even the bottom end of our target range, only getting to an intraday high of 113.17 on July 19th. The starting point for the yen must be weaker than that before the BoJ can deliver any sort of more hawkish policy that would likely send the yen roaring higher. 2) Japanese core CPI inflation and nominal wage inflation must both rise sustainably above 1.5%. The extremely tight Japanese labor market (Chart 10) has finally begun to put upward pressure on wage growth, which now sits at 2.2% on a year-over-year basis. There has been no follow through into core inflation, however, which only got as high at 0.5% in March before sliding back to 0.2% in June. Chart 9None Of Our Conditions For A BoJ Hike Have Been Met Chart 10How Does This Job Market Not Produce Inflation? 3) The 10-year JGB yield must reach an overvalued extreme versus U.S. Treasuries. We judge this by looking at the residual from a fundamental model of the 10-year JGB yield published by the BoJ. The model includes both the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield as the proxy for global yields, and the share of outstanding JGBs owned by the central bank to measure the impact of BoJ buying (Table 1). That model suggests that current JGB yields are only at fair value, and that U.S. Treasury yields have to rise by a lot more (to at least 3.5%) to make the current level of JGB yields look "expensive", thus justifying a higher BoJ yield target (USD/JPY would likely be in the 115-120 range if that happened, as well). Yet despite all these factors arguing against any change in the BoJ's policy settings, the topic was seriously discussed at last week's policy meeting, according to Reuters.5 The renewed weakness of Japanese inflation scuttled any chance that a serious policy change could be delivered. The decision to widen the allowable yield range for the 10-year JGB yield not associated with any signaled change to the 0% yield target. Investors got the hint, and yields have calmed down after the late July turbulence. The BoJ is increasingly backed into a corner with its hyper-easy monetary policy. There is no spare capacity in the economy, with the unemployment rate at a 25-year low of 2.4% and the BoJ estimating that the output gap is closed. Our own Japan Central Bank Monitor is no longer in negative territory, indicating that the next policy move should be a tightening (Chart 11). The BoJ has indeed been "tightening", but only by reducing the pace of its bond buying. BoJ purchases now only matches the pace of new JGB - a far cry from when the BoJ was buying more than all new JGBs issued between 2013 and 2017 (bottom two panels). Table 1JGB Yield Model Chart 11BoJ Has Been Quantitatively Tightening There is a reported disagreement within the BoJ over the impact of the negative interest rate and yield curve control policies on Japanese bank profitability and lending capacity. Yet any sort of rate hike, at either end of the yield curve, would result in a sharp increase in the yen. To have that happen now would harm Japanese exporters' competitiveness at the worst possible time. Economic growth is decelerating in two of Japan's major trading partners, China and South Korea. At the same time, U.S. protectionism risks trade wars that would slow global trade at a time when Japanese export growth, and business confidence, may already be peaking (Chart 12). We continue to recommend an overweight position in Japanese government debt within hedged global government bond portfolios. Admittedly, the idea of overweighting a market where nearly half of all bonds still have a negative yield does not sound like a path to riches. Yet the BoJ stands out as the one major central bank that has virtually no chance at credibly talking about, much less delivering, any sort of monetary tightening with core inflation close to 0%. If non-Japanese yields continue to rise over the next 6-12 months, as we expect, then JGBs will once again be a relative outperformer in a global bond bear market (Chart 13). Chart 12Japan Is Vulnerable To A Global Trade War Chart 13Stay Overweight JGBs In Hedged Global Bond Portfolios Bottom Line: The conditions for a shift higher in the Bank of Japan's bond yield targets - a weaker yen, core inflation at 1.5% and much higher U.S. bond yields - are still not yet in place. Stay overweight JGBs. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The r-star discussion can be found on pages 39-43 of the August 2018 BoE Inflation Report, which can be found here https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/inflation-report/2018/august/inflation-report-august-2018.pdf 2 For example, the BoJ's estimates of Japan's r-star can be found here, https://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_rev/wps_2018/data/wp18e06.pdf, while the Bank of Canada's estimates for Canadian r-star can be found here https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/boc-review-autumn2017-dorich.pdf 3 The BoE estimates full employment to be around the current unemployment rate of 4.25%, which is well below the OECD's estimate of 5.5% shown in the top panel of Chart 5. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "What Would It Take For The Bank Of Japan To Raise Its Yield Target?" dated February 13, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 5 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-boj-policy-insight/bojs-architect-of-shock-and-awe-plots-retreat-from-stimulus-idUSKBN1KR0TA Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chart 1Yield Curve Suggests GDP Growth Has Peaked Last month we learned that the U.S. economy grew 4.1% in the second quarter, the fastest pace since 2014. The gap between year-over-year nominal GDP growth and the fed funds rate - a reliable recession indicator - also widened considerably (Chart 1). However, our sense is that this might be as good as it gets for the U.S. economy. With fewer unemployed workers than job openings and businesses reporting difficulties finding qualified labor, strong demand will increasingly translate into higher prices rather than more output. Higher interest rates and a stronger dollar will also start to weigh on demand as the Fed responds to rising inflation. For bond investors, it is still too soon to position for slower growth by increasing portfolio duration. Markets are priced for only 83 basis points of Fed tightening during the next 12 months, below the current "gradual" pace of +25 bps per quarter. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and a neutral allocation to spread product. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 133 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -50 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 14 bps on the month, and currently sits at 109 bps. Corporate bonds remain expensive with 12-month breakeven spreads for both the A and Baa credit tiers near their 25th percentiles since 1989 (Chart 2). Further, with inflation now close to the Fed's target, monetary policy will provide much less support for corporate bond returns going forward. These are two main reasons why we downgraded our cyclical corporate bond exposure to neutral near the end of June.1 Recent revisions to the U.S. National Accounts reveal that gross nonfinancial corporate leverage declined in Q4 2017 and Q1 2018, though from an elevated starting point (panel 4). While strong Q2 2018 profit growth should lead to a further decline when the second quarter data are reported in September, the downtrend in leverage will probably not last through the second half of the year. A rising wage bill and stronger dollar will soon drag profit growth below the rate of debt growth. At that point, leverage will rise. Historically, rising gross leverage correlates with rising corporate defaults and widening corporate bond spreads. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for the second quarter was released yesterday, and it showed that banks continue to ease standards on commercial & industrial loans (bottom panel). Rising corporate defaults tend to coincide with tightening lending standards (Table 3). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 128 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +205 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 27 bps on the month, and currently sits at 334 bps. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for expected default losses is currently 213 bps, below its long-run mean of 247 bps (Chart 3). This tells us that if default losses during the next 12 months are in line with our expectations, we should expect excess high-yield returns of 213 bps over duration-matched Treasuries, assuming also that there are no capital gains/losses from spread tightening/widening. However, we showed in a recent report that the default loss expectations embedded in our calculation are extremely low relative to history (panel 4).2 Our assumption, derived from the Moody's baseline default rate forecast and our own forecast of the recovery rate, calls for default losses of 1.2% during the next 12 months. The only historical period to show significantly lower default losses was 2007, a time when corporate balance sheets were in much better shape than today. While most indicators suggest that default losses will in fact remain low for the next 12 months, historical context clearly demonstrates that the risks are to the upside. It will be critically important to track real-time indicators of the default rate such as job cut announcements, which declined last month but remain above 2017 lows (bottom panel), for signals about whether current default forecasts are overly optimistic. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -4 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread tightened 3 bps on the month, driven by a 2 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) and a 1 bp tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The excess return Bond Map shows that MBS offer a relatively poor risk/reward trade-off, particularly compared to Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS, High-Yield and Sovereigns. However, our Bond Map analysis does not account for the macro environment, which remains very favorable for the sector. In a recent report we showed that the two main factors that influence MBS spreads are mortgage refinancing activity and residential mortgage bank lending standards.3 Refi activity is tepid (Chart 4) and will likely stay that way for the foreseeable future. Only 5.8% of the par value of the Conventional 30-year MBS index carries a coupon above the current mortgage rate, and even a drop in the mortgage rate to below 4% (from its current 4.6%) would only increase the refinanceable percentage to 38%. As for lending standards, yesterday's second quarter Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that they continue to ease (bottom panel), though banks also reported that they remain at the tighter end of the range since 2005. The still-tight level of lending standards suggests that further gradual easing is likely going forward. That will keep downward pressure on MBS spreads. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +2 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 179 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -35 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed by 24 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -22 bps. Local Authorities outperformed by 33 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +61 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 6 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +13 bps. Domestic Agency bonds broke even with duration-matched Treasuries in July, keeping year-to-date excess returns steady at -1 bp. The strengthening U.S. dollar is a clear negative for hard currency Sovereign debt (Chart 5) and valuation relative to U.S. corporates remains negative (panel 2). Maintain an underweight allocation to Sovereigns. In contrast, the Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors continue to offer a favorable risk/reward trade-off compared to other fixed income sectors (please see the Bond Maps on page 15). Maintain overweight allocations to both sectors. The Bond Maps also show that while the Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors are very low risk, expected returns are feeble. Both sectors should be avoided. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 66 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +187 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio fell 3% in July to reach 83% (Chart 6). This is more than one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and only slightly higher than the average of 81% that was observed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. The total return Bond Map shows that municipal bonds still offer an attractive risk/reward profile for investors who are exposed to the top marginal tax rate. For investors who cannot benefit from the tax exemption there are better alternatives - notably Supranationals, Domestic Agency bonds and Agency CMBS. While value is dissipating, the near-term technical picture remains positive. Fund inflows are strong (panel 2) and visible supply is low (panel 3). Fundamentally, revisions to the GDP data reveal that state & local government net borrowing has been fairly flat in recent years, and in fact probably increased in the second quarter (bottom panel). At least so far, ratings downgrades have not risen alongside higher net borrowing, but this will be crucial to monitor during the next few quarters. Stay tuned. Treasury Curve: Buy The 5/30 Barbell Versus The 10-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve's bear flattening trend continued in July. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 4 bps and the 5/30 slope flattened 2 bps, as yields moved higher. Despite the curve flattening, our position long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell returned +8 bps on the month and is now up +30 bps since inception.4 The trade's outperformance is due to the extreme undervaluation of the 7-year bullet versus the 1/20 barbell. As of today, the bullet still plots 12 bps cheap on our model (Chart 7), which translates to an expected 42 bps of 1/20 flattening during the next six months. We view that much flattening as unlikely.5 Table 4 of this report shows that curve steepeners are also cheap at the front-end of the curve, particularly the 2-year bullet over the 1/5 and 1/7 barbells. Meanwhile, barbells are more fairly valued relative to bullets at the long-end of the curve. The 5/30 and 7/30 barbells look particularly attractive relative to the 10-year bullet. We recommend adding a position long the 5/30 barbell and short the 10-year bullet. The 5/30 barbell is close to fairly valued on our model (panel 4), which implies that the 5/10/30 butterfly spread is priced for relatively little change in the 5/30 slope during the next six months. This trade should perform well in the modest curve flattening environment we anticipate, and it provides a partial hedge to our 1/7/20 trade that is geared toward curve steepening. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of August 3, 2018) TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 10 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +139 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate increased 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 2.12%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate increased 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.24% (Chart 8). Both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below the 2.3% to 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. We expect breakevens will return to that target range as investors become increasingly convinced that the risk of deflation has faded. Consistent inflation prints at or above the Fed's 2% target will be the deciding factor that eventually leads to this upward re-rating of inflation expectations. In that regard, core PCE inflation was relatively weak in June, growing only 0.11% month-over-month. That pace is somewhat below the monthly pace of 0.17% that is necessary to sustain 2% annualized inflation (panel 4). Nevertheless, 12-month core PCE inflation at 1.9% is only just below the Fed's target, and the 6-month rate of change is above 2% on an annualized basis. These readings are confirmed by the Dallas Fed's trimmed mean PCE inflation measure (bottom panel). Maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS relative to nominal Treasury securities for now. We will reduce exposure to TIPS once both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward breakeven rates reach our target range of 2.3% to 2.5%. ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +9 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS narrowed 5 bps on the month and now stands at 38 bps, only 11 bps above its pre-crisis low. The Bond Maps show that consumer ABS continue to offer relatively attractive return potential compared to other low-risk spread products. However, we maintain only a neutral allocation to this space because credit quality trends have started to move against the sector. Despite the large upward revision to the personal savings rate that accompanied the second quarter GDP report, the multi-year uptrend in the household interest coverage ratio remains intact (Chart 9). This will eventually translate into more frequent consumer credit delinquencies, and indeed, the consumer credit delinquency rate appears to have put in a bottom. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for Q2 was released yesterday and it showed that average consumer credit lending standards tightened for the ninth consecutive quarter (bottom panel). Credit card lending standards tightened for the fifth consecutive quarter, while auto loan standards eased after having tightened in each of the prior eight quarters. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +98 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 5 bps on the month and currently sits at 71 bps (Chart 10). In a recent report we showed that the macro picture for CMBS is decidedly mixed.6 A typical negative environment for CMBS is characterized by tightening bank lending standards for commercial real estate loans and falling demand. Yesterday's Q2 Senior Loan Officer Survey reported that both lending standards and demand for nonresidential real estate loans were very close to unchanged (bottom two panels). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +31 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 5 bps on the month and currently sits at 47 bps. The Bond Maps show that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector continues to make sense. The BCA Bond Maps The following page presents excess return and total return Bond Maps that we use to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Maps employ volatility-adjusted breakeven spread/yield analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Maps do not impose any macroeconomic view. The Excess Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the excess return Bond Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps in excess of Treasuries. The Total Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the total return Bond Map shows the number of days of average yield increase required for each sector to lose 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of yield increases and are therefore less likely to lose 5%. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average yield decline required for each sector to earn 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of yield decline and are therefore more likely to earn 5%. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of August 3, 2018) Chart 12Total Return Bond Map (As Of August 3, 2018) Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Go To Neutral On Spread Product", dated June 26, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync", dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem", dated July 17, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty", dated June 19, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem", dated July 17, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights U.S. Investment Strategy is getting back to basics: We follow last week's report outlining our stance on interest rates with a review of the credit cycle and its current position. The credit cycle is not just about borrowers: Lender willingness is inversely related to loan performance over a five-year horizon, but it amplifies near-term performance swings. Our bond strategists use three broad indicators to track the credit cycle...: Valuation, monetary conditions and credit quality all offer insight into corporate bond performance. ... and we also consider the fed funds rate cycle: The way that lenders interact with the monetary policy backdrop is discouraging for the course of human evolution, but it follows a well-defined pattern that helps demarcate the credit cycle. The cycle is in its latter stages, and investors should be in the process of dialing down credit exposures: Our bond strategists downgraded spread product to neutral in mid-June, and we won't return to overweight until the next recession is well underway. Feature U.S. Investment Strategy is meant to provide analyses and forecasts of financial markets and the economy for the purpose of helping our clients make asset-allocation decisions. This report continues our focus on going back to the basics of meeting that mandate. Next week's Special Report will present a simple indicator for anticipating the onset of a recession and the end of the equity bull market. After Labor Day, we will publish a Special Report updating, and expanding upon, our work on the fed funds rate cycle. By the unofficial end of the summer, then, we will have outlined our positions on rates, credit, the business cycle, and the state of monetary policy. That will provide us with a framework for evaluating incoming data and engaging in an ongoing investment-focused dialogue. It will also hopefully put us in position to identify the first set of major cyclical inflection points since 2007-8 in a timely fashion. 2019 is shaping up as a pivotal year for asset allocation, and we look forward to navigating it alongside our clients. Lenders Never Learn, Part I: Lending Standards Investors typically think of the credit cycle exclusively in terms of borrower performance. After all, cycle peaks and troughs are defined by default-rate troughs and peaks. There are two parties to every loan, though, and a narrow focus on debtors precludes a full understanding of the landscape. The credit cycle encompasses lender willingness as well as borrower performance. Bad loans are made in good times, just as surely as good loans are made in bad times. Skepticism and gloom carry the day in a recession and its immediate aftermath, and the loans that manage to get made early in the credit cycle are tightly underwritten, insulated with a margin of safety that would warm Benjamin Graham's heart. As the cycle stretches on, however, lenders forget about the trauma of the last downturn and focus more on market share than standards. The fact that standards impact performance with a lag much longer than the annual bonus cycle obscures their importance and helps them persist. Like the rest of us, loan officers and their managers learn best when they receive immediate feedback that clearly results from their decisions. Over the three-decade history of the Federal Reserve's senior loan officer survey the last three cycles, however, it appears that lending standards impact loan performance with as much as a five-year lag. The Chart Of The Week shows the net percentage of loan officers tightening standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans to large and mid-sized companies, inverted and advanced by 20 quarters. Easy standards line up with peak defaults, and tight standards align with default troughs. Chart of the WeekLending Standards Are Negatively Correlated With Intermediate-Term Loan Performance ... The lag between loan approval and loan performance is far too long to reinforce learning, however. Over the course of five years, factors that could not have been foreseen at origination may well end up precipitating a default. Lenders' response to that long-term uncertainty may help explain the positive short-term correlation (Chart 2). Partially goaded by pro-cyclical loan-loss reserve standards, lenders react to surging default rates by getting more conservative, nudging default rates higher in a feedback loop that plants the seeds for strong intermediate-term performance. Chart 2... But They March In Lockstep With Loan Performance In The Near Term Bottom Line: 2014's cyclical bottom in standards suggests that rising default rates will not peak until late 2019 or 2020. Increased near-term lender caution will reinforce the upward move. Tracking The Credit Cycle: Default Rates When the economy is expanding, borrowers in the aggregate find it easier to service their debts, just as recessions make debt service more onerous. The pro-cyclicality of inflation, which eases debt burdens, helps reinforce the relationship. There is more to tracking the credit cycle than tracking the business cycle, however. While defaults have peaked within five months after the end of the last three recessions, default-rate troughs have varied wildly, occurring anywhere from six years before the recession to the month it began (Chart 3). Our credit strategists try to identify the point at which defaults begin to take off by tracking lending standards, monetary conditions, and credit quality. None of these factors suggests that default rates can make new lows. The loan officer survey could improve, but tight spreads leave almost no room for the bond market to become more receptive (Chart 4). Monetary conditions are steadily becoming less accommodative, helped along by the rate-hike/dollar-strength loop (Chart 5). Our bond strategists expect that credit quality will weaken as soon as upward wage pressure snuffs out pre-tax corporate profits'1 ability to keep up with double-digit debt growth. It's hard to say just when default rates will begin to erode total returns in a meaningful way, but our bond strategists are of a mind that risk is rapidly catching up with reward. Chart 3The Business Cycle Reliably Calls Peaks,##BR##But It's No Help With Troughs Chart 4Little Room##BR##For Improvement Chart 5Tightening,##BR##But Not Yet Tight Tracking The Credit Cycle: Corporate Spreads Chart 6Spreads Aren't Ready To Blow Out Yet High-yield data only exist for the last two spread-widening episodes, but what they lack in quantity they make up for in consistency. Heading into both the dot-com bust and the financial crisis, spreads did not widen in earnest (Chart 6, top panel) until the Fed had completed its tightening cycle (Chart 6, second panel), BCA's proprietary Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) began to deteriorate (Chart 6, third panel), and lenders tightened their standards (Chart 6, bottom panel). That template suggests that spreads are not poised to blow out anytime soon, as we expect the Fed will not be finished tightening before the end of 2019 (or later), and lenders are still actively easing their standards for commercial borrowers. As noted above, we expect that deterioration in the CHM will pick up again, once runaway profit growth ceases to paper over surging leverage. All in all, our bond strategists do not think it is anywhere near time to panic. As with defaults, they think it is still too soon to expect the beginning of sustained spread widening. On balance, however, the indicators suggest that return expectations should be modest, and limited to coupon yields. It is too late to buy bonds with the expectation of realizing capital gains, and prudent return projections should pencil in some minor capital losses. Lenders Never Learn, Part II: The Fed Funds Rate Cycle The fed funds rate cycle has been a U.S. Investment Strategy pillar, informing many of our views on cycles and asset markets. We will publish a Special Report delving into it more fully the first week of September, but a quick summary is sufficient to illustrate its relevance to the credit cycle. We divide the fed funds rate cycle into four phases based on whether the Fed is hiking rates or cutting them, and whether or not the fed funds exceeds our estimate of the equilibrium rate. Per our stylized representation of the cycle (Chart 7), we are currently in Phase I (the Fed is hiking, but policy remains accommodative) and are likely to remain there until the second half of 2019, when we expect that policy will turn restrictive, ushering in Phase II. While we have found that the level of the fed funds rate trumps its direction when it comes to explaining equity and bond returns, loan growth is more sensitive to the direction of rates. Banks expand their loan books more rapidly when the Fed is tightening than they do when it's easing. The effect is most pronounced for C&I loans, which grow five times faster during rake-hiking campaigns than they do during rate-cutting campaigns (Table 1). The conclusion may seem counter-intuitive on its face, but one must remember that the Fed is charged with leaning against the cycle: it tightens when times are good to keep them from becoming too good, and its eases when times are bad to get the economy back on its feet. Chart 7The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Table 1An Example Of What Not To Do Lenders who take a countercyclical tack operate with the policy wind at their back. Those who follow the cycle are actually fighting the Fed. Most lenders short-sightedly follow the crowd aping the cycle, basing future projections on the most recent data samples and hewing to career incentives that encourage herding. Bankers who load up on loans when the cycle is demonstrably old and approaching its peak make two errors: they ignore a well-established cyclical pattern (tightening leads recessions, which lead defaults and higher losses given default), and they deploy capital when it's widely available in the marketplace, but husband it when it's scarce. Bottom Line: Banks reinforce the credit cycle by avidly deploying capital when conditions are about to take a turn for the worse, and withholding it when they're about to get better. We recommend investors reject their example, and limit their exposure to spread product. Investment Implications If our view that the Fed is going to hike rates more than the consensus expects is correct, all bonds will have to contend with a persistent headwind. Thanks to positive carry, and high-yield bonds' structurally shorter duration, spread product will be less vulnerable than Treasuries. Our bond strategists are nonetheless lukewarm on the risk-reward offered by investment-grade and high-yield bonds. The cycle is clearly in its latter stages and spreads are historically tight. We remain constructive on both the business cycle and the monetary policy cycle, and we are not yet ready to throw in the towel on the equity bull market. Although our equity take is more sanguine than the BCA consensus, our optimism does not extend to the credit cycle, which has clearly passed its peak. While neither modest spread widening nor a mild pickup in defaults is likely to wipe out all of spread product's excess returns, we do not expect that they will be large enough to merit more than benchmark weighting in balanced portfolios. Our sister Global ETF Strategy service's model portfolios hold benchmark spread-product positions (while underweighting Treasuries, maintaining below-benchmark duration across all bond categories, and overweighting cash) and that is the way we intend to be positioned in the small basket of ETFs we will recommend once we've completed our review of the most impactful macro drivers. A Note On Payrolls Friday's Goldilocks employment situation report for July reinforced our views on the economy and rates, but it was mixed enough to have satisfied anyone's preconceived notions. July's net payroll gains fell shy of the consensus expectation, but revisions to May and June pushed the 3-month moving average of net gains to over 224,000, slightly above expectations. Neither hours worked nor average hourly earnings set off any alarm bells, but the "hidden" unemployment rate slid 30 basis points to 7.5%, the lowest level since May 2001. We see the seeds of future inflation pressures in the continued absorption of slack, and believe that the Fed does as well. We continue to expect four hikes this year and next, two more than the money market is currently discounting. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Annualized profit growth calculated with data from the BEA's National Income and Profit Accounts.

Highlights Global QE has made bonds as risky as equities. Thereby, global QE has forced investors to accept identically depressed returns from equities and from bonds, requiring equity and other risk-asset valuations to surge. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if global bond yields remain at current levels or fall. The bad news is that risk-asset valuations will become dangerously unstable if global bond yields march much higher. The 'rule of 4' for equity/bond allocation: sum the three 10-year yields - the German bund, the U.S. T-bond, and the JGB. Above 3.5 means a neutral stance in equities... ... Above 4 means it's time to go underweight equities and overweight bonds. Feature Chart of the WeekAt Higher Bond Yields, The Correlation With Equity Prices Has Flipped From Positive To Negative The end is nigh for QE. The ECB will exit its asset purchase program at the end of the year. In doing so, it will mark the end of an epoch which began in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, a ten year period in which at least one of the world's major central banks has been buying a defined quantity of assets every month (Chart I-2). Approaching the end of the epoch, it is fitting to ask: how did the global QE stimulant work, and what will be the withdrawal symptoms? Chart I-2The End Is Nigh For QE As far back as 2011, in a provocative report titled QE And Riots we predicted that: "QE... will exacerbate already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it" Events in the subsequent seven years have fully vindicated our prediction. Simply put, QE has front-loaded asset returns which would ordinarily have accrued in the distant future to the here and now - in the form of sharply higher capital values. So if you were invested in the financial markets or most housing markets, congratulations, you have received a bonanza; if you weren't, bad luck, there's not much left for you (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return To understand why, we need to delve deeper into behavioural economics. QE: Why The Stimulant Was So Powerful Central banks admit that there is a lower bound for interest rates below which there would be an exodus of bank deposits. Once policy rates hit the lower bound, central banks can unleash a 'plan B': a commitment to keep policy rates at this lower bound for an extended period. QE is simply a powerful signalling tool for this commitment. As ECB Chief Economist Peter Praet explains: "There is a signalling channel inherent in asset purchases, which reinforces the credibility of forward guidance on policy rates. This credibility of promises to follow a certain course for policy rates in the future is enhanced by the asset purchases, as these asset purchases are a concrete demonstration of our desire (to keep policy rates at the lower bound)" The credible commitment to keep policy rates near the lower bound for an extended period depresses bond yields towards the lower bound too (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Credible Commitment To Keep Policy Rates##br## Low Pulls Down Bond Yields Now comes the part of the story that is not well understood, even by central bankers, because it derives from recent breakthroughs in behavioural economics. When bond yields approach the lower bound, the asymmetry in their future direction makes bonds very risky investments. The short-term potential for capital appreciation - nominal or real - vanishes, while the potential for vicious losses increases dramatically (Chart I-5). The technical term for this unattractive asymmetry is negative skew. Years of research in behavioural economics has led Nobel Laureate Professor Daniel Kahneman to conclude: negative skew is the measure that best encapsulates our perception of an investment's risk. Chart I-5Bonds Become Much Riskier ##br## At Low Bond Yields Professor Kahneman's work reveals a profound truth: global QE has made bonds as risky as equities (Chart I-6). The ramification is that equities and other risk-assets no longer need to lure investors with an excess return over bond returns. QE has forced investors to accept identically depressed returns from equities and from bonds, requiring equity and other risk-asset valuations to surge.1 Chart I-6Global QE Has Made Bonds ##br##As Risky As Equities One counterargument we hear is that bonds offer investors a diversification benefit and, because of this, investors will still accept a lower return from bonds. But this argument is flawed. Just as bonds are a diversifier for equity investors, equities are a diversifier for bond investors. Indeed in recent years, equities have protected bond investors during vicious sell-offs in the bond market such as after Trump's shock victory in 2016. So we could equally argue that equities require the lower return. In fact, with the same negative skew and symmetrical diversification properties, both assets must offer the same prospective return. The breakthroughs in behavioural economics provide some good news and some bad news. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or fall. The bad news is that risk-asset valuations will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher (Chart I-7). Chart I-7At Low Bond Yields The Required Return On ##br##Equities Plunges, So Equity Valuations Surge Financial Markets Dwarf The World Economy One common misunderstanding about QE is that it has been the bond purchasing itself that has held down bond yields. This seems a natural assumption because we connect the act of buying with higher prices (lower yields). Moreover, the $10 trillion of bonds that the 'big four' central banks have bought is not far short of the size of the euro area economy. But let's put this into context. The global bond market exceeds $100 trillion. Long-term bank loans amount to something similar. In this $217 trillion2 global fixed income market, $10 trillion of QE is peanuts. To reiterate, QE's impact came not from the $10 trillion of central bank purchases in itself, but from the signal that interest rates would remain at the lower bound for a long time, mathematically requiring bond yields to approach the lower bound too;3 and from the consequent equalization of negative skew on bonds and risk-assets, mathematically requiring an exponential rerating of all risk-asset valuations (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return Now note that the combination of equities and correlated risk-assets such as corporate and EM debt is worth around $160 trillion, and real estate is worth $220 trillion. World GDP is worth much less, around $80 trillion. So if returns from these richly valued risk-assets were reallocated from the here and now back to the distant future, through lower capital values today, there would be a very real risk that current spending could take a dive. Supporting this broad thesis, central bank measures of 'financial conditions easiness' are just tracking the level of the stock market (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Financial Conditions Are Just##br## Tracking The Stock Market The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds On February 1 this year, we advised that the big threat to risk-asset valuations "comes from the global 10-year bond yield rising to 2% - broadly equivalent to the German 10-year bund yield rising to 1% or the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield rising to 3%." This advice has proved to be remarkably prescient. Whenever bond yields have been at the lower end of recent ranges, the correlation with equities has been positive, meaning equities have risen in tandem with bond yields. But whenever bond yields have moved to the upper end of recent ranges, the correlation has abruptly flipped to negative, meaning equities have fallen as bond yields have risen (Chart of the Week). While many strategists and commentators are fixated on the risks from trade wars and/or the global economy, our non-consensus call is that the biggest threat to risk-assets comes from rich valuations which will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher. In this regard the bond yield that matters is the global bond yield. Previously we defined this in terms of the German 10-year bund yield and the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield. But today for completeness, we would like to add another important component: the Japanese 10-year government bond yield. The global bond yield is a weighted average of the three components. But for a useful rule of thumb, just sum the three 10-year yields - the German bund, the U.S. T-bond, and the JGB. A sum above 3.5 means a neutral stance to equities. A sum above 4 - which broadly equates to the global yield rising above 2% - means it's time to go underweight equities and overweight bonds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Consider what happens to valuations when bond yields decline from 4% to 2%. At a 4% bond yield, equities possess significantly more negative skew than 10-year bonds. So investors will demand a comparatively higher return from equities, let’s say 8% a year. Whereas, at a 2% bond yield, equities and 10-year bonds possess the same negative skew. So investors will demand the same return from equities as they can get from bonds, 2% a year. At the lower bond yield, the bond must deliver 2% a year less for ten years compared to previously, meaning its price must rise by 22%. But equities must deliver 6% a year less for ten years, so the equity market must surge by 80%. 2 Source: The Institute of International Finance (IIF) https://www.iif.com/publication/global-debt-monitor/global-debt-monitor-june-2017 3 In contrast, if the market feared bond purchases would cause inflation and thereby imply a higher path of interest rates, QE would push up bond yields! Fractal Trading Model* This week we note that the underperformance of emerging market versus developed market equities is technically stretched and ripe for at least a brief countertrend reversal. The 65-day trade is long EM versus DM with a profit target of 2.5% and a symmetrical stop-loss. 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-10 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 Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions 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 ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Feature Downside Risks Haven't Gone Away We downgraded risk assets to neutral in last month's Quarterly Portfolio Outlook,1 citing an increasing number of risks to the equity bull market. Specifically, we warned about the slowdown and desynchronization of global growth, rising U.S. inflation, further deterioration in the trade war, and the ongoing slowdown in China. Markets - particularly in the U.S. - have stabilized somewhat over the past few weeks on the expectation that these risks are not particularly grave, that global growth remains robust, and that central banks will be slow to tighten. We accept that there remain upside risks (which is why we are neutral, not underweight, equities) but think many investors remain too sanguine about the downside risks. On desynchronized growth, it is true that the slowdown in the euro zone seems to have bottomed. The Citi Economic Surprise Indexes (Chart 1) suggest that downward surprises to euro zone and Japanese growth have ended, and that the U.S. is no longer surprising significantly to the upside. However, the likely path of inflation in the two regions looks very different, with U.S. core PCE inflation likely headed towards 2.5% over the next few quarters, while euro zone core inflation is stuck around 1% (Chart 2). Table 1Recommended Allocation Chart 1A Resynchronization Of Growth? Chart 2Core Inflation: Higher In The U.S. Than In The Euro Zone In particular, we think it is only a matter of time before U.S. wages start to accelerate. Unemployment has not been this low since the late 1960s. As happened then, there is typically a lag between the labor market becoming tight and inflation emerging (Chart 3). With the employment/population ratio for the key working-age demographic now back close to its 2007 level (Chart 4), and 601,000 new entrants to the labor force last month alone, that point is probably not far away. Note, too, that people switching jobs are now seeing large wage rises; those staying are not (Chart 5). With strong corporate profit growth, companies will soon start to raise wages to keep staff and fill vacancies. Chart 3Just A Matter Of Time Before Inflation Accelerates Chart 4Little Slack Left In The Labor Market Chart 5Switchers Getting Wage Rises; Stayers Not This all suggests that markets are too nonchalant about the risk of further Fed tightening. The futures market is pricing in only four rate hikes from the Fed over the next 24 months (Chart 6). We think it likely that the Fed will continue to hike by 25 basis points a quarter until something gives. By contrast, the ECB has clearly signaled that it will wait until at least September next year before raising rates; when it does so, it may hike by only 10 basis points. The futures market is close to pricing this correctly (Chart 6, panel 2). We remain concerned about further exacerbation of the retaliatory tariff war. In late July, the European Union and President Trump seemed to agree a truce, especially with regard to auto tariffs. But, even if this proves more than transitory, it is unlikely to be repeated between the U.S. and China. Both sides have raised the stakes so much that it will be politically difficult for either to back down. Further aggressive moves are likely, including a 10% tariff on all USD500 billion of Chinese imports into the U.S, and the Chinese authorities engineering a further depreciation of the Chinese yuan, and making life difficult for U.S. companies that manufacture and sell in China (where their sales total USD350 billion). Businesses around the world have woken up to this risk: capex intentions among U.S. companies have slipped recently and, in the Global ZEW survey, future expectations are now the lowest relative to current conditions since 2007, a bearish indicator (Chart 7). Chart 6Fed Is Likely To Hike more Than This Chart 7Businesses Expect Things To Get Worse Moreover, we don't see China launching a massive reflationary stimulus, as it did in 2009 and 2015. In the past few weeks, it has announced some minor easing of monetary policy, targeted tax cuts, and an acceleration of this year's fiscal spending. This will be enough to cushion the downside. But interest rates have not fallen anything like as much as in previous episodes (Chart 8). The authorities have reiterated that structural reform remains the priority. Given the significant slowdown in credit growth over the past year, we expect a further deceleration in the Chinese industrial economy (and, therefore, in imports) through the end of the year. If our macro outlook is correct, it is likely to have the following consequences for financial markets: further rises in long-term interest rates (we forecast 3.3-3.5% for the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield by early 2019), a further appreciation of the U.S. dollar (as monetary policy divergences with the euro area and Japan widen further), and negative performance for emerging market assets (hurt by higher U.S. rates, the rising USD, and the slowdown in China). This points to small negative returns from global government bonds over the next 12 months. Equities are more complicated. Earnings growth remains strong. If S&P500 companies really achieve the 20% EPS growth this year and 10% next year that analysts (and BCA's models) are forecasting, the forward multiple will fall from 16.5x now to 14.0x by end-2019. We would expect to see low single-digit positive returns from global equities over the rest of the year. We accordingly remain neutral on equities, where we can see both upside and downside risks. One key is the timing of the peak in profit margins. This has typically come a few quarters before the start of a recession. Currently margins continue to improve (Chart 9). They are likely to peak around the end of this year, when wages (and input prices, partly because of higher import tariffs) begin to rise faster than sales. We expect to move underweight equities around that time, when this and other recession indicators start to flash warning signals. Chart 8Not 2015 Redux In China Chart 9Watch For The Peak In Profit Margins Currencies: The outlook for the USD remains the key to the performance of other asset classes, particularly emerging markets and commodities. We see the risk of a short-term pullback, since long speculative positions in the dollar have recently built up (Chart 10). But differences in growth, inflation, monetary policy, and long-term rates between the U.S. and other developed economies suggest further moderate dollar appreciation over the coming 12 months. We remain very negative on EM currencies. Central banks in many emerging markets have been forced to raise rates sharply in recent weeks to defend their currencies. This is likely to slow growth over coming quarters. Those central banks that have resisted hiking (for example, Turkey and Brazil) are likely to see sharp rises in inflation. Equities: We prefer developed market equities over emerging ones. Our two overweights are the U.S. and Japan. The U.S. is a defensive market, with a beta to global equities of only 0.9 over the past 20 years. But, if there were to be a last-year equity market melt-up (along the lines of 1999), it is likely to be led by internet stocks, in which the U.S. is particularly overweight, and so the U.S. overweight also acts as a hedge against this upside risk. Our overweight in Japan is based on our view that the Bank of Japan will continue its ultra-accommodative monetary policy (bolstered by the recent tweaks to the operation of the policy), even while other DM central banks are moving towards tightening. There are also some signs of wage growth picking up, which should be positive for consumer sectors. Fixed Income: We remain underweight bonds and, within the asset class, are neutral between government bonds and spread product. U.S. junk bonds continue to have some attraction as long as economic growth remains strong (and the oil price does not fall). But junk bonds typically peak one or two quarters before equities. And, in this cycle, U.S. corporate leverage began to rise rather early, which suggests that at the start of the next recession leverage will be worryingly high (Chart 11) and that junk bonds will, therefore, perform particularly poorly. Chart 10Dollar Long Positions Building Up Again Chart 11Leverage Is High For This Stage Of The Cycle Commodities: Oil has become much harder to forecast in recent weeks, with downside risk to the price of crude coming from the recently announced OPEC production increases, but upside risk from Iran (which is threatening to close the straits of Hormuz in the face of renewed U.S. sanctions) and the collapse in Venezuelan production. BCA's energy strategists see Brent falling a little to average USD70 a barrel in 2H, and at USD75 on average next year, with greater risk of upside surprises than downside.2 Industrial metals prices are likely to remain under pressure if the USD appreciates and China slows further, as evidenced by significant downside moves in copper, iron ore and other metals over the past few weeks. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Review, "Lowering Risk Assets To Neutral," dated 2 July 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated 19 July 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Editor's Note: I am pleased to return to U.S. Investment Strategy (USIS). I worked with the service when I joined BCA in 2010, and previously led it from August 2013 through September 2014. Sara Porrello, who has been with the team for over 20 years, and I look forward to re-aligning USIS with its original mandate. We hope you will find it consistently insightful. Best regards, Doug Peta U.S. Investment Strategy is getting back to basics: Today's report, plainly stating our position on the near-term direction of interest rates, is the first in an ongoing series meant to stake out our views on the macro issues that are most important to investors. Rates are headed higher, consistent with a booming economy that may well overheat, ... : Assuming trade tensions don't short-circuit the expansion, the U.S. economy is poised to grow above trend well into 2019. ...thanks to a tightening labor market and dubious fiscal spending, ... : Employers will be forced to bid up wages as the pool of idled and under-utilized workers dries up, and the fiscal stimulus package is all but certain to goose inflation pressures. ... and neither tweets nor testy interviews nor other expressions of presidential pique are likely to stay the Fed from its appointed rounds: The Federal Reserve cherishes its independence, and it is extremely unlikely to bow to presidential pressure. Feature U.S. Investment Strategy is meant to provide analyses of the U.S. economy and its future direction for the purpose of helping our clients make asset-allocation decisions. Starting with this report, we are going back to the basics of meeting that mandate. Over the rest of the summer, we intend to outline our positions on the key macro drivers of financial markets: rates, credit, the business cycle, and the state of monetary policy. Laying out our big-picture views, and the rationale underpinning them, will establish a framework for evaluating incoming data. The goal is to allow our clients to think along with us as new information is disseminated, and to distinguish signals from noise. We also want to make it easier for clients to anticipate the evolution of our views. To that end, will make frequent use of checklists highlighting the specific elements that might lead us to change our take on the evolution of the key cycles. The ultimate goal is to stay on top of cyclical inflection points, and to use them to inform asset-allocation decisions. The Fed Gets Its Way On Rates Monetary policy is a blunt instrument that works with indeterminate lags, and its effect has been roundly questioned. At the ends of the armchair-quarterback continuum, the Fed is mocked as a clueless bumbler, turning dials at random like a fumbling Mr. Magoo, or bemoaned as an omnipotent manipulator of financial markets and real-world activity. Strictly speaking, it controls nothing more than short rates. As its post-crisis communications strategy has shown, however, its reach extends well beyond its official policy-rate dominion. Talk of last decade's "conundrum" aside, changes in the fed funds rate reverberate along the entire yield curve. As the Chart Of The Week demonstrates, the aggregate yield on all outstanding Treasury issues is joined at the hip, directionally, with the fed funds rate. Aggregate weighted-average Treasury duration sits squarely in the belly of the curve, and it is a not-quite-perfect proxy for the long end, where the Fed's gravitational pull wanes (Table 1). Its pull is still powerful, though; the 90% correlation between the fed funds rate and the 30-year bond testifies eloquently to the Fed's significant influence at all points of the curve (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekThe Fed Gets Its Way The investment takeaway is that the Fed gets what it wants across the full spectrum of rates the vast majority of the time. Given the FOMC's repeatedly expressed intention to continue on its normalization course, the path of least resistance for rates at all maturities is higher. Despite the money markets' resistance to extrapolate the 25-bps-a-quarter "gradual pace" across the rest of this year and next (Chart 3), six more quarters of that pace is our baseline expectation provided an economic shock does not occur. Investors should be prepared for a higher peak in the fed funds rate than the consensus expects. Table 1Correlation With The Fed Funds##BR##Rate By Bond Maturity Chart 2The Long Arm##BR##Of The Fed Chart 3Rates Have Room To##BR##Surprise To The Upside Bottom Line: The Treasury curve faithfully reflects changes in the fed funds rate. In the absence of a shock that would cause the FOMC's repeatedly expressed plans to change, monetary policy is a catalyst for higher rates. But What About An Inverted Yield Curve? The yield curve typically inverts in the latter stages of a rate-hiking campaign, so it is more correct to say a higher fed funds rate implies higher Treasury yields until the yield curve inverts. An inverted yield curve is a classic recession indicator, albeit often a very early one (Table 2), and it should not be taken as a signal to immediately de-risk portfolios. The yield curve may be prone to invert even earlier than it otherwise would this time around, given that QE1, QE2, and QE3 may well have depressed the term premium on long-term bonds,1 as The Bank Credit Analyst noted in its August edition. The question of how much the Fed's asset purchases have affected the term premium, if at all, is far from settled within either the Fed or BCA, but its potential to impact the signal from the yield curve reinforces our conviction to look to other indicators to confirm its recession message before declaring the end of the bull markets in equities and spread product. Table 2The Yield Curve Is Early The Inflation Outlook As the tepid post-crisis expansion has stretched on and on, investors have grown accustomed to sleepy inflation readings and begun to regard the prospects for a pickup in inflation with skepticism, if not outright disdain. Even within BCA, there has been spirited debate about the relevance of the Phillips Curve - the formalization of the idea that there is an inverse relationship between wage growth and the unemployment rate. Despite the stagflation of the 1970s and the lengthy post-crisis dry spell that have undermined the Phillips Curve's credibility with the rigorously empirically-minded, we do not find it controversial. The relationship between unemployment and compensation may not be perfectly linear, but the Phillips Curve is nothing more than an extension of the laws of supply and demand to wage negotiations. We can accept that the Phillips Curve is kinked - that compensation growth is utterly indifferent to changes in the unemployment rate when labor supply is glutted (as can be seen in Chart 4 when covering all of the observations below 7%), but rather sensitive to its moves when it is in the neighborhood of full employment (as can be seen when covering all of the observations above 5%). We believe the U.S. labor market has reached the point at which employers will have to compete fiercely to attract new talent. After nine years, the economy has finally worked down nearly all of the hidden slack that had padded the broader U-6 unemployment rate.2 The pool of discouraged workers - those who are not counted as officially unemployed because they're not actively looking for a job, but would start tomorrow if offered one - has shrunk below its 2000 and 2007 levels (Chart 5, top panel). Similarly, the share of the labor force that is working part time but would prefer to be working full time is approaching its pre-crisis bottom (Chart 5, bottom panel). The prospects for inflation gained another boost last December upon the passage of the spending package on the coattails of the tax-cut bill. The U.S. economy is poised to receive a substantial dose of fiscal stimulus this year and next (Chart 6). Mainstream macroeconomic thought holds that stimulus injected into an economy that is already operating at full capacity is prone to kindle inflation.3 Chart 4The Phillips Curve Can't Handle Copious Slack ... Chart 5... But Almost All Of It Has Been Worked Off Chart 6Goosing Inflation Along With Output Bottom Line: The U.S. labor market has tightened considerably and competition between employers to attract scarce talent should soon translate to a pickup in wage growth. Unneeded fiscal stimulus is also likely to push prices higher. There are plenty more inflation green shoots behind the ones that have already begun to emerge. White House-Fed Tension Is Nothing New It is not beyond the realm of possibility that presidential pressure could deter the Fed from following through on its intentions and present a risk to our above-consensus terminal rate estimate. The bond market immediately discounted the potential of a less independent Fed by selling off at the long end after the president stated he was "not thrilled" with ongoing rate hikes in an interview with CNBC. There would seem to be little doubt that a captive Fed would be more reluctant to remove the punch bowl than a Fed which was free to pursue its inflation mandate without outside interference. After all, elected officials would be happy to trade long-term pain for near-term gain (at least through the next campaign). The president may have upended convention by publicly airing his displeasure, but there is a natural tension between the White House and the Fed. There have been dust-ups in the past, and there will be dust-ups in the future for as long as elected officials shudder at the thought of an economic downturn. Alan Greenspan wrote frankly in his memoir about friction with the first Bush administration, which included public criticism from the sitting president. "I do not want to see us move so strongly against inflation that we impede growth," President Bush told the press at the beginning of his term, in response to hawkish congressional testimony from Greenspan.4 By all accounts, however, the conflict between Bush père and Greenspan was of a lower-pressure variety than the conflicts between LBJ and William McChesney Martin, and Nixon and Arthur Burns. The legendarily intimidating LBJ summoned Martin to his ranch following an unwelcome rate hike. According to several accounts (and consistent with his longstanding negotiating practices in the Senate), LBJ backed the smaller Martin up against a wall before giving full voice to his complaints. Martin did not budge, pointing out that the Fed had acted in accordance with the legislation governing its actions.5 If Martin represents the heroic Fed chief, standing his ground in the face of heavy pressure from a larger-than-life figure, Arthur Burns is the poster child for folding like a cheap lawn chair. The Nixon tapes capture Nixon and his proxies repeatedly pressuring Burns to prime the pump ahead of the 1972 election, which Burns ultimately did.6 Our view is that Fed Chair Powell is more likely to follow Martin than Burns. The Fed is more transparent today, and its independence is more firmly established than it was in the 1970s. Even if Powell were amenable to doing the president's bidding, he would be held back by the realization that it would ultimately be self-defeating: any hint of political manipulation in the rate-setting process would risk a bond market riot that would blast rates far beyond the levels where a 3.5% fed funds rate would take them. Bottom Line: We are not concerned that the FOMC will yield to pressure from the White House to back away from their rate hike plans. Attempted influence of the Fed is nothing new, and investors need not worry about it now. Investment Implications If we are correct in our view that rates have not yet peaked, the bond market is likely to face continued headwinds. Long-dated Treasuries will come under more pressure than shorter-maturity issues. Thanks to positive carry, spread product will be less vulnerable to higher rates, but our bond strategists are lukewarm on the risk-reward offered by investment-grade and high-yield bonds given the late stage of the cycle and historically tight spreads. We acknowledge the potential seriousness of the current spate of geopolitical risks, headlined by trade tensions, and advocate temporarily de-risking portfolios in line with the BCA house view (equal weight equities, underweight bonds, overweight cash). We are more constructive than the BCA consensus, however, because we remain constructive on the business cycle, the monetary policy cycle, and the credit cycle. If the key cycles aren't over, the equity bull market probably isn't over, and neither spread widening nor a pickup in defaults is likely to wipe out spread product's excess returns. We will express all of our calls in a basket of ETF recommendations once we have completed our review of the most impactful macro questions, but for now we recommend maintaining below-benchmark positioning in Treasury portfolios while overweighting TIPS at the expense of nominal Treasuries. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Long-term bond yields can be decomposed into the expected path of short-term rates and a term premium, which compensates an investor for the uncertainties that can arise over the extended time period that s/he is locking up his/her money by buying a longer-maturity instrument. 2 In the monthly employment report, the headline unemployment rate, which includes only jobless workers who are actively seeking work, is labeled U-3 unemployment. The U-6 series broadens the definition of unemployment to include the jobless who aren't actively searching and those who are working part time only because they cannot find a full-time position. 3 Please see the November 7, 2016 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy, Polls, Probability," available at usis.bcaresearch.com, for a discussion of fiscal multipliers under a range of scenarios. 4 Greenspan, Alan. The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, Penguin (New York): 2007, p.113. To this day, several members of the G.H.W. Bush administration continue to pin a large measure of blame for its 1992 electoral loss on overly conservative monetary policy. The ex-president himself, in a 1998 television interview, said, "I reappointed him [Greenspan], and he disappointed me." 5 Granville, Kevin. "A President at War With His Fed Chief, 5 Decades Before Trump," New York Times, June 15, 2017, page B3 (updated July 19, 2018). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/economy/a-president-at-war-with-his-fed-chief-5-decades-before-trump.html 6 "How Richard Nixon Pressured Arthur Burns: Evidence from the Nixon Tapes, Vol. 20, No. 4," Journal of Economic Perspectives (Fall 2006). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1167/item/2388, accessed on July 24, 2018.

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights President Trump has taken the next step in the trade war by charging some of America's major trading partners with outright currency manipulation. However, we are not headed for Plaza Accord 2.0, because neither the ECB nor the PBOC will re-orient policy until their own economic and inflation dynamics warrant it. Moreover, we doubt the FOMC will be bullied into keeping rates lower than policymakers deem appropriate. With the labor market showing signs of overheating, the Fed will stick with its current game plan and ignore President Trump's tweets. The worsening trade dispute is the key risk that investors face and there are growing signs that uncertainty regarding the future of the world trade order is dampening animal spirits and global capital spending. Risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. Based on previous late cycle periods, the fact that S&P 500 profit margins are still rising suggests that most risk assets will outperform bonds and other defensive sectors in the near term. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market. The flattening U.S. yield curve is also worrying. We would not ignore the signal if the curve inverts, although there are reasons to believe that it is not as good a recession signal as it has been in the past. We wish to see corroborating evidence from our other favorite indicators before trimming risk asset exposure to underweight. A peak in the S&P 500 operating margin would be a strong sign that the end of the cycle is drawing close. Even if trade tensions soon die down and global growth holds up, the extended nature of the U.S. economic and profit cycle make asset allocation particularly tricky. Attractive late-cycle assets to hold include structured product, Timberland and Farmland. High-quality bonds will of course outperform in the next recession, but yields are likely to rise in the meantime. We believe that U.S. Agency MBS are unattractively valued, but should remain insulated from negative shocks such as a trade war or higher Treasury yields. We also like Agency CMBS. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. Feature We warned in last month's Overview that investors had not yet seen "peak pessimism" on the global trade front. Right on cue, President Trump raised the stakes again in July by threatening to impose tariffs on virtually all imports of Chinese goods. Congress is pushing the President to be tough on China because American voters have soured on trade. China will not easily back down with the authorities responding in kind to the U.S. President's trade threats. They have also allowed the RMB to depreciate to cushion the trade blow (Chart I-1). It is not clear whether the authorities purposely depressed the RMB or whether they simply failed to lean against market pressures. Either way, it is a dangerous approach because it has clearly raised the U.S. President's ire. Chart I-1RMB Is Much Weaker Across The Board President Trump has taken the next step in the broader trade war by charging some major trading partners with outright currency manipulation. The script appears to be following previous times that the U.S. sought trade adjustment via tariffs and currency re-alignment: the early 1970s and the 1985 Plaza Accord. Adjusting currencies on a sustained basis requires much more than simply "talking down" the dollar. There must be major changes in relative monetary and/or fiscal policies vis-à-vis U.S. trading partners. On the fiscal front, expansionary U.S. policy is working at cross purposes with the desire to have a weaker dollar and a smaller trade gap. We do not foresee the U.S. President having any success in changing the broad thrust of monetary policy either. Europe and Japan enjoyed booming economies in the early 1970s and mid-1980s, and thus had the luxury of placating the U.S. by adjusting monetary policy and thereby appreciating their currencies. Today, it is difficult to see how either Europe or China can afford significant monetary policy tightening that generates major bull markets in their currencies. Neither the ECB nor the People's Bank of China (PBOC) will re-orient policy until their own economic and inflation dynamics warrant it.1 It is also unlikely that the Bank of Japan will raise the 10-year yield target to either strengthen the yen or to help bank profits. This is not Plaza Accord 2.0. Powell Isn't Arthur Burns As for the Fed, we doubt the FOMC will be bullied into keeping rates lower than policymakers deem appropriate. The Fed is more open and independent today than in the 1970s and 1980s. Even if Fed Chair Powell were amenable, any hint that he is being politically manipulated to change course would result in a bond market riot that would rattle investors to their core. More likely, the Fed will stick with its current game plan and ignore President Trump's tweets. Powell could not be any clearer in his July Congressional Testimony: "With a strong job market, inflation close to our objective, and the risks to the outlook roughly balanced, the FOMC believes that-for now-the best way forward is to keep gradually raising the federal funds rate." Investors should not be fooled by the uptick in the U.S. unemployment rate in June. The rise reflected a pop in the labor force participation rate. However, the labor force figures are volatile and there is no upward trend evident in the participation rate. The real story is that the labor market continues to tighten. The number of people outside the labor force who want a job, as a percentage of the total working-age population, is back to pre-recession lows. The Employment Cost Index for private-sector workers shows that wage growth is accelerating. Moreover, the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge, which leads core CPI inflation by 18 months, has already jumped to almost 3 ½% (Chart I-2). Small businesses are increasingly able to pass on cost increases to consumers (Chart I-3). Chart I-2U.S. Inflation Is Percolating Chart I-3U.S. Pricing Power On The Rise The Minutes from the mid-June FOMC meeting included a lengthy discussion of the growing signs of inflation pressure and labor shortage. Firms are responding to the lack of qualified labor by offering training, automating, and boosting wages. Anecdotal evidence suggests that bottlenecks and other cost pressures are boiling over in the transportation sector. Despite an acute shortage of truck drivers, the average hourly earnings data do not show any acceleration in their wages (Chart I-4, second panel). However, these data do not include bonuses, which have been on the rise. The PPI for truck transportation services was up 7.7% year-over-year in June, while the Cass Freight Index that tracks full-truckload prices rose 15.9% year-over-year. The latter does not even include fuel costs. These pipeline cost pressures have implications not only for the Fed, but for corporate profit margins as well (see below). Chart I-4U.S. Transportation Is Boiling Over The U.S. Yield Curve: A Red Flag? The FOMC expects that the fed funds rate will continue to rise and will temporarily exceed its 2.9% estimate of the neutral rate. If the true neutral rate is higher than the Fed's estimate, then the FOMC could find itself hiking too slowly and the economy could severely overheat. And vice versa if the true neutral rate is below 2.9%. We are keeping a close eye on the yield curve as an indication of policy tightness. If the curve inverts with a few more Fed rate hikes, it would signal that the market believes that policy is turning restrictive. It is possible that the yield curve is not as good a recession signal as it has been in the past. First, there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the neutral fed funds rate in the post-GFC world. The collective market wisdom on this could be wrong. Indeed, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, makes the case that the neutral rate is rising faster than most investors believe.2 Structural factors have depressed the neutral rate, including population aging and low productivity growth. However, these structural tailwinds for bond prices are now slowly turning into headwinds. Moreover, as Peter argues, cyclical pressures are acting to lift the neutral rate. Private credit growth is rising faster than nominal GDP growth again. The same is true for housing and equity wealth, at a time when the personal saving rate is falling. All this implies strong desired spending which, in turn, suggests a higher neutral rate of interest. It will be important to watch the housing market; if it remains healthy in the face of rate hikes, it means that the neutral rate is still north of the actual fed funds rate. Chart I-5 presents today's market expectation for the real fed funds rate, based on the forward OIS curve and the forward CPI swaps curve. Technical issues may be distorting forward rates in 2019, but we are more interested in expectations further into the future. The real fed funds rate is expected to hover in the 55-75 basis point range until 2024. It then rises to about 1%, but not until almost the end of the next decade. This appears overly complacent to us, suggesting that the risks are to the upside for market expectations of the terminal, or neutral, short-term interest rate. If the neutral rate is indeed higher than the market is currently discounting, then an inverted curve may be premature in signaling that policy is too tight and that an economic slowdown is on the horizon. Moreover, the term premium on long-term bonds may still be depressed by asset purchases by the Fed and the other major central banks, again suggesting that the curve will more easily invert than in the past. There is much disagreement on this issue, even among FOMC members and among BCA strategists. This publication is sympathetic to the work done by the Fed Staff which suggests that the term premium has been substantially depressed by quantitative easing. Chart I-6 shows the annual change in the size of G4 central bank balance sheets (inverted), along with an estimate of the term premium in the 10-year government bonds of the major countries. The chart is far from conclusive, but it is consistent with the view that QE has depressed term premia worldwide. Moreover, forward guidance and the low level of inflation since the GFC have undoubtedly dampened interest-rate volatility, which theory suggests is a key driver of the term premium. Chart I-5Policy Rate Expectations Chart I-6Depressed Term Premiums ##br##Distort Yield Curves The factors that have depressed the term premium are beginning to reverse, including G4 central bank balance sheets. Still, the premium will trend higher from a low starting point, suggesting that an inverted curve today may not necessarily signal a recession. That said, it would be wrong to completely dismiss a U.S. curve inversion, given its excellent track record. Historically, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope has worked better than the 2/10 yield slope in terms of calling recessions. An inversion of the 3-month/10-year curve has successfully heralded all seven recessions in the past 50 years with one false positive signal. Nonetheless, the curve tends to be very early, inverting an average of almost 12 months before the recession. And, given the possible distortion to the term premium, we would want to see corroborating evidence before jumping to the conclusion that an inverted curve is sending a correct recession signal. For example, the U.S. and/or global Leading Economic Indicator would need to turn negative. The bottom line is that a curve inversion would not be enough on its own to further trim risk asset exposure to underweight. Nonetheless, we are not dismissing the message from the yield curve either, especially in the context of a trade war that could prematurely end the expansion. Trade War Hitting Economy? Estimates based on macro models suggest that the damage to global GDP growth from higher tariffs would be quite small. Nonetheless, these models do not incorporate the indirect, or second-round, effects of rising tariff walls. Business leaders abhor uncertainty, and will no doubt hold off on major capital expenditure plans until the trade dust settles. The uncertainty can then ripple through the economy to industries that are not directly affected by the trade action. The extensive use of global supply chains reinforces this ripple effect. Labor is not free to move between countries or between industries to facilitate shifts in production that are required by changing tariffs. Capital is more mobile, but it is still expensive to shift machinery. Some of the world's capital stock could become "stranded", raising the cost of the tariffs to the world economy. Finally, important economies-of-scale are lost when firms no longer have access to a single large global market. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 18, sorts out the U.S. equity sector winners and the losers from a trade war with China. Spoiler alert: there are not many winners! The bottom line is that the trade threat for the global economy and risk assets is far from trivial. The negative trade headlines have not had a meaningful economic impact so far, but there are some worrying signs. A number of indicators suggest that global growth continues to slow, including the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator diffusion index, the Global ZEW sentiment index and the BCA Global Credit Impulse index (Chart I-7). The softness in these indicators predates the latest flaring of trade tensions. Nonetheless, business confidence outside the U.S. has dipped (fourth panel). Growth in capital goods imports for an aggregate of 20 countries continues to decelerate, along with industrial production for capital goods and machinery & electrical equipment in the major advanced economies (production related to energy, consumer products and IT remain strong; Chart I-8). Chart I-7Global Growth Is Still Moderating... Chart I-8...In Part Due To Capital Spending None of these data are flagging a disaster, but they all support the view that uncertainty regarding the future of the world trade order is dampening animal spirits and global capital spending. Even if trade tensions soon die down, the extended nature of the U.S. economic and profit cycle make asset allocation particularly tricky. Late Cycle Investing Some of our economic and policy analysis over the past year has focused on previous late-cycle periods. Specifically, we analyzed the growth, inflation and policy dynamics after the point when the economy reached full employment (i.e. when the unemployment rate fell below the CBO estimate of full employment). This month we look at asset class returns during late cycle periods. We wanted to use as broad a range of asset classes as possible, although data limitations mean that we can only analyze the late-cycle periods at the end of the 1990s and the mid-2000s (Chart I-9). To refine the analysis, we split the late-cycle periods into two parts: before and after S&P 500 profit margins peak. One could use other signposts to split the period, such as a peak in the ISM manufacturing index. However, using the S&P operating profit margin proved to be a more useful break point across the cycles in terms of timing trend changes in risk assets. Table I-1 presents total returns for the following periods: (1) the full late-cycle period - i.e. from the point at which full employment is reached until the following recession; (2) from the point of full employment to the peak in the S&P margin; (3) from the peak in the margin to the recession; and (4) during the subsequent recession. All returns are annualized for comparison purposes, and the data shown are the average of the late 1990s and mid-2000 late-cycle periods. Chart I-9Margin Peak Signals Very Late Cycle Table I-1Late-Cycle Asset Returns We must be careful in interpreting the results because no two cycles are exactly the same, and we only have two cycles in our sample of data. Nonetheless, we make the following observations: Treasury bond returns are positive across the board, which seems odd at first glance. However, in both cases the selloff occurred before the late-cycle period began. Yields then fluctuated in a range, and then began to fall after margins peaked. Global factors also contributed to Greenspan's "conundrum" of stable bond yields in the years before the Great Recession. We do not expect a replay this time around given the low starting point for real yields and the fact that the Fed is encouraging an overshoot of the inflation target. Bonds are unlikely to provide positive returns on a six month horizon. Similar to Treasurys, investment-grade (IG) corporate bond returns were positive across the board for the same reason. However, IG underperformed Treasurys after margins peaked and into the recession. High-yield bonds followed a similar pattern, but suffered negative absolute returns after margins peaked. U.S. stocks began to sniff out the next recession after margins peaked. Small caps outperformed large caps in the recessions, but relative performance was mixed after margins peaked. We are avoiding small caps at the moment based on poor fundamentals and valuations. Growth stocks had a mixed performance versus value stocks before and after margins peaked, but tended to outperform in the recessions. Dividend Aristocrats performed well relative to the overall equity market after margins peaked and into the recessions on average, but the performance was not consistent across the two late cycles. EM stocks performed well before margins peak, and poorly during the recessions. However, the performance is mixed in the period between the margin peak and the recession. We recommend an underweight allocation because of poor macro fundamentals and tightening financial conditions. In theory, Hedge Funds are supposed to be able to perform well in any environment, but returns were a mixed bag after margins peaked. The return performance of Private Equity, Venture Capital and Distressed Debt were similar to the S&P 500, albeit with more volatility. Avoid them after margins peak. Structured Product is one of the few categories that performed well across all periods and cycles. The index we used includes MBS, CMBS and ABS. Farmland and Timberland returns were attractive across all periods and cycles, except for Timberland during one of the recessions. Oil and non-oil commodities tended to perform poorly during recession, but returns were inconsistent in the other phases shown in the table. Gold was also a mixed bag. The historical return analysis underscores that it is dangerous to remain aggressively positioned late in an economic cycle because risk assets can begin to underperform well before evidence accumulates that the economy has fallen into recession. Using the peak in the S&P 500 operating profit margin as a signal to lighten up appears prudent. Based on this approach, investors should generally remain overweight risk assets generally, including stocks, corporate bonds, hedge funds, private equity and real estate, as long as margins are still rising. Investors should scale back in most of these areas as soon as margins peak. For fixed income, investors should be looking to raise exposure but move up in quality after margins peak. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. There are some assets other than government bonds that generated a positive average return late in the cycle and during the recession periods, suggesting that they are good late-cycle assets to hold. However, this is misleading because in some cases they experienced a significant correction either during or slightly before the recession (see the maximum drawdown columns in Table I-1; blank cells indicate that the asset did not experience a correction). These include IG credit, CMBS, ABS, Gold and Dividend Aristocrats. The only assets in our list that provided both a positive return across all the phases in Table I-1 and avoided a correction during the recessions, were mortgage-backed securities, Timberland and Farmland. A Special Report from BCA's Global Asset Allocation service found that Timberland is a superior inflation hedge to Farmland, but the latter is a superior hedge against recessions and equity bear markets.3 We believe that Agency MBS are unattractively valued, but should remain insulated from negative shocks such as a trade war or higher Treasury yields (as long as the Treasury selloff is not extreme). Our fixed income team also likes Agency CMBS.4 When Will U.S. Margins Peak? It is impressive that S&P 500 after-tax operating margins are extremely elevated and still rising. The trend has been aided by tax cuts, but corporate pricing power has improved and wage growth has not yet accelerated enough to damage margins. Chart I-10 presents some indicators to monitor as we await the cyclical peak in profit margins. These are generally not leading indicators, but they do provide some warning when they roll over late in the cycle. The first is the BCA Margin Proxy, which is the ratio of selling prices for the non-financial corporate sector to unit labor costs. Margins have tended to fall historically when the growth rate of this ratio is below zero. The same is true for nominal GDP growth minus aggregate wages. The aggregate wage bill incorporates both changes in wages/hour and in total hours worked. We are also watching a diffusion index of the changes in margins for the industrial components of the S&P 500, as well as BCA's Corporate Pricing Power indicator. The latter takes into consideration price changes at the detailed industry level. Chart I-10U.S. Profit Margin Indicators To Watch None of these indicators are signaling an imminent top in margins, but all appear to have peaked except the Corporate Pricing Power indicator. An equally-weighted average of these four indicators, labelled the U.S. Composite Margin Indicator in Chart I-10, is falling but is still above the zero line. We would not be surprised to see S&P 500 margins peak for the cycle late early in 2019. Conclusions: The S&P 500 has so far been largely immune to shocking trade headlines with the help of a solid start to the U.S. Q2 earning season. Based on previous late cycle periods, the fact that S&P 500 profit margins are still rising suggests that investors should remain fully-exposed to most risk assets. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market. These risks include a possible hard economic landing in China, crises in one or more EM countries, and an escalation in the trade war among others. Some investors appear to believe that the U.S. can "win" the trade war, but there are no winners when tariff walls are rising. We are not yet ready to go underweight on risk assets, but risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. This includes equities, corporate bonds, EM assets and other risky sectors. An inversion of the yield curve could trigger a shift to underweight, although this signal would have to be corroborated by our other favorite U.S. and global indicators. Attractive late-cycle assets to hold include structured product, Timberland and Farmland. The first statements by Jay Powell as FOMC Chair underscored that it is too early to hide in Treasurys. Market expectations for real short-term interest rates are overly benign out to the middle of the next decade. Moreover, the Fed is not in a position to be proactive in leaning against the negative impact of rising tariffs because inflation is near target and the labor market is showing signs of overheating. This means that bond yields are headed higher until economic pain is clearly evident. Keep duration short of benchmark. Long-term rate expectations for the Eurozone appear even more complacent than they do for the U.S. The real ECB policy rate is expected to remain in negative territory until 2028 (Chart I-5)! At some point there will be a convergence of real rate expectations with the U.S., which will boost the value of the euro. Nonetheless, we believe that it is too early to position for rate convergence. Core inflation is still well below target and Eurozone economic growth has softened recently, suggesting that the ECB will be in no hurry to lift rates once asset purchases have ended. ECB policymakers will be disinclined to cater to President's Trump's desire for tighter monetary policy in Europe, which means that the U.S. dollar has more upside versus the euro and in broad trade-weighted terms. An escalation in the trade war would augment upward pressure on the greenback. As the dollar's behavior during the Global Financial Crisis illustrates, even major shocks that originate from the U.S. tend to attract capital inflows into the safe-haven Treasury market. Emerging market assets are particularly vulnerable to another upleg in the dollar because of the high level of U.S. dollar-denominated debt. Favor DM to EM equity markets and currencies. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 26, 2018 Next Report: August 30, 2018 1 For more information on why a replay of the 1985 Plaza Accord is unlikely, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem," dated July 25, 2018, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "U.S. Housing Will Drive the Global Business Cycle...Again," dated July 6, 2018, available on gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Asset Allocation Service Special Report "U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer," dated October 24, 2017, available on gaa.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem," dated July 17, 2018, available on usbs.bcaresearch.com II. U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the U.S./Sino trade war for U.S. equity sectors. The threat that trade action poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations. Perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The USTR claims that it is being strategic in the Chinese goods it is targeting, focusing on companies that will benefit from the "Made In China 2025" initiative. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad import categories. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are apparel, footwear, toys and cellphones. Beijing is clearly targeting U.S. products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. Based on a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red and Swing States, China will likely lift tariffs in the next rounds on civilian aircraft, computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits. Supply chains within and between industries and firms mean that the impact of tariffs is much broader than the direct impact on exporters and importers. We measure the relative exposure of 24 GICs equity sectors to the trade war based on their proportion of foreign-sourced revenues and the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by U.S. tariffs. The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. China may also attempt to disrupt supply chains via non-tariff barriers, placing even more pressure on U.S. firms that have invested heavily in China. Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance are most exposed. U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war. Virtually all U.S. manufacturing industries will be negatively affected by an ongoing trade war, even defensive sectors such as Consumer Staples. The one exception is defense manufacturers, where we recommend overweight positions. Our analysis highlights that the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, and the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector is one of our favorites. The trade skirmish is transitioning to a full-on trade war. The U.S. has imposed a 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, and has proposed a 10% levy on an additional $200 billion of imports by August 31. China retaliated with tariffs on $50 billion of imports from the U.S., but Trump has threatened tariffs on another $300 billion if China refuses to back down. That would add up to over $500 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, only slightly less than the total amount that China exported to the U.S. last year. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has emphasized that President Trump is unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects.1 This is especially the case with respect to China. There will be strong pushback from Congress and the U.S. business lobby if the Administration tries to cancel NAFTA. In contrast, Congress is also demanding that the Administration be tough on China because it plays well with voters. Trump is a prisoner of his own tough pre-election campaign rhetoric against China. The U.S. primary economic goal is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access.2 The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology before it dials down the pressure on Beijing. The threat that the trade war poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations, such as that between Japan and the U.S. in the late 1980s. First, stocks are more expensive today. Second, interest rates are much lower, limiting how much central banks can react to adverse shocks. Third, and perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. Chart II-1 shows that Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The Global Value Chain Participation rate, constructed by the OECD, is a measure of cross-border value-added linkages.3 In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the trade war for U.S. equity sectors. Complex industrial interactions make it difficult to be precise in identifying the winners and losers of a trade war. Nonetheless, we can identify the industries most and least exposed to a further rise in tariff walls or non-tariff barriers to trade. We focus on the U.S./Sino trade dispute in this Special Report, leaving the implications of a potential trade war with Europe and the possible failure of NAFTA negotiations for future research. Chart II-1Measuring Global Supply Chains Trade Channels There are at least five channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry: The Direct Effect: This can be positive or negative. The impact is positive for those industries that do not export much but are provided relief from stiff import competition via higher import tariffs. The impact is negative for those firms facing higher tariffs on their exports, as well as for those firms facing higher costs for imported inputs to their production process. These firms would be forced to absorb some of the tariff via lower profit margins. Some industries will fall into both positive and negative camps. U.S. washing machines are a good example. Whirlpool's stock price jumped after President Trump announced an import tariff on washing machines, but it subsequently fell back when the Administration imposed an import tariff on steel and aluminum (that are used in the production of washing machines); Indirect Effect: The higher costs for imported goods are passed along the supply chain within an industry and to other industries that are not directly affected by rising tariffs. This will undermine profit margins in these indirectly-affected industries to the extent that they cannot fully pass along the higher input costs; Foreign Direct Investment: Some Chinese exports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries in China, or by Chinese or foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. Even though it would undermine China's economy to some extent, the Chinese authorities could make life more difficult for these firms in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. Macro Effect: A trade war would take a toll on global trade and reduce GDP growth globally. Besides the negative effect of uncertainty on business confidence and, thus, capital spending, rising prices for both consumer and capital goods will reduce the volume of spending in both cases. Moreover, corporate profits have a high beta with respect to economic activity. We would not rule out a U.S. recession in a worst-case scenario. Obviously, a recession or economic slowdown would inflict the most pain on the cyclical parts of the S&P 500 relative to the non-cyclicals, in typical fashion. Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the other currencies, it would undermine export-oriented industries and benefit those that import. However, while we are bullish the dollar due to diverging monetary policy, the dollar may not benefit much from trade friction given retaliatory tariff increases by other countries. Some of the direct and indirect impact can be mitigated to the extent that importers facing higher prices for Chinese goods shift to similarly-priced foreign producers outside of China. Nonetheless, this adjustment will not be costless as there may be insufficient supply capacity outside of China, leading to upward pressure on prices globally. Targeted Sectors: (I) U.S. Tariffs On Chinese Goods As noted above, the U.S. has already imposed tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports and has published a list of another $200 billion of goods that are being considered for a 10% tariff in the second round of the trade war. The first round focused on intermediate and capital goods, while the second round includes consumer final demand categories such as furniture, air conditioners and refrigerators. The latter will show up as higher prices at retailers such as Wal Mart, having a direct and visible impact on U.S. households. Appendix Table II-A1 lists the goods that are on the first and second round lists, grouped according to the U.S. equity sectors in the S&P 500. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) claims that the Chinese items are being targeted strategically. It is focusing on companies that will benefit from China's structural policies, such as the "Made In China 2025" initiative that is designed to make the country a world leader in high-tech areas (see below). Table II-1 reveals the relative size of the broad categories of U.S. imports from China, based on trade categories. The top of the table is dominated by Motor Vehicles, Machinery, Telecommunication Equipment, Computers, Apparel & Footwear and other manufactured goods. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad categories in Table II-1. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are Apparel and Footwear, as well as two subcategories; Toys and Cellphones. These are all consumer demand categories. Table II-1U.S. Imports From China (January-May 2018) (II) Chinese Tariffs On U.S. Goods Total U.S. exports to China were less than $53 billion in the first five months of 2018, limiting the amount of direct retaliation that China can undertake (Table II-2). The list of individual U.S. products that China has targeted so far is long, but we have condensed it into the broad categories shown in Table II-3. The U.S. equity sectors that the new tariffs affect so far include Food, Beverage & Tobacco, Automobiles & Components, Materials and Energy. China has concentrated mainly on final goods in a politically strategic manner, such as Trump-supported rural areas and Harley Davidson bikes whose operations are based in Paul Ryan's home district in Wisconsin. Table II-2U.S. Exports To China (January-May 2018) Table II-3China Tariffs On U.S. Goods What will China target next? Chart II-2 shows exports to China as percent of total state exports, and Chart II-3 presents the value of products already tariffed by China as a percent of state exports. Other than Washington, the four states most targeted by Beijing are conservative: Alaska, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. Chart II-2U.S. Exports To China By State Chart II-3Value Of U.S. Products Tariffed By China (By State) Beijing is clearly targeting products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. To identify the next items to be targeted, we constructed a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red States (solidly conservative) and Swing States (competitive states that can go either to Republican or Democratic politicians). Appendix Tables II-A2 and II-A3 show this list of products, with those that have already been flagged by China for tariffs crossed out. Table II-4 shows the top-10 list of products that are not yet tariffed by China, but are distributed in a large proportion of Red and Swing states. What strikes us immediately is how important aircraft exports are to a large number of Swing and Red States. In total, 27 U.S. states export civilian aircraft, engines and parts to China. This is an obvious target of Beijing's retaliation. In addition, we believe that computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits are next. Table II-4Number Of U.S. States Exporting To China By Category Market Reaction Chart II-4 highlights how U.S. equity sectors performed during seven separate days when the S&P 500 suffered notable losses due to heightened fears of protectionism. Cyclical sectors such as Industrials and Materials fared worse during days of rising protectionist angst. Financials also generally underperformed, largely because such days saw a flattening of the yield curve. Tech, Health Care, Energy and Telecom performed broadly in line with the S&P 500. Consumer Staples outperformed the market, but still declined in absolute terms. Utilities and Real Estate were the only two sectors that saw absolute price gains. The market reaction seems sensible based on the industries caught in the cross-hairs of the trade action so far. At least some of the potential damage is already discounted in equity prices. Nonetheless, it is useful to take a closer look at the underlying factors that should determine the ultimate winners and losers from additional salvos in the trade war. Chart II-4S&P 500: Impact Of Trade-Related Events Determining The Winners And Losers The U.S. sectors that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from outside the U.S. are obviously the most exposed to a trade war. For the 24 level 2 GICS sectors in the S&P 500, Table II-5 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the sector by market cap. Company reporting makes it difficult in some cases to identify the exact revenue amount coming from outside the U.S., as some companies regard "domestic" earnings as anything generated in North America. Nonetheless, we believe the data in Table II-5 provide a reasonably accurate picture. Table II-5Foreign Revenue Exposure (2017) Semiconductors, Tech Equipment, Materials, Food & Beverage, Software and Capital Goods are at the top of the list in terms of foreign-sourced revenues. Not surprisingly, service industries like Real Estate, Banking, Utilities and Telecommunications Services are at the bottom of the exposure list. U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that lift the price of imported inputs to the production process. This can occur directly when firm A imports a good from abroad, and indirectly, when firm A sells its intermediate good to firm B at a higher price, and then on to firm C. In order to capture the entire process, we used the information contained in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Input/Output tables. We estimated the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by already-implemented U.S. tariffs and those that are on the list for the next round of tariffs. These estimates, shown in Appendix Table II-A4 at a detailed industrial level, include both the direct and indirect effects of higher import costs. At the top of the list is Motor Vehicles and Parts, where Trump tariffs could affect more than 70% of the cost of all material inputs to the production process. Electrical Equipment, Machinery and other materials industries are also high on the list, together with Furniture, Computers & Electronic Parts and Construction. Unsurprisingly, service industries and Utilities are in the bottom half of the table.4 We then allocated all the industries in Appendix Table II-A4 to the 24 GICs level 2 sectors in the S&P 500, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P sector space (Table II-6). Table II-6U.S. Import Tariff Exposure Chart II-5 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries clustered in the top-right of the diagram are the most exposed to a trade war. Chart II-5U.S. Industrial Exposure To A Trade War With China The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out by this metric, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. Food, Beverage & Tobacco lies between the two extremes. Joint Ventures And FDI Table II-7Stock Of U.S. Direct ##br##Investment In China (2017) As mentioned above, most U.S. production taking place in China involves a joint venture. The Chinese authorities could attempt to disrupt the supply chain of a U.S. company by hindering production at companies that have ties to U.S. firms. Data on U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China will be indicative of the industries that are most exposed to this form of retaliation. The stock of U.S. FDI in China totaled more than $107 billion last year (Table II-7). At the top of the table are Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance. Apple is a good example of a U.S. company that is exposed to non-tariff retaliation, as the iPhone is assembled in China by Foxconn for shipment globally with mostly foreign sourced parts. Our Technology sector strategists argue that U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war (See Box II-1).5 BOX II-1 The Tech Sector The U.S. has applied tariffs on the raw materials of technology products rather than finished goods so far. At a minimum, this will penalize smaller U.S. tech firms which manufacture in the U.S. and provide an incentive to move production elsewhere. Worst case, the U.S. tariffs might lead to component shortages which could have a disproportionately negative impact, especially on smaller firms. Although it has not been proposed, U.S. tariffs on finished goods would be devastating to large tech companies such as Apple, which outsources its manufacturing to China. China appears determined to have a vibrant high technology sector. The "Made In China 2025" program, for example, combines ambitious goals in supercomputers, robotics, medical devices and smart cars, while setting domestic localization targets that would favor Chinese companies over foreigners. The ZTE sanctions and the potential for enhanced export controls have had a traumatic impact on China's understanding of its relatively weak position with respect to technology. As a result, because most high-tech products are available from non-U.S. sources, Chinese engineers will likely be encouraged to design with non-U.S. components; for example, selecting a Samsung instead of a Qualcomm processor for a smartphone. Similarly, China is a major buyer of semiconductor capital equipment as it follows through with plans to scale up its semiconductor industry. Most such equipment is also available from non-U.S. vendors, and it would be understandable if these suppliers are selected given the risk which would now be associated with selecting a U.S. supplier. The U.S. is targeting Chinese made resistors, capacitors, crystals, batteries, Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and semiconductors with a 25% tariff. For the most part these are simple, low cost devices, which are used by the billions in high-tech devices. Nonetheless, China could limit the export of these products to deliver maximum pain, leading to a potential shortage of qualified parts. A component shortage can have a devastating impact on production since the manufacturer may not have the ability to substitute a new part or qualify a new vendor. Since the product typically won't work unless all the right parts are installed, want of a dollar's worth of capacitors may delay shipping a $1,000 product. Thus, the economic and profit impact of a parts shortage in the U.S. could be quite severe. Conclusions: When it comes to absolute winners in case of a trade war, we believe there are three conditions that need to be met: Relatively high domestic input costs. Relatively high domestic consumption/sales; the true beneficiaries of a tariff are those industries who are allowed to either raise prices or displace foreign competitors, with the consumer typically bearing the cost. Relatively low direct exposure to global trade - international trade flows will certainly slow in a trade war. There are very few manufacturing industries that meet all of these criteria. Within manufacturing, one would typically expect the Consumer Staples and Discretionary sectors to be the best performers. However, roughly a third of the weight of Staples is in three stocks (PG, KO and PEP) that are massively dependent on foreign sales. Moreover, a similar weight of Discretionary is in two retailers (AMZN and HD) that are dependent on imports. As such, consumer indexes do not appear a safe harbor in a trade war. Nevertheless, if the trade war morphs into a recession then consumer staples (and other defensive safe-havens) will outperform, although they will still decrease in absolute terms. Transports are an industry that has relatively high domestic labor costs and an output that is consumed virtually entirely within domestic borders. However, their reliance on global trade flows - intermodal shipping is now more than half of all rail traffic - means they almost certainly lose from a prolonged trade dispute. There is one manufacturing industry that could be at least a relative winner and perhaps an absolute winner: defense. Defense manufacturers certainly satisfy the first two criteria above, though they do have reasonably heavy foreign exposure. However, we believe high switching costs and the lack of true global competitors mean that U.S. defense company foreign sales will be resilient. After all, a NATO nation does not simply switch out of F-35 jets for the Russian or Chinese equivalent. Further, if trade friction leads to rising military tension, defense stocks should outperform. Finally, the ongoing global arms race, space race and growing cybersecurity requirements all signal that these stocks are a secular growth story, as BCA has argued in the recent past.6 Still, as highlighted by the data presented above, the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, especially the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector (BLBG: S5FEXD - CME, SPGI, ICE, MCO, MSCI, CBOE, NDAQ). Another appealing - and defensive - sector is Health Care Services. With effectively no foreign exposure and a low beta, these stocks would outperform in the worst-case trade war-induced recession. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Chris Bowes Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 For more information, please see: "Global Value Chains (GVSs): United States." May 2013. OECD website. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Trade Wars And Technology," dated July 10, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Table II-1 Allocating U.S. Import Tariffs To U.S. GICS Sectors Appendix Table II-2 Exports By U.S. Red States Appendix Table II-3 Exports By U.S. Swing States Appendix Table II-4 Exposure Of U.S. Industries To U.S. Import Tariffs III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our equity-related indicators flashed caution again in July, despite robust U.S. corporate earnings indicators. Forward earnings estimates continued to surge in July. The net revisions ratio and the earnings surprises index remained well above average, suggesting that forward earnings still have upside potential in the coming months. However, several of our indicators suggest that it is getting late in the bull market. Our Monetary Indicator is approaching very low levels by historical standards. Equities are still close to our threshold of overvaluation, at a time when our Composite Technical Indicator appears poised to break down. An overvalued reading is not bearish on its own, but valuation does provide information on the downside risks when the correction finally occurs. Equity sentiment is close to neutral according to our composite indicator, but the low level of implied volatility suggests that investors are somewhat complacent. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator has fallen significantly this year, and the Japanese WTP appears to be rolling over. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Flows into the U.S. stock market are waning, and those into the Japanese market are wavering. Flows into European stocks have flattened off. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on a ‘sell’ signal in July. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. The U.S. 10-year Treasury is slightly on the inexpensive side and our Composite Technical Indicator suggests that the bond has still not worked off oversold conditions. This suggests that the consolidation period has further to run, although we still expect yields to move higher over the remainder of the year. This month’s Overview section discusses the upside potential for the term premium in the yield curve and for market expectations of the terminal fed funds rate. This year’s dollar rally has taken it to very expensive levels according to our purchasing power parity estimate. The long-term trend in the dollar is down, but we still believe it has some upside while market expectations for the terminal fed funds rate adjust upward. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Special Report

The Golden Rule: During the next 12 months, will the Federal Reserve move interest rates by more or less than what is currently priced into the market? In this report we demonstrate that an investor who can correctly answer that question will very likely make the right bond market call. We call this framework for market analysis the golden rule of bond investing. Exceptions: We identify a few periods when applying the golden rule correctly would not have led to the right market call. Such periods are rare, but they tend to occur when the market "fights the Fed". One such episode occurred as recently as 2017. Total Return Forecasts: We use the golden rule framework to generate total return forecasts for Treasury indexes of all different maturities and many different spread product indexes. It's easy to get lost in the sea of financial market news. Last week alone saw the suggestion of additional tariffs, weak housing data, strong consumer data, falling commodity prices and steep Chinese currency depreciation. It's not always obvious what's important for bond markets and what isn't. While there is no miracle solution to this problem, we propose one helpful question that investors should always ask themselves to help discern the signal from the noise. During the next 12 months, will the Federal Reserve move interest rates by more or less than what is currently priced into the market? If you are able to answer that question correctly you will make the correct bond market call most of the time, and any new piece of information should be judged on how it impacts your answer. In fact, the framework of viewing everything through the lens of answering the above question works so well that we call it the golden rule of bond investing. In this Special Report we illustrate the empirical success of the golden rule. We also draw on historical evidence to consider periods when the rule failed. Finally, we translate the golden rule into a method for forecasting total returns, and we generate total return forecasts for many different bond indexes, encompassing both Treasuries and spread product. Testing The Golden Rule's Performance Chart 1 on page 1 shows how well the golden rule has worked during the past 28 years. The top panel shows the 12-month fed funds rate surprise - the difference between the expected change in the fed funds rate that was priced into the market at the beginning of the 12-month investment horizon and the change in the fed funds rate that was ultimately delivered. A reading above zero indicates that the market expected a larger increase (or smaller decrease) than actually occurred, a reading below zero indicates that the market expected a smaller increase (or larger decrease) than actually occurred. The bottom panel shows 12-month excess returns from the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index relative to a position in cash. Chart 1The Golden Rule's Track Record If the golden rule works, then dovish fed funds rate surprises (positive values in Chart 1, shown shaded) will coincide with positive Treasury excess returns, and vice-versa. Chart 1 shows that this has indeed generally been the case. Digging a little deeper, we find a strong positive relationship between 12-month Treasury excess returns and the 12-month fed funds rate surprise (Chart 2) and a similarly strong relationship using Treasury index price return instead of the excess return versus cash (Chart 3). Dovish fed funds rate surprises coincide with positive 12-month Treasury excess returns 87% of the time for an average excess return of +3.9%. They also coincide with positive Treasury price returns 76% of the time for an average price return of +2.1%. Hawkish surprises coincide with negative 12-month Treasury excess returns 61% of the time for an average excess return of -0.3%. They also coincide with negative Treasury price returns 72% of the time for an average price return of -1.9% (Table 1). Chart 2Treasury Index Excess Return & ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprises (1990 - Present) Chart 3Treasury Index Price Return & ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprises (1990 - Present) Table 112-Month Treasury Index Returns And Fed Funds Rate Surprises (1990 - Present) Total Treasury returns also factor in coupon income, and are therefore often positive even when the price return is negative. Still, Table 1 shows that Treasury index total returns average +7.1% in periods with a dovish fed funds rate surprise and only +3.4% in periods with a hawkish surprise. Further, 65% of negative total return periods occurred when there was a hawkish fed funds rate surprise. Of course, the golden rule is no panacea. The results presented above are impressive, but they assume that investors are able to correctly predict whether the market is over- or under-pricing the Fed. Making that determination remains a tall order. The key insight to be gleaned from the golden rule is that if a piece of information does not alter your opinion about the future path of the fed funds rate relative to expectations, then it should probably be ignored. The golden rule is certainly not the "be all and end all", but it is a very useful first step. Learning From Failures While Table 1 shows that correctly determining the 12-month fed funds rate surprise allows us to make the correct bond market call most of the time, it also shows that it doesn't always work. To understand why the golden rule might fail, it is useful to think about why it works in the first place. To do this, let's first consider that any Treasury yield can be thought of as consisting of three components: Treasury Yield = Fed Funds Rate + Expectations For Future Change In The Fed Funds Rate + Term Premium Based on this formula, it is obvious that if rate expectations and the term premium are held constant, a higher fed funds rate translates directly into a higher Treasury yield, and vice-versa. This is one reason why the fed funds rate surprise correlates with Treasury returns. The second reason that the fed funds rate surprise correlates with Treasury returns is that the expectations component of the above formula also tracks the fed funds rate surprise. In other words, investors are more likely to revise their rate expectations higher when the Fed is already in the process of delivering hawkish surprises. They are also more likely to revise their rate expectations lower when the Fed is delivering dovish surprises. This dynamic is illustrated in Chart 4. The top panel shows the correlation between the 12-month fed funds rate surprise and changes in rate expectations as measured by our 12-month fed funds discounter. The two lines are mostly positively correlated, though they do occasionally diverge. The largest divergences appear near inflection points in monetary policy - e.g. when the Fed switches from hiking rates to cutting. Such inflection points are often prompted by economic recession. Chart 4When The Golden Rule Doesn't Work The bottom panel of Chart 4 shows the much tighter correlation between the 12-month fed funds rate surprise and the change in the average yield on the Treasury Master index. These two lines also occasionally diverge, but only during periods when rate expectations move strongly in the opposite direction of what is suggested by the rate hike surprise. Crucially, the abnormal change in rate expectations has to be so large that it more than offsets the impact from the change in the fed funds rate itself. Such periods are rare, though we did experience one as recently as last year. Chart 5The 2017 Example The 2017 Episode Treasury returns in 2017 provide a textbook example of one of the rare periods when the golden rule failed. The Treasury Master Index returned +1.5% in excess of cash, even though the Fed lifted rates 25 bps more than the market expected at the beginning of the year. The reason for the divergence is that even though the Fed was in the process of lifting rates by more than what the market anticipated, the market continued to doubt the Fed's resolve and revised its expectations lower. At the beginning of 2017 the market was priced for 51 bps of rate hikes for the year. Then, just as the Fed started to lift rates more quickly than that expectation would suggest, core inflation plunged (Chart 5). The market started to price-in that the Fed would react to falling inflation by turning more dovish, but as it revised its expectations lower the Fed continued to hike. The end result is that the impact of the downward revision to rate hike expectations more than offset the upward pressure on yields from Fed rate hikes, and the Treasury index outperformed cash for the year. Forecasting Total Returns One final application of the golden rule is that it can be used as a framework for generating total return forecasts for different bond indexes. To illustrate how this is achieved we will walk through how we calculate such a forecast for the Treasury Master Index. First, we note that the current reading from our 12-month fed funds discounter is 79 bps. This means that the market expects 79 bps of Fed rate hikes during the next 12 months. If we assume that the Fed will lift rates by 100 bps during the next 12 months, then we have a hawkish fed funds rate surprise of 21 bps. As an aside, Chart 6 shows that we have consistently witnessed hawkish fed funds rate surprises since mid-2017, and our 12-month discounter has increased, as is typically the case. But this also means that the bar for further hawkish rate surprises is now much higher. Chart 6Market Has Underestimated ##br##The Fed In Recent Years We already demonstrated the strong correlation between the 12-month fed funds rate surprise and the 12-month change in the average yield from the Treasury index (see Chart 4). This allows us to translate our assumed fed funds rate surprise into an expected change in the index yield. In this case, that expected change in yield is +19 bps. With an expected yield change in hand, it is relatively simple to calculate an expected total return using the index's yield, duration and convexity: Expected Total Return = Yield - (Duration*Expected Change In Yield) + 0.5*Convexity*E(ΔY2) E(ΔY2) = 1-year trailing estimate of yield volatility In our scenario where we assume the Fed lifts rates by 100 bps during the next 12 months, the above formula spits out an expected total return of +1.60% for the Treasury Master Index. Table 2 shows total return forecasts using this same method but with many different rate hike assumptions. For example, if we assume only 50 bps of Fed rate hikes during the next 12 months we get an expected Treasury Index total return of +3.37%. Table 2 also displays total return forecasts for different maturity buckets within the Treasury Master index. These forecasts are all generated using the same method, but we correlate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise with different Treasury yields in each case. One caveat here is that the correlation between the fed funds rate surprise and the change in Treasury yield declines as we move into longer maturities (Appendix A). This is because long-dated yields are less directly connected to near-term changes in the fed funds rate. As such, there is more uncertainty surrounding the total return forecasts for long maturity sectors. Table 2Treasury Index Total Return Forecasts Spread Product Total Return Forecasts With one additional assumption we can also apply our return forecasting method to different spread product indexes. That additional assumption is for the expected change in the average index spread. Using Table 3, you can simply pick a column based on the number of Fed rate hikes you expect during the next 12 months and pick a row based on whether you think spreads will remain flat, widen or tighten. Table 3Spread Product Total Return Forecasts For example, if the Fed lifts rates by 100 bps during the next 12 months and investment grade corporate bond spreads stay flat, we would expect investment grade corporate bond index total returns of +2.9%. For each sector, the spread widening scenario assumes that the average index spread widens to its highest level since the beginning of 2016 and the spread tightening scenario assumes the average index spread tightens to its lowest level since the beginning of 2016. All the spread scenarios are depicted graphically in Appendix B. For the High-Yield sector we make the additional adjustment of subtracting expected 12-month default losses from the average index yield. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix A Chart 7Change In 1-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 8Change In 2-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 9Change In 3-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 10Change In 5-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 11Change In 7-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 12Change In 10-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 13Change In 30-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Appendix B Chart 14Corporate Bond Spread Scenarios Chart 15Government-Related Spread Scenarios Chart 16Structured Product Spread Scenarios